Leo Is Off The Hook!

   
     "The Wolf of Wall Street", the latest film from iconic director Martin Scorsese, had it's highly anticipated opening Christmas Day.  It is a bio/pic based on the Jordan Belfort memoir of the same name.  Belfort's entry into the work force begins honestly, but after losing his position at a large firm, he decides to change paths.  First he opens his own brokerage firm in an empty auto body shop.  Next he recruits a sales team culled from his stoner/dirtball friends.  They specialize in selling penny stocks and manipulating the price, cashing in, and leaving their clients in the loss column. Soon all sorts of illegal activity ensues. 
 The behavior of Belfort and his cohorts is so depraved in excess of sexual perversion, rampant drug use, and avarice that they seem ridiculous and yet.....it really happened.  
     Leonardo DiCaprio will be nominated for his portrayal of Jordan Belfort.   Belfort is unlike any character he has ever played. He is a fast talking, sleezy, pill popping, cocaine snorting, white collar crook who will only be stopped by jail.  DiCaprio plays him so broadly it becomes farcical.  At three hours I never felt the film drag.  It's hard to describe because the characters and everything they do is so disgusting.  Is this what entertainment is?  I found myself laughing at the stupidity of people taking drugs.  OK, a little bit?  Actually a lot.  People are falling down, slobbering, rolling down stairs, I couldn't contain myself.  This film is rated a hard R but it could have easily been rated NC 17.  The humor is extremely crude, lewd, and rude.  Everything about this film is over the top so be forewarned.  I think in the final analysis "The Wolf of Wall Street" is a very good movie.  I expect it to garner award nominations but I don't expect it to win any. Recommended for film buffs.
I give the movie a grade: A-

Ensemble Cast Delivers A Contender

     With "American Hustle", David O. Russell is emerging as the best American film maker of the 21st century.  "I Heart Huckabees" in 2004, "The Fighter" in 2008, and "Silver Linings Playbook" last year are all very divergent films.  Russell can tackle a sports bio-pic one time, and the next time, as with "Silver Linings Playbook", shift gears and make a rom/com/drama.  All the while piling up critical acclaim and awards for his casts.  
     "American Hustle" is no exception and may win the Oscar for best film.  I fully expect it to be nominated for Best Film, Screenplay, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress.  "American Hustle" has already been honored by the New York Film Critics Circle for best film of the year, best screenplay, and best supporting actress (Jennifer Lawrence).  In case you might have been wondering, Jennifer Lawrence is the real deal.  I think there is a distinct possibility she could be nominated for two roles this year.  Best Actress for "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" and Supporting Actress for "American Hustle".  Her acting from film to film displays a range and maturity that is far beyond her years.  All the major players ply their craft with elegance and charm.  Let's now delve into the plot.
     "American Hustle" is loosely based on the FBI "Abscam" sting operation of the late seventies and early eighties.  This was the first video taped sting operation.  It ended up catching, a US Senator, six US congressmen, and various other politicians taking bribes.  At first blush, "American Hustle" is a crime drama but it is also a con game movie, a love story, and a true character study! "American Hustle" has characters who are fascinating to watch and whose quirks are quite humorous.  I am telling ya, ya just can't take your eyes off of them.  Bradley Cooper plays Richie DiMaso, an FBI agent who dreams of becoming a major player in the Bureau.  When he comes into contact with the brilliant con artist, Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale), and his partner, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) he sees a real opportunity.  Once he arrests the pair for running a real estate con he then offers them immunity if they help set up a sting to ensnare corrupt politicians.  However, as the plot unfolds ethical questions come to the forefront.  The line between the good guys and the bad guys blur.  I began to wonder if criminals were being caught or is entrapment happening here?  Enter Jennifer Lawrence who plays Irving Rosenfelds' ex-wife Rosalyn with a loudmouth  charm.  Rosalyn has problems with substances, with her phobias, with social situations, and in the process steals the show. Sounds serious, and is, but there are plenty of laughs along the way.  Soon it is hard to tell who is conning who.  There are twists and turns and an unpredictability that keeps you guessing.  This is a great film in so many ways.  "American Hustle" has a look and feel that should carry it all the way to the awards season.  
This is a good date movie.
I give this film a grade of: A

As Classy As Ever

          With Christmas only a week away we are now entering the vortex of the holiday movie season.  Studios hold back films all year, then release them now hoping they will garner critical acclaim, gain the legs to become blockbusters, or both. During this time of year students are on break, holiday shoppers WANT a break, and so the cinema is a perfect place for a quick respite.  Typically, films released between now and the end of the year, get the most attention from the glitterati. And too, attention from the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences, aka. the Oscars. 
     Why am I telling you this?  Obviously Anchorman 2 will NOT win any academy awards this year.  (now watch as Will Ferrell is nominated!)  I relate these bits of information hopefully to reveal something you may not have known before.  Thereby fulfilling one goal in writing these reviews and displaying my depth of knowledge within the milieu of the cinema.  I have been wanting to use the word milieu ever since college.  Better yet, I think the context is correct.  I digress, as I so often do.     
     "Anchorman 2" is so obviously the sequel to "Anchorman" that I won't even mention it.  Oops, sorry, I just did. And a rip roaring great sequel it is too.  All the cast is here to reprise the roles that were made so memorable in the first film.  Many of the actors have become stars since the first film.  Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell, David Koechner, and Will Farrell, round out the news team.  One unlike any you have ever seen.  Unless of course you saw Anchorman, then they are like a bunch of old friends from college who never quite grew up.  
     I had no idea how popular Anchorman had become.  I attended a double feature of both films last night.  Before the screening of Anchorman an emcee asked the audience how many people had seen the movie more than ten times.  Probably thirty hands shot up.  In the middle of the screening the sound cut out.  The audience did not skip a beat and began quoting lines from the film.  That is what I call the definition of a "cult film".  One crucial question is if Anchorman 2 can, match, exceed, or even come close to the beloved original.  I think the jury is out and time will tell. These things can be measured by box office and profits. 
     However, for me, Anchorman 2 not only matches the original laugh for laugh and gag for gag, it's a better movie.  There is a fine line between ridiculous silliness and truly inspired satire.   Anchorman 2 examines how pop culture has become meaningless.  This film is filled with so many funny moments, that to try to mention any specific gags would not due them justice.  I guess you had to be there.  The good news is: Anchorman 2 opens today so you still can. Not to worry, this film has it all. Cursing, rudeness, silly lines, raunchy humor, and cameo appearances (15) by famous stars. Just as we've come to expect from a Judd Apatow film.  This time he delivers a little more and I'm loving it!
     Is this a good date movie?  Mmm.  Well for guys: they will like the bawdy, rauncy, silly, craziness.  Most men think the same things are funny now that they did in Junior High.  For women I think it depends.  There was no shortage of women at the screening I attended.  Most were young like twenty or thirty somethings.  My parents would hate this movie, my son would love it, as did I. 
I give this film a grade of: A-

Isn't it rich.....aren't we a pair?

