From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Mon Jun 8 16:14:02 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:14:05 2009 Subject: Review: Up (2009) Message-ID: <05GdnYMJobACuL3XnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@earthlink.com> UP A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): **** Eschewing the more traditional subjects of kids movies (toys, fish, bugs or robots), UP, Pixar's latest offering, is about one of the least likely subjects possible for the genre, a senior citizen. I suspect that it would take geniuses like the gifted artists at Pixar to make such a subject touching and compelling for audiences of all ages. UP isn't merely good -- it is a thoroughly entertaining film that is downright great. Okay, so it doesn't quite rise to level of WALL-E, Pixar's last picture, which I thought was one of the best films ever made, but UP earned a certain place on my list of this year's best movies. New animated movies seem to all be made in 3-D these days. With UP, Pixar has joined the 3-D bandwagon. As would be expected, given the studio's reputation for quality, I am pleased to report that this was the first 3-D film that I've seen that never hurt my old eyes even a little bit. While UP is presented in 3-D, the movie, thanks to the skill of the writers and animators, would work just as well in 2-D. Never do the animators resort to the old trick of trying to make you jump by suddenly sticking some object in your face, just because 3-D gives them the opportunity. When we meet the story's main character, Carl Fredricksen (voiced as a child by Jeremy Leary and as an adult by Edward Asner), he is a taciturn and shy little boy. He learns his spirit of adventure when he meets Ellie (voiced by Elie Docter), the love of his life. She is a rambunctious motormouth with dreams as big as her large mop of bright red hair. Ellie invites Carl to join her previously one-person club. She has one overriding goal. She yearns to visit Paradise Falls in South America. Explaining where and what that continent is, she lectures him that, "It's like America," and then adds with breathless excitement, "but south!" Soon after this point in the narrative, the movie enters a long silent phase, much like the long silent sections of WALL-E, as it tells Carl and Ellie's life story. This is one of many places in which you should be prepared to shed a tear or two, as the drama is extremely effective and realistic. Carl and Ellie have a habit of saving by putting their hard earned money into a family savings jar, only to have to empty it regularly during periods of unexpected financial hardships. My family regularly did the exact same thing when I was growing up. Some of the other dead-on jokes in the movie, which those of us who know or are senior citizens will attest to their accuracy, involve hearing aids, including one about the screech they make that can sometimes be so loud as to scare the animals. Carl, who makes a living as a balloon seller to kids, eventually has to move from the home that Carl and Ellie so lovingly fixed up over the years. But, rather than leave his house, he leaves with his house, thanks to the collective lifting power of zillions of colorful balloons. This portion of the movie will bring to mind the tornado sequence from THE WIZARD OF OZ. A later episode in the story is directly lifted from STAR WARS, but, overall, the movie borrows most liberally from the great FITZCARRALDO by German director Werner Herzog. The latter movie concerns the Herculean effort of building and then moving an opera house through the middle of the Peruvian jungle. There is little to no chance that any of the kids will pick up on this homage. In addition to Carl and Ellie, there are so many other great characters in UP that it's hard to pick favorites. A dog named Dug (voiced by Bob Peterson) has to be the best of the bunch. Through the use of a special collar designed by Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer), the movie's rather lame villain, Dug and the rest of the dogs can speak English, as well as other languages if you turn a knob on the collar. A classic doofus dog, Dug is hilarious. Wanting to capture a colorful Ostrich-sized bird named Kevin, Dug pleads with him, "Please, oh please, oh please be my prisoner." Another endearing character in UP is Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), a young scout working on his last merit badge, one for assisting the elderly, so that he can finally become a "Senior Wilderness Explorer." Although he would happily settle for helping Carl across the street, he is also willing to follow Carl around the world if that is what it takes. I have barely scratched the surface on the reasons I adore this wonderful film, which will delight audiences of all ages. (If you promise not to tell anyone, I'll reveal a secret -- just to you. This movie will probably leave adult viewers liking it even better than the kids, but everyone will leave enchanted.) My only complaint about what was a super evening at the theater was that Pixar did not follow their usual strategy of presenting one of their marvelous short films before the featured attraction. UP runs 1:36. It is rated PG for "some peril and action" and would be acceptable for all ages. My son Jeffrey, age 20, gave the film a full ****, saying that, although it didn't quite reach the level of WALL-E, he really loved UP. He liked the way it was funny while completely avoiding any potty humor. He thought the film again proved the value of the "Pixar stamp," guaranteeing that everything would be wonderful. He remarked too that the film left him feeling so happy. He connected with all of characters, which he found to be a good mix of funny and dramatic. Jeffrey's girlfriend Yasmin, age 19, loved it too, especially all of the animals, and gave the movie ****. She found it funny and true, giving the example of a humorous back-cracking incident. But, hands-down, her favorite on-going joke, as was Jeffrey's, came when someone would say "Squirrel!", which would put the dogs into an uncontrollable frenzy, just like the word does Yasmin's dog Nala. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, May 29, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Cinemark theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Mon Jun 8 16:15:48 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:15:51 2009 Subject: Review: Easy Virtue (2009) Message-ID: EASY VIRTUE A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** Mrs. Whittaker (Kristin Scott Thomas) has a first name, but it's almost never spoken, since she is a prim and proper member of the British aristocracy. Her husband, Mr. Whittaker (a grizzled looking Colin Firth), survived the Great War but mentally checked out afterwards. Together the two of them and their two grown daughters, Hilda (Kimberley Nixon) and Marion (Katherine Parkinson), live in a large mansion only slightly smaller than a royal palace. But the apparently wealthy Whittakers have had to economize some lately, letting go of six of the servants and heating only half of their sprawling house. One day, their comfortable existence is disturbed by the arrival of their own son, John (Ben Barnes), who has scandalously married Larita (Jessica Biel), a bleached blonde race car driver. Older than John, Larita is a widow whose last husband died of cancer. She is also an American, which makes her immediately suspected of not having the proper breeding. EASY VIRTUE is a mild comedy of manners set in the Roaring Twenties. You might think any comedy filled with flappers would be easy to make funny, but this one isn't. It is a comedy which deserves no laughs and few smiles. The film is by director Stephan Elliott, whose last movie was EYE OF THE BEHOLDER, a truly awful would-be thriller from 1999, starring Ewan McGregor and Ashley Judd. EASY VIRTUE, however, is never painfully bad. It's just consistently bland. You probably won't hate it. You'll more likely just be indifferent to it. The retreaded dialog offers little for the viewers. About as good as it ever gets comes in an exchange between Marion and her father when they first lay eyes on Larita, as she and John drive up to the family estate for the first time. "I don't feel like smiling," Marion tells her father. He quickly admonishes her, "You're English. Fake it." There is one and only one satisfying part of the production. The songs are uniformly sublime with, "You Do Something To Me" being a typically lovely one. Buy the sound track. Skip the movie. EASY VIRTUE runs 1:33. It is rated PG-13 for "sexual content, brief partial nudity, and smoking throughout" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, May 29, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Cinemark theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 16:17:21 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:17:24 2009 Subject: Review: WALL*E (2008) Message-ID: <4a52a9000906021128i3a8240c2j4e71dd1e911ab976@mail.gmail.com> "Wall-E" -- A Nice Space Odyssey by Homer Yen (c) 2008 PIXAR studios has consistently churned out one feel-good hit after another. And "Wall-E" won't disappoint. It is an incredible piece of animated art. The soundtrack evokes a romantic era which buoys the love story within. And, the story mixes in elements from "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Star Trek," and "Short Circuit". Now, it's not perfect, for the story is a tad too dark for those under 10, and it's a tad weak in its ability to hold the parental-attention-span. In fact, last year's "Ratatouille" was superior. Yet, this film is miles ahead of "Cars." It's 700 years in the future, and the state of humanity looks bleak. Due to rising levels of pollution and trash and toxicity, humans have left the planet. More on the fate of them later. It appears that all that's left on Mother Earth is a little droid known as a Waste Allocation Load Lifter, Earth class. More affectionately known as WALL-E, he's a trash compactor who spends his days collecting garbage, squashing it into cubes, and then depositing them on empty swaths of land in such a way so as to be able to assemble them into something of a rubbish pyramid. There's a lot of tender-loving-care that has been put into the creation of our little hero. WALL-E is equipped with a laser beam to cut through obstacles, mechanical parts that are easily replaceable (if he can find them), wipers for eyelids, and even hydraulics to crush the garbage into cubes. His home reminds me of the attic of an eccentric uncle who stores all of the odd collectibles that he found over the years but never threw away. He and his home are incredibly detailed. The first 30 minutes, some will notice, is quite boring. And, it's true that not much happens. It is an opportunity for the film to showcase its attention to detail, great visuals, and feats of animation. In fact, I would probably say that you wouldn't be missing much if you strolled into the film 25 minutes late if it were not for the extremely clever mini-film at the beginning. More on "WALL-E" later because I have to give props to the opening mini-film. Entitled "Presto", it is about a disagreement between a magician and his bunny. The presentation evokes the shenanigans of Bugs Bunny and the frantic spurts of Spongebob Squarepants. In a 7-minute span, the cartoon short makes you laugh, makes you feel joyful, and makes you feel appreciative of the power of animation. Like all of the other PIXAR mini-shorts that precede the main attraction, there is no dialogue. It appeals to all cultures. And, of all the Pixar mini-shorts, this one is the best that I've seen. Now, back to the main attraction. One day, WALL-E sees a strange spaceship land. It deploys a robotic scout. We learn that her name is Eva, she carries a powerful gun, she can fly faster than the speed of sound, but she has come to Earth for a very important and specific mission. Now the story moves from the barren planet to a far-away spaceship where the human race has been displaced. At this point, the film picks it up two notches. Before that happens, "WALL-E" feels more like a visit to the planetarium rather than a movie. The latter half blossoms into a grand buddy-adventure film, which is what you would hope for and expect. What actually happens to WALL-E and Eva and the Human race, I'll leave to you to discover. But as the film moves towards its suspenseful conclusion, there are probably three things going through your head. 1) I can't wait for PIXAR's next project. 2) An imagination without boundaries creates a story without limitations. 3) Go for the hand, WALL-E, go!!! Grade: B+ S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 1 out of 3 From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 16:18:06 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:18:08 2009 Subject: Review: Up (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000906021128j61d179bcsf5c36f06a08be0f9@mail.gmail.com> Thumbs "Up" by Homer Yen (c) 2009 When I see pictures of Tiger Woods, I've always grown accustomed to one thing. When he's competing on the golf course, he always wears a sports cap with his sponsor's logo or his own TW company's logo prominently emblazoned on it. Check out any photo of him (I just did with Google images) and you'll see this to be true. Now, if I were to see him without this piece of apparel in competition, I would probably think that this would be a strange image. It's not that Tiger won't perform up to his usual excellent standards. I'm just saying that