     HBO Documentaries tonight, premiers "Six By Sondheim", a look at the life of America's greatest living composer and lyricist for the musical theater.  By focusing on six songs from his career we travel back to his early days and proceed right up to the present.  Rare archival footage from the original casts of many of his shows are presented.  This is fantastic stuff.  His inspirations are revealed.  The 83 year old Sondheim is secretive by nature and so I learned much about the man while really enjoying the film.    
     When Steven was a teenager he was struggling with adolescence and his mother and father were basically lukewarm parents at best.  I'm not judging his parents but if you see this film you will come to appreciate the obstacles Sondheim overcame to achieve his success.  Living in the neighborhood, perhaps next door,  was the Oscar Hammerstein family.  And so they became his surrogate family and Oscar his mentor. I had no idea!!  When Leonard Bernstein was composing the music for West Side Story it was decided to bring in Sondheim to write the lyrics.  I did not know that he wrote the lyrics.   As the timeline proceeds from his early days, interviews from corresponding times in the past are shown, to give us a real sense of history.  There are many revelations and I don't want to give away too much.  
     Some of the best parts of this film is when he talks about composing music and how difficult it is for theater.  Present day performances of his six songs are also shown as well as a gem of a performance by Sondheim himself.  "Six By Sondheim" is a great documentary about one of the most enigmatic composers of our time.  For persons who like Steven Sondheim, musicals, or are interested in music and how a real savant works their craft; you will really like "Six By Sondheim"  For the rest of you, please ......
Send in the clowns.
Depending on the person, this could be a good date movie.
I give this film a grade of B+

Catching Fire! Burns up the silver screen.

      Opening today in wide release is "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" the much anticipated sequel to 2012's blockbuster smash "The Hunger Games".  It basically picks up where the original film left off.  In case you haven't seen it yet I will give you a quick run down of the basic premise.  The setting is in the future, and the world is one of disparity and oppression.  The country of Panem is divided into 12 districts which are ruled by the dictatorial President Snow.  An annual lottery or "reaping" is held in each district to chose one male and female between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in "The Hunger Games".  These Tributes as they are called, are placed into an arena, and compelled to fight to the death until one survivor emerges.  The survivors are known as Victors.                                                  Now, if one looks back at the pantheon of science fiction plots there really is nothing all that new about this story line.  An original "Star Trek" episode, the Japanese film "Battle Royale", and even "Gladiator" is very similar. But it is the writing, acting, and execution of plot that has "Catching Fire" garnering some of the best reviews this year.  It has already been announced the third installment of Collins hunger games trilogy, "Mockingjay",  will be spit in two with part one premiering in November 2014 and part two in November 2015.   

       So now on to the movie.  The problem most sequels have is the difficulty in building upon what was established in the first picture.  Not so with "Catching Fire".  This may be due to the fact these films are adapted from a trilogy of extremely successful young adult novels. How successful you might wonder?  NPR ranked the "The Hunger Games" books second only to the "Harry Potter" series. In addition the film series is placed on the same shelf as the Lord of the Rings, Twilight, and Harry Potter.  Does the praise get any higher?  I think not.                                                           I attended a special double feature screening of "The Hunger Games" and "Catching Fire" last night.  This gave me a unique opportunity to view and compare the movies side by side.  I found the story of "Catching Fire" much deeper and layered than the original.  I liked the direction and cinematography better in the first.  I think that seeing "The Hunger Games" for the first time was a journey into the unknown.  I had no idea what it was going to be about so it was all new to me.  With "Catching Fire", there is less mystery because we already have some idea of what Panem is like.  BUT, the plot goes much deeper.  Jennifer Lawrence, fresh off her Oscar win last spring, is back again as Katniss Everdeen.  Her acting is astounding.  In both films she creates a continuity for her character that shows a growth arc.  The emotions she feels can be seen in her eyes.  A lot of the time she is on screen she has no dialogue but carries the load with her facial features. One scene in particular resonated with me and revealed her acting talent.  In the scene she is saying good bye to someone and hugging them.  For a brief moment I could swear I saw her shaking. WOW! Then it stopped so I thought maybe I was mistaken.  But then she started doing it again!  It was as though her character was quivering with fear.  It looked so natural, I couldn't believe I was watching someone so young.  In the first film, all the Tributes are just trying to survive, and hopefully win.  In this second film the social structure is starting to crumble.  This is the 75th annual Hunger Games or the third quarter quell which occurs every 25 years. So it is decided by President Snow that the rules will be changed.  This time all the participants will be past winners.  The past winners are none to happy because having won once before should guarantee each Victor a lifetime of wealth and safety.  Social unrest, social disobedience, post traumatic stress, the morality of killing, are but a few concepts touched upon in this film.  A movie with real meaning and not just eye popping special effects is rare these days.  If you have both in the same film then you've got something very special indeed. "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" has both, deep underlying meaning, and great special effects liberally applied.

     This film is a great date movie, if you want to score points tell your date she reminds you of Katniss.  

I give this film a grade of: A-

NEBRASKA: a Star Turn for Bruce Dern!

          Being a huge Bruce Dern fan I'm delighted with the recognition he is receiving from his latest starring role in "Nebraska".  From director Alexander Payne of "Sideways, The Descendants, and About Schmidt", "Nebraska" has already earned Dern the best actor award at this years Cannes film festival.  Obviously making him a favorite, not only for the Oscar, but every other award out there.  Although "Nebraska" has yet to open in the Puget Sound region I was able to attend the first US screening of this film last week.  I am actually getting invited to a lot more screenings before the openings so I promise to do my best to get these reviews posted in a timely manner.  Read on my friends for the low down.
     "Nebraska" is a slightly off beat comedy/character study with Woody Grant (Dern) as the central character. A special note here: this film is shot in a luscious black and white.  The effect makes the landscapes barren and stark. The pacing, which is deliberate to begin with, is like watching honey rolling off flapjacks.                                                          The movie begins with Woody at home in Billings, Montana.  Putting on his winter coat and heavy boots, he shuffles out the front door and down the street. He moves with an imbalance that makes the viewer worry he might fall.  And he keeps shuffling and shuffling until finally he reaches the outskirts of town.  When a police officer stops to help the old timer we find out where Woody is headed.  From his jacket pocket he pulls out an "Official Publishers Clearing House" type letter informing him that he has won a million dollars! He just needs to get to Omaha to collect it.  Of course everyone in his family keep trying to tell him it's a scam.  That there is no million dollars, but Woody will hear none of it.  "If it wasn't true they couldn't put it in a letter" says Woody.  Finally his son David, played by Will Forte of SNL fame, agrees to drive his dad to Omaha.  And so begins a meandering road trip with father and son rolling across the flat lands of our great nation.  Of course it's what happens during the trip that really is the meat of the movie.  We all know what is going to happen when Woody tries to collect on his million dollars.    
     The surrounding characters fill in the spaces in very substantial ways. Most are in their seventies and act accordingly which means they are kind of boring.  And funny as all get out.  It is mesmerizing in it's own way. Woody's wife is the only character I had a problem with as I felt she took "cantankerous" to a new level.  Over the top and amateurish acting in my estimation.  Then ten minutes later she has one of the most astonishing scenes in the movie. All with no dialogue.  So I may be harsh. Otherwise it's ensemble acting at it's best.  Stacey Keach turns up for a few choice, dark scenes.  David's brother is played by Bob Odenkirk (Saul from Breaking Bad) who is a self absorbed news anchor on local TV.  Dern may be the center but it is Forte who holds the family together.  This is a very good movie and I recommend this bittersweet comedy which is more sweet than bitter.  Can't we all use a little more sweetness in our lives?
This would be a good date movie.
I give "Nebraska"  a grade of A-

Ordinary people facing extraordinary circumstance.

     For any American with a conscience memory of November 22, 1963, the events of that tragic day are shared in the collective consciousness.  But then again for each and every American the memories and emotions of that day are different.   Especially the feelings and what the day was like in the morning and how it fell apart in the split second it takes to fire a bullet.  Parkland hospital is where the the mortally wounded President was rushed in an effort to save his life.  And perhaps the hope of an entire generation.  The hospital staff is the centerpiece of Parkland and a very new take on a story that's been told and retold from just about every point of view.  The film also tells us the stories of others who were there but may have never heard of. "Parkland" begins with the hospital staff arriving to work on that fateful day.  The ensemble cast is packed with great actors.   Oscar winner Marcia Gay Harden plays the Head Nurse at Parkland hospital with understated reserve.  She doesn't have many lines but you can almost read her mind by looking at her face.  It's like peering into her heart. Paul Giamatti plays Abraham Zapruder, who is excited for the chance to see President Kennedy in person, and decides to use his brand new camera to film the motorcade.  He ended up shooting the most famous film in history.  He is filled with excitement as the President approaches his location near the grassy knoll.  His elation is instantly turned to horror when he realizes that he just filmed the murder of Kennedy.  Powerful stuff, and Giamatti plays it perfectly.  Lee Harvey Oswalds brother, mother, and Billy Bob Thornton as a secret service agent take their turns.  Thornton is an perfectly cast as Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels.  A man who feels personally responsible for not preventing the assassination.  But for me the most engaging scenes are in the hospital.  The staff, like on any other work day, chatting, gossiping, doing work, and excited about the President visiting Dallas.  Next thing they know Kennedy is being wheeled in on a gurney and everyone is fighting for his life. Extremely powerful and engaging to watch.  I could not even imagine.  The weak point in the film is the use of actors to portray Oswald and the Kennedy's.  These people are so much larger than life it is nearly impossible to do them justice.  And for a film with the title "Parkland", not really needed.  I am a history buff and have done much research into the Kennedy assassination.  Yet I found this film to be well crafted, engaging, informative, and in the end: Entertaining.  This is a good date movie if your date likes the History Channel or anything to do with history.  Otherwise, wait for the DVD.  Don't get me wrong I am glad I went and loved this movie.  I just don't think it will be for everyone.

I give this movie a grade of: B- 

In space no one can hear you scream.

     "Gravity", starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, opens today in wide release.  The buzz and accolades this film is garnering makes this the must see film so far this year.  The movie is offered in 2D, 3D, and 3D Imax.  I recommend viewing this film in the 3D process, preferably Imax.  The movie opens with a long shot of planet earth from outer space.  It is a nod to "2001 A Space Odyssey"  and the shot looks all too familiar.  I think paying homage is a good thing. As we slowly move in, a tiny dot of light keeps growing until we realize it is the Space Shuttle, whose crew is doing maintenance on the Hubble Telescope.  Bullock plays Dr. Ryan Stone, a biomedical engineer, who is trouble shooting electronics while attached to the robotic arm.  Meanwhile Matt Kowalski, played by Clooney, is a veteran astronaut, on his last mission before retirement.  So, as Stone works on the telescope, Matt tools around the Shuttle on a Space Walk.  He keeps mentioning that he will fall short of the record for space walking by an hour.  Soon all hell breaks loose and we find them in a battle to stay alive.                             Unlike most "space" films there are no aliens, villians, death rays, worm holes, or other staples of the genre.  Instead they are battling against the deadly vastness of space.  Really scary stuff because it is real.  While watching Bullock spin aimlessly I was reminded of the tag line from "Alien"  which was, "In space no one can hear you scream".  "Gravity" is most certainly a stunning achievement in film making.  Don't just take my word for it.  James Cameron, director of "Titanic" and "Avatar", said this of "Gravity":  " I think it is the best space photography ever done, I think it's the best space film ever done, and it's the movie I've been hungry to see for an awful long time."  Certainly high praise from a man who knows a thing or two about film and film making. 
     I could go on and on about the wonder and beauty of this film.  Like "2001 A Space Odyssey", "Gravity" blasts the senses with visuals never before seen in film, with a realism to match.  But at the heart of this film is Bullock, stretching her acting chops, and making it all seem so effortless.  I will say right now, she is a shoo in for an Oscar nomination with a good chance to win.  She carries this movie squarely on her shoulders and through most of the film she is on her own.  Clooney is good but he is more of a character actor in a supporting role.  George Clooney, character actor? Yeah right.  Though "Gravity" takes place in outer space in the final analysis it is a human story.  About how we deal with our own mortality, and the triumph of the human spirit.  This would be an excellent date movie.  Tell your date they remind you of either Clooney of Bullock.  They might buy it.
This movie is a solid A. 

Sleeper Hit of the Summer

     "The World's End" opens today, which I was fortunate enough to see at the U.S. premire about a month ago.  It was attended by the director Edgar Wright and two of the stars, Simon Peg, and Nick Frost.  They first teamed up for 2004's zombie/comedy, "Shaun of the Dead".  The plot is a mixture of zombies, a society that is crumbling,  edgy humor, and a protagonist who is so self involved he doesn't seem to notice people are turning into zombies all around him.  "Sean of the Dead" quickly became a cult classic.  The second installment of this envisioned trilogy came in 2007 with the release of "Hot Fuzz".  Starring Pegg and Frost, with Wright once again at the helm.  I asked Edgar about the Trilogy aspect of these films and he told me that rather than being three films carrying a narrative with the same characters through out, this trilogy has the stars playing different characters with certain themes that bind the three films together.  One of those things is Cornetto's which I assume is the English equivalent of Corn Nuts.  Cornetto's turn up in all three films so this is known as the "Cornetto trilogy".  
     This brings us to this third installment, "The World's End".  It is a bittersweet look at six friends from high school who now, twenty years later, are being rounded up to finish an epic pub crawl, begun in their youth, but never finished.  The "golden mile" consists of twelve pints at twelve pubs in one night. The leader of the pack is the kind of guy everyone knows, 38 going on 18.  Gary King, played by Pegg, was the leader of the clique in high school but somehow never realized his potential after graduation. As a matter of fact, twenty years has changed him little.  Where his high school mates have matured into men and achieved success, King has somehow made all the bad choices that has kept him trapped in a teenage mindset.  Funny stuff to be sure.  Like the corporatization of the pubs in England.  Every pub they go to looks like the one before.  Old betrayals and jealousies bubble to the surface as these old drinking buddies work their way through the golden mile.  About halfway through this movie, the science fiction aspect takes hold, and it shifts into high gear.  Robots, aliens, space ships, and total annihilation lifts "The World's End" to a level not many films can achieve.  I loved this movie and I dare say it is going to be the sleeper hit of the summer.  If you like comedy you will love this movie.  If you like sci/fi you will love this movie.  I could go on about the plot but why ruin it for you?  No spoilers here.  This would be a good date movie.  A little something for everyone.
I give "The World"s End" a solid A

Deja vu all over again.

     Have you ever seen an ad for a movie that made you really excited to see the film because it looked too good to miss?  Then when you actually go to the movie it turns out the the film doesn't quite live up to the hype?  Sure you have, it's happened to all of us.  It's lucky that you have me to steer you in the right direction when it comes to cinema from Hollywood blockbusters, indie films, documentaries, or anything in between.  Such is the sequel to the 2010 sleeper hit "Red", creatively titled "Red 2"!  I never did see the original but I was suckered into seeing this film with a slick advertising campaign promising action film staples of car chases, gun play, more chases, beautiful women, foot chases, explosions and the like.   "Red 2" reunites Bruce Willis, John Malkkovich, Mary-Louise Parker, and Helen Mirren from the original "Red".  Then beefs up the cast with Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and a bad ass kung fu assassin, Asian dude, who could have been lifted right out of a John Woo movie.  Only this isn't a John Woo movie.  
     Now don't get me wrong, "Red 2" is a good film, and loads of fun to be sure.  But given the all star cast I expected this movie to be so much more.  Like a non-stop laugh fest from the moment the opening credits fade.  Sorry to report this isn't the case.   I may be nitpicking but with this cast, "Red 2" could have been something of a cult movie.  Instead we are given a rewarmed film that seems all too familiar.  This is because you won't see anything here you haven't already seen before in other films.  As a result, nothing very surprising happens, and the plot line becomes very predictable.  I feel the middle aged Mary-Louise Parker is completely miscast.  Ms. Parker is now 47.  If you double that, it is clear she is in the middle of life, and AARP accepts members who are 50.  I've got nothing against older women at all.  Love em.   What I do have a problem with, is having to watch her pretend to be a woman/child who wears school girl skirts, and delivers all her lines as though she were still playing Nancy Botwin on "Weeds".  Please!!!  Stop already!  There are lots of chuckles and some very funny bits.  As an action movie "Red 2" totally works.  The shame is how, given all its parts, the movie never comes close to it's potential.  If you want to see this film I say go.  Just go with no expectations, and suspend any beliefs.  Better yet, just don't think at all.  
"Red 2"  is a good date movie.  
I give it a grade of a solid B.

Man of Steel is a Supermovie !!

     Action movies based on comic book characters have been around a long time.  But ever since the original Superman opened in 1978 to great financial success, what was once a novel idea, has become an entire genre.  Today some of the most entertaining and thrilling movies every year are based on comic book superheros.  I could write a column on why I think these types of films consistently earn higher box office than other films but I digress.  I need to sing the praises of "Man of Steel".  Opening in wide release this weekend around the country. 

     Comic book superheros, or even characters as dull as "Archie", possess a special relationship with their legions of fans.  Having a built in audience is nice but along with it comes great expectations from said fans.  This brings us to "Man of Steel", the latest installment in the Superman franchise.  This movie is what is called a reboot of the entire storyline.  "Superman Returns" was released in 2006 and earned only 400 million in worldwide box office.  Warner Bros. expected the film to earn 500 million so in their eyes the movie was somewhat of a flop.  What to do if your franchise has an entry that flops?  In football parlance you would punt.  Hollywood just reboots the entire series by starting over from square one.  For long time fans this can be very risky.  We all know the back story of Superman.  Will the fans really want to retrace the story line from the get go?  There are many approaches that can be taken and the "Man of Steel" does it's job perfectly.

     The new approach is to focus a lot more attention on the doomed world of Krypton in ways never shown before.  The film makes clear the issues that led to the painful decision to send baby Kal-El to planet earth.  Particular attention is paid to the trials and tribulations he faces as he adapts and find his place in this alien world.  What we see is a young Clark Kent who is a very tortured soul.  The relationship between him and his father, played beautifully by Kevin Costner, is in the end heart wrenching.  His relationship with his mother, played wonderfully by Diane Lane, elevates her character far beyond anything achieved in previous films.  It shows where much of Superman's humanity comes from.  Dad provided his moral and philosophical compass while Mom nurtured his kind heart.  Sort of the way real life should be, right?  I loved the way they updated and expanded the story line.  More amazing is they remained true to the Superman mythology that has been previously established.  No small feat indeed.  The result is astounding. The story has been elevated to a Shakespearean level.  That may seem like a over the top statement but I kid you not.  I found myself teary eyed often.  They have kicked this franchise up more than a notch.  Probably two or three.

     I would be remiss in not mentioning the special effects.  I feel a little sheepish in saying that the effects in this movie are simply the best I have ever seen.  Mind blowing eye candy is about the only way I can describe them.  Sometimes CGI can look a little grainy of faked.  Everything here is seamless.  The technological level of these special effects has given the film a very slick and polished but organic look.  The more I think about "Man of Steel" the more I love about it.  I viewed this film in 3D and I would recommend that process.  I think the effects would be more, well, effective when seen that way.  Dare I say, this is the best superhero movie of all time?  That is a bold statement I know, but this film operates on so many different levels,  it's greatness can't be denied.  I have no problems with a reboot.  Sometimes that is just what the doctor ordered.   "Man of Steel" is a great movie, take a date, go by yourself, heck see it twice.

I give "Man of Steel" a grade of A+ 

                                                                                        

For The Star Trek Generation

 

 

     The original television series, Star Trek, aired only 3 years before being cancelled in 1969 due to poor ratings.  Yet the series developed such a cult following in reruns that Paramount studios decided to reboot the series in film beginning with the 1979 release of "Star Trek: The Movie".  It was a full ten years since original series left the air but hard core "Trekkies" , including me,  could hardly wait.  Since then there hasn't been a time you couldn't see Star Trek in film or on television in one of it's many incarnations.  Opening today in wide release, "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is the twelfth installment in this, the longest running film franchise of all time. Fans of Star Trek are legion and know the mythology established as though it were a religion.  As such, story lines, plots, histories between films should fit together seamlessly or the fans will spot discrepancies almost immediately. 

     Into Darkness is the follow up to the 2009 release simply titled Star Trek, which introduced a completely new cast who play all the principals of the original series in an earlier time frame.  A bit of a prequel if you will.  This approach is a bit risky because the true fan knows these characters as though they are real people.  No small testament to the acting of the original cast in the television series and later in a half dozen films.  Even though Star Trek is technically science fiction, the story lines are by and large character driven.  I think that is what makes this franchise so timeless.  Each character has their own personality traits and over time we come to know each one.  Star Trek introduces us to a young James T. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Bones and all the rest.  What really makes it special is that we get to see how each character develops as a young cadet into the fully functioning crew member we all remember from the original series.  The cast was perfectly picked, especially Mr. Spock.  The intonation of his voice, the look on his face, it all fits together perfectly.  Into Darkness picks up where Star Trek left off.

     Now for the movie itself.  Into Darkness is a rip roaring thrill fest.  From the opening moments to the final scenes there is hardly a chance to catch your breath.  Sometimes there is so much going on at once that it is easy to forget exactly what is going on.  Don't worry, if you wait a few minutes all will be made clear once again.  There are revelations, and references to previous films and television series'.  Heck there is even a tribble!  (The furry little creature comically featured in one of the most popular episodes from the original series: The Trouble With Tribbles)  All of which adds up to a great time for the true Star Trek buff and for those who may not know anything about Star Trek at all.  (is that even possible?)  This is truly a stand alone film so it isn't necessary to be a die hard fan.  You will enjoy the film regardless.  The villain in this movie is much like a terrorist in the world today.  Any great science fiction film requires a great villain.  Into Darkness does not disappoint and when the true nature of the identity of the villain is revealed: it's an "oh I get it now" moment.  It is just so refreshing when all the pieces fall together and we as audience members are treated like we have a brain.  I could go on and on about this film but I just don't want to give too much of the plot away.  I will say this: if you are a Star Trek fanatic you will LOVE this movie.  If you are a science fiction/action movie fan you will LOVE this movie.  If you want to have fun you will LOVE this movie.  If you aren't any of these things you will like this movie.  What does Into Darkness have in it?  It has lots of chases, space battles, phasers firing, explosions, people being sucked into outer space, references to the Star Trek mythology, romance, a tribble, and a lot of humor of course. In case you haven't figured it out yet.  I LOVED this movie. 

Star Trek: Into Darkness is a great date movie and I give it a grade of.....A

Gatsby: the first Great Film of 2013

     Stanley Kubrick, one of my favorite directors once said of "The Shining", that he wanted to create a film that would be like "watching a dream".  If that film was a dream it was a nightmare!  Baz Luhrmanns'  "The Great Gatsby" is like watching a beautiful dream.  Based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel of the same name, "The Great Gatsby" has been turned into a movie no less than four times.  The most memorable being the 1974 release starring Robert Redford in the title role.  The film was very successful and makes one wonder why in the world would one more movie even be necessary.  This film takes the story to new heights with the Luhrmann treatment.
    Baz Luhrmann is also one of my favorite directors.  He is a love it or leave it type, whose films the critics either love or hate. His signature is gaudy, over the top productions, bursting with color,  and soundtracks updated with contemporary music reworked to fit the period of the film.  I find this very amusing.  There is no middle ground here.  His 2001 release of "Moulin Rouge!"  is a case in point.  I myself loved the over the top nature of his direction and bought the DVD as soon as it became available.  But there were plenty of people who hated it.  Gatsby delivers the Luhrmann treatment in spades although I am sure it will have plenty of detractors.  According to the "Rotten Tomato"  roughly half of all critics give this a positive review and half....not so much.  But what do critics know anyway?  (The Rotten Tomato is a great website dedicated to compiling statistics on reviews for all films.  A great research tool or a way to kill a couple hours.  Check it out.)  I find him to be one of the most unique and creative film makers of our day.  His films bring a new meaning to the term "eye candy".
     So what about the movie?  This is a great movie and the first best film of 2013.  The story is set in the rip roaring twenties.  A time of intense debauchery and general all around craziness.  You thinks the '60s and '70s were loose?  Take a look at the twenties.  Sorry, I digress.  If I were to boil the plot down to one theme I would say it is about a mysterious wealthy man who yearns for a lost love.  Isn't it terrible when falling in love defines a person, even years after the relationship has ended?  I hate it when that happens.  
     Nick Carraway, played by Tobey Maguire of Spiderman fame, is an erstwhile writer, who lands in a sanitarium for being a morbid alcoholic.  Many people who partied hearty in the 1920's ended up like that or worse.  Carraway relates the story as a remembrance of the most "remarkable" person he has ever met.  While he tells the story it comes to life before our eyes on the big screen.  But in a dream-like effect rather that a literal one.  When people think back on life there is a tendency  to romanticize our memories.  That's just human nature, and his respect and affection for Gatsby is clear right from the start.  Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby with much aplomb turning in what I consider an Oscar worthy performance.  Yes you heard it here first.  Leo will be nominated for his portrayal.  It will be a crime if he isn't.  Now that DiCaprio has finally grown into a mature man and no longer the pretty boy his acting chops are coming to the fore.  And an excellent actor he is.  He creates a three dimensional character that I think anyone would like to know.  Sinfully handsome, cool as a cucumber, and internally a tortured soul, Gatsby is a complex and conflicted character.  Oozing a smooth charm and ease that hides inner demons, Jay Gatsby is one of American literatures' classic characters.   DeCaprios performance is a slam dunk.  I never want to give too much away in my reviews but the major demon is a lost love, Daisey Buchanan, played by Carey Mulligan.
The beautiful Mulligan plays Daisy with style and grace.  It is easy to see why Gatsby is haunted by her.  
     Everything about Gatsby is beautiful.  The people, the costumes, the sets, and the telling of the story.  Of course conflicts arise and subplots abound but at the core is Gatsby yearning for the love he lost five years prior.  Oh yes, the music for this film is also great.  In keeping with the Luhrmann effect the soundtrack is updated with new original music by contemporary musicians.  Gotye, Jay Z, Beyonce Knowles, Florence + the Machine and others make contributions to the soundtrack.  If you haven't figured it out yet......I loved "The Great Gatsby".  
This would make an excellent date movie.
I give "The Great Gatsby" a grade of a solid: A

....just keeps getting better.

     I know that I am a little late in getting this review out, seeing how this film opened last weekend.  I figure that it is better late than never.  I went to a 3D showing Thursday afternoon and I loved it.  First of all there were only four other people in the theater besides me which I LOVE.  I had a whole row to myself.  OK, enough of the small talk, on to the review.  

     Opening seven days ago, this film is the third installment in the Iron Man franchise.  Iron Man 2 was better than the first Iron Man, and keeping with that, Iron Man 3 is better than the first two.  This movie really has it all.  Humor, special effects, bonding with a boy, a terrorist threat, romance and Robert Downey Jr.  Can anyone in the world play the cynical smart ass better?  I think not.  However in Iron Man 3, Tony Stark is toned down a bit.  Suffering from anxiety, probable depression, he seems bored, and thus spends his time building dozens of Iron Man suits.  Downeys' acting is a little understated and spot on for the Tony Stark character.  Things have changed since the first two films and the characters have grown, giving them a lot of added depth.  Which is much more than your typical offering in this genre.  Pepper Potts is played again by Gweneth Paltro and is no longer Starks' assistant but the CEO at Stark industries.  Stark and Potts are committed to each other as they now live together and act much like any other couple with the usual squabbles and tiffs.  Even though this man IS a superhero, he is a superhero with many of the same failings we normal guys possess.  Refreshing.  Don Cheadle reprises his role as James Rhodes, Stark's best friend, and liaison between the air force and Stark industries.  There is a ton of good natured jocularity between the two.  Rhodes helps to keep Stark grounded in ways that Pepper just can't.  In a comical turn, Sir Ben Kingsley plays the evil "Mandarin".  Spoiler alert, he isn't a real terrorist, he's a fake terrorist.  When the truth is revealed many chuckles ensue.  Of course all leads up to the epic final battle which is required for any movie of this genre.  I don't want to give too much away but I promise you will not be disappointed.  This film is filled with all the usual cliche's you would find in a super hero movie.  What raises Iron Man 3 above the rest of the herd is the character development and the ensemble cast which is perfectly balanced by judicial use of CGI effects.  This genre has a formula to follow and Iron Man 3 follows right in step.  Iron Man 3 even introduces a boy, Harley, who ends up helping Tony Stark.  The two bond and as such helps to give the film a heart warming ending.  Ever see that before?  

I thought so.  Iron Man 3 is a very good movie and would make a great date movie.

I give this film a grade of: A-

Cold War Neurosis

 

 

     Opening this weekend is the indie film Ginger and Rosa, described as a coming of age story set against the backdrop of 1962 and the claustrophobic mindset of the Cold War.  Starring Elle Fanning (little sister of Dakota) and director Jane Campions' daughter Alice Englert, Ginger and Rosa are life long best friends who navigate perilous waters of impending womanhood.  Along the way their relationship becomes strained as the process of growing up has a way of pulling people apart.  Each character is very different but held together by the love they have for each other.  This film really brings nothing new to the coming of age film.  They experiment with smoking cigs, picking up boys, skipping school, and many other behaviors that you have seen time and time again.  Rosa's mom was abandoned by her husband early on and is a single mother who struggles to raise her daughter. Ginger has a mother who tries as best as she can given her husband is a professor/intellectual who is vastly flawed as a man. A womanizer who it is related, contiunually leaves, then re-enters the home depending on which student he can lure into his seedy little web.  I found this particular character extremely unsympathetic and sort of hated the guy.  Why does Ginger and her mother keep forgiving him and taking him back?  You know he is just going to do it again.  The rest of the cast are basically throwaways.  The film is an awesome showcase for the acting talents of Elle Fanning.  Without which this movie would be boring and very nearly terrible.

     The underlying tension of this film is Gingers' very real fear of nuclear annihilation which peaks during the Cuban missile crisis.  Ginger seems to be slowly sinking from understandable neurosis to becoming seriously disturbed.  I kept wondering if this poor girl is ever going to find a slice of happiness in life.  An ambiguous ending leaves it all up in the air.  One can be hopeful but I found little to be hopeful about.  Of course we all know now that the Cold War never did turn hot, thank goodness, but that doesn't lessen the unspoken horror of the era.  So maybe eventually she does what everyone else did back in those days.  Just didn't think about it too much.  If you didn't, going crazy with worry could have been very easy.  In the final analysis, Ginger and Rosa is a character study that could have used more interesting characters.  Beautifully filmed with a breakout performance by Fanning this movie is interesting.  With more focus on delivering a message,  believable supporting characters, and normal reactions to bad behavior: Ginger and Rosa could have been elevated from a good movie to a great one.  This is an OK date movie. 

I give Ginger and Rosa a grade of:  B



This Wizard Comes Up Short

 

 

     Before I begin my review I have to say that on My list of all time great movies, the original Wizard of Oz, is on my top five.  Of course to try and expand on a near perfect story would be nearly impossible which is why it will never be remade.  To avoid obvious pitfalls, this prequel tries to fill in the back story of how the Wizard got to the Land of Oz in the first place.  The promotion for this film began months ago with spectacular trailers highlighting the CG special effects which are, well, pretty spectacular.  So I made a mental note that I would "have" to see this film on opening day.  You can view this film in 2d, 3d, and IMAX 3d.  If you want to save a few bucks, 2d is just fine.  (a little cinema trivia:  The very first IMAX film was introduced at the World's Fair in Spokane back in 1974!)

     Now on to the movie.  In a nod to the original, the film opens in black and white, at a small travelling circus in Kansas.  (is Kansas really that drab?)  Oscar Diggs is the resident magician and erstwhile conman who's specialty is stealing women's' hearts.  He has a routine whereby he makes a present to a woman of a music box that belonged to his dear departed grandmother.  In actuality he has dozens.  These opening scenes should be very funny but James Franco, who plays Diggs/Oz, just can't pull it off.  It's not for lack of trying but the harder he tries the less humorous it becomes.  I think that may be the underlying problem with Oz, it just tries too hard.  Through a series of events he ends up being chased by the circus strongman and makes his escape with the help of a hot air balloon.  Of course he gets sucked into a twister because that is, after all, the only way one can get to the Land of Oz.  Oz is a world of incredible color and surrealistic beauty thanks to the computer graphics. 

     I think that may the be the real star of the film.   I found all the actors to be flat and miscast.  The evil witches, not very scary.  Glinda, while beautiful, boring.  Even the Wizard himself, not very wonderful.  This made the movie plod along as if it were following the yellow brick road.  The final third of the film really picks up the pace but by then I really didn't care.  It was just too late to elevate the movie beyond it's eyecandy status. I also found the story to be just too simplistic as an attempt to fill in the back story. The broadway musical Wicked does a much better job of that. I don't want to spend time comparing this to the original but what really made that film a classic was the characters and the songs.  This film really has none of that going for it.  With flat lifeless characters, one song that lasts about a minute, and a sagging script: the most compelling points of the movie are the special effects and the animated characters.  That is sad considering the potential to make a memorable movie.  With a more engaging story arc Oz should leave the viewer with a sense of joy, hope, and wonder.  Instead I thought it was a fun experience but in the end disapointing.

Not a bad date movie.

I give this film a solid: B

Oscar Predictions

Tonight is the 85th annual Academy Awards and winning one of these awards is the highlight of anyone in the "business".  At the risk of coming off as a bonehead I am going to take a shot at making predictions for who I think will win the major awards and who I wish would win.  Hopefully I won't come off appearing too foolish.

Best Picture:  Argo   This film has been cleaning up at all the awards ceremonies leading up to the Oscars.  Why not a clean sweep?
My wish is the Life of Pi.  This film was the most unique film of the year and would be my pick if I was a member of the academy.

Best Actor:  Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln.  This is a certain lock and I would be shocked if he didn't win.

Best Actress:  Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook.  I also feel that of the nominees Jennifer is a lock in this category.  Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty, has the chance to be a spoiler but Jennifer is the odds on favorite.

Best Supporting Actor:  Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln, by a nose.  The supporting categories are very difficult to predict.  I wish Christoph Waltz, of Django Unchained, would win and very possibly could.  Robert De Niro could also be the spoiler here.
 
Best Supporting Actress:   Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables.  If you read my review you know how much I detested her acting in this role but she seems to be a favorite right now so I am predicting she will win.  I hope Sally Field will win for Lincoln.  trivia:  Sally has been nominated twice in this category and won both times.  Please be a trifecta!

Best Director:  Steven Spielberg for Lincoln, mainly because Ben Afflek wasn't nominated.  I wish Ang Lee would win for Life of Pi.

Best Original Screenplay:  Zero Dark Thirty.  I would vote for Django Unchained and think it has a good chance.  The Academy seems to like Tarantino and may throw him a bone.

Best Adapted Screenplay:  Argo.  In my opinion this should be given to Life of Pi.

Best Cinematography:  Life of Pi seems to be a lock.

Best Song:  By far and away, Skyfall, by the incomparable Adele.

I have never written down my predictions like this before so I think this will be fun to see how I do.  Have fun watching the Oscars tonight movie fans.

Where is God?

     The Life of Pi visually, is a stunning masterpiece.  An amazing testament to the true art of cinema.  Director Ang Lee, Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain, shows that his use of the medium is exquisite and incredibly beautiful.  I am told that this film should be seen in 3D as this will enhance the experience even more. Unfortunately my initial viewing was in the 2D process but I have no doubts that 3D is the way to go.  I very rarely go to the same film twice in theaters but I will attend Life of Pi again and next time upgrade to 3D.  Not to see the difference in the two processes, but because the story line is so multi-layered, mysterious, and symbolic that I need to see it again just to fully digest this film.
     To me that is what makes this a wonderful movie.  It is very deep and as the plot unfolds you begin to wonder what is real and what is perhaps imagined. The story is very complex and involving which makes it all the more difficult to describe.  Simple synopsis won't do it justice but I will try.
     The film begins in the present day with a writer contacting Pi because he has been told that Pi has a story "that will make you believe in God".   Intrigued, the writer sits down with Pi, and the plot unfolds. In a series of flashbacks Pi tells his life story. It starts with Pi recounting his childhood in India.  He was originally named after a swimming pool in France, Piscine Molitor (Patel).  His bullying schoolmates give him the nickname "pissing Patel". So the following year he gives himself the nickname Pi.  Pi, he explains, is the irrational, or transcendental number which represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter.  It has no definite end (much like the human soul itself).  He is raised in a section of Pondicherry which once was colonized by the French and has all the appearances of a town in the south of France.  His father converts the city's botanical gardens into a zoo and this is where Pi spends his youth.  Along the way he forges a deep connection with the animals there. Could this be a reference to the Garden of Eden?  The vision of India, and it's culture is one of mystical beauty.  Every frame of this film is set with lush color and sweet composition.  This movie is very spiritual indeed and many questions about God are raised.  As a boy Pi is raised as a Hindu, but he later embraces Christianity and Islam.  Practicing all three at the same time.  Pi explains that he "just wants to love God".  His father is bemused and tells him he needs to pick one thing to believe in, otherwise it's like believing in nothing at all.  There's lots of humor and subplots in this first section of the movie which I just can't cover here.  I need to save some surprises for you when you see it.
     As Indian society changes and city cutbacks to the zoo make it unsustainable, sound familiar?, it is decided by the father that they will have to sell all the animals and relocate to Winnepeg Canada.  So it is done and the family book passage on a Japanese freighter with all their animals heading for the great white north.  A reference to Noah's Ark?  Three days out they encounter a ferocious storm which sinks the ship.  Only one lifeboat is launched which Pi has been thrown into.  He is alone save for an injured zebra, an orangutan, and a hyena.  The hyena, kills the orangutan and also starts to eat the zebra.  Soon Pi is fighting off the ravenous hyena with an oar while standing atop a tarpaulin which is covering about half of the lifeboat.  Suddenly a Bengal Tiger emerges from under the tarp, bites the hyena and drags it underneath to devour the wild dog.  Trapped with this dangerous carnivore we finally get to the meat of this story.  :)  Pi fashions a raft out of life vests and oars, in order to gain distance from the tiger.  Thus begins the adventure of Pi. His struggle for survival and the process of finding a truer, deeper meaning to life itself.  I have barely scratched the surface of this film merely giving you the setting for what becomes a story line rarely seen in film.  
     Life of Pi is a symbolically allegorical tale of this young man's triumph after 277 days lost at sea.  I would say the final third of the film makes you begin to question exactly what it is you are watching.  All the while enveloping you in a shroud of mystical wonder.   I saw this movie with a friend and we talked about it for a good half hour.  I thought about it for some time to come after I got home.  This is the mark of a great film.  Fantasic visuals and effects to be sure but Life of Pi is so much more.  Seeing this movie is like watching a beautiful dream.  I can't wait to see it again, this time in 3D.
     I give this movie an A+.  If you want to impress a date take them to this movie and afterward pontificate over all the symbolism.

Every Dark Cloud

   Often times films are portrayed in trailers as one thing and when you see the film it turns out to be something completely different. I expected Silver Linings Playbook to be just another crazy romantic comedy.  Nothing could be further from the truth and the end result is a film that is so enjoyable to watch I came away feeling joyful.  No small feat for a film that deals with bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and being widowed at a very young age.  Serious subject matter to be sure but rather than glossing over these issues they are obstacles the charcaters navigate towards a wonderful conclusion.  Kudos to director David O. Russell.

     Playbook has received much critical acclaim since its' release in November and deservedly so.  It has been nominated for Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Actor (Bradley Cooper), Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (Robert De Niro), Best Supporting Actress (Jacki Weaver), and Director and adapted screenplay (David Russell).  The nomination of all four actors is quite rare and a first since Warren Beaty's "Reds" in 1981.  

     The story is set in Philadelphia circa 2008 and starts with the lead being released from a Baltimore mental institution where he has been for the previous 8 months.  Pat Solitano, played by Bradley Cooper, is suffering from bipolar condition and seems to be on the edge of losing control.  Yet his character is extremely sympathetic and I found myself constantly rooting for him.  Cooper had a very troubled and complex character to play and I feel he pulled it off beautifully.  In flashbacks the film shows Pat coming home early from work one day and finding his wife having a affair with another man.  He almost beats the other man to death and this is the incident that get's him institutionalized in the first place.  Understandable in the situation but not good.  Obviously he has control issues which may have been learned from his father who has been banned from Philadelphia Eagles games for fighting with other fans.  The movie shows Pat struggling to regain control of his life and holding on to the fantasy that he will somehow regain the respect of his estranged wife and be happily married once again.  Pats' parents are trying to help their son with much patience and unexpressed love but are really out of their depth.  Since Pat refuses to take medication he is always on the edge of losing control and sometimes goes too far.  A great character in the film is a police officer who continually is called to their home to quell disturbances, always reminding Pat that he can be sent back to the institution.  
     Enter Tiffany Maxwell, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who has plenty of issues of her own.  Through narrative it is learned that she suffered the loss of her husband and has resorted to sex as a means of dealing with the loss.  As a matter of fact she tells of having sex with everyone at her office which eventually gets her fired.  
     While there are many wryly funny moments in Playbook up until this point, when Tiffany arrives on the scene the movie really takes off.  Pat seems like a sad, lost soul but with Tiffany annoying him he becomes less self-absorbed.  These two damaged people dance around each other, both figuratively and literally.  Suddenly this becomes a very sweet movie.  Playbook is not your usual fare and swings back and forth between drama and comedy.  A dramady if you will.  And yet the romantic undertones,  perhaps not even recognized by Pat and Tiffany themselves, is what propels this movie to it's ultimate, yet predictable conclusion.  
     The supporting cast are what really lifts this movie to another level. Pat Sr., played by De Niro, suffers from OCD and has recently lost his job.  What does he do?  He resorts to bookmaking to make ends meet.  He is a rabid Eagles fan who is filled with all sorts of superstitions that he is convinced determines the outcomes of games.  But it is the heartfelt and emotional scenes with Pat Jr. that really gives De Niro opportunity to stretch his acting chops.  A few minutes is all it takes to remind us of what an acting giant he is and worthy of perhaps an Oscar come spring.  And lastly there is Dolores, the matriarch of the Solantino clan, played by Jacki Weaver.  She is the one person that seems to be the most well adjusted of the bunch.  Long suffering and silent in most of her scenes, she makes crabby snacks on game day and supports her men all along the way. Of course when things get too nutty she speaks up but by that time who is listening with all the yelling going on?  Yet the warmth and love that she expresses in her facial expressions is really what holds this family together.  She is Mom, all the way.  The ending becomes predictable but who cares?  When I left the theater I believed that every dark cloud has a silver lining.  

Les Miz

     Opening on Christmas day 2012 was the film version of the much beloved stage musical Les Miserables.  Directed by Tom Hooper and starring Hollywood heavyweights Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, and Anne Hathaway.  The stage production of the musical has been seen by more people than any other musical worldwide and is touted as the most popular musical of all time.  The stage production first opened in 1980 and while initially was panned by the critics audiences were very receptive.  What do critics know anyway?  Our job is to be critical.  To me the star of the show is the music itself.  The score is sweeping in scope,  emotionally charged, and moving in nature. This is the challenge facing any actor wishing to perform in this musical.  Of course the stage productions cast the absolute best singers in the roles and since, have become legendary in their portrayals.  

     This work is based on the classic novel first published in 1862 and written by Victor Hugo who also authored "The Hunchback of Notre Dame".  At more the 2,500 pages the novel is anything but an easy read.  However it is considered one of the classic novels of all time.  The story is set in early 1800's pre-revolution France.  The story begins in 1815  and follows the trials and tribulations of Jean Valjean, using him to expose the conditions of the day and social injustice.  The story opens with Valjean being paroled from prison after serving a total of 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and failed escape attempts.  He ends up breaking his parole and assuming a fake identity after being given a second chance at life by a priest from whom he tried to steal.  He becomes the mayor of a town, owner of a factory, and a man driven by ideals.  The antagonist in the story is Javert, a fanatical policeman who pursues Valjean over the decades this story covers.  Many other characters move in and out of the story which creates a lush tableau for a classic tale of social injustice, intrigue, love, and redemption.

     So now on to the film version which is pertinent since after all this is a movie review.  I have seen the stage production several times and as a musician and singer I am in awe of the actors who play these parts.  The film version not so much so.  When converting a stage musical to film the director has two choices in casting.  Go for great singers who can act or movie stars who can sing.  Hooper chose the latter with what I feel are mixed results.  Jackman and Hathaway have received much critical acclaim for their singing and acting but I am not on board.  Both recently won Golden Globe awards for their portrayals which, seems to me, make the Golden Globes nothing more that a love fest for Hollywood insiders.  Very often Jackman's nasality was a distraction to the beautiful score.  When Hathaway sings quietly she has the chops to carry off the demanding song "I dreamed a dream".  But when she ups the volume level and tries to push it to soaring levels she becomes melodramatic and falls flat.  Much criticism has been leveled at Crowe for his singing which I am also in disagreement with.  As Javert, the relentless pursuer of Jean Valjean (Jackman), Crowe sings the show stopping "Stars" in this musical filled with show stoppers.  He stays within  his limitations and as such it plays extremely well.  There are some stellar performances by people who come with the stage cred to carry it off.  Leading off that list is Samantha Banks who plays the tragic Eponine and Amanda Seyfried as the grown up Cosette.  Banks, nearly steals the show with the number "On my own".  A song that can melt the heart of anyone.  And Seyfried's voice is that of an angel.  These two women are the wow factor in this film.  Even an untrained ear can tell the difference between trained singers and the movie stars who are often out of their depth.  Another worthy mention is Eddie Redmayne as Marius, the love interest of Cosette.  His vocals are heartfelt and moving.  The score and orchestrations are in a word, fantastic.  I know this is delving into the music portion of the film in a lot of detail and to some may seem nitpickey.  But this IS a musical after all.  I also read that instead of prerecording the vocals and then shooting the film with the actors lip sinking to the sound track Hooper elected to film the actors sing to the musical score live while shooting.  I think this was a mistake.  

     Now on to the film itself.  Contrary to what you may be thinking I liked this movie.  It really expands on a story that is already known by millions and gives it a narrative that only film can do.  The opening scene has eye popping special effects, the make up and costuming is flawless, and the pacing keeps this 2 hour and 38 minute film interesting throughout.  Some of the editing or set design looks as though they just filmed a stage presentation.  This doesn't happen very often and I don't think detracts from this film in the final analysis.  I really enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anyone who likes musicals.  If you haven't seen the stage production you should love this film, and if you have you still will.  Just not as much.  There is a lot of tragedy in the telling of this story so if you take a date have a crying towel at the ready.

I give this film a B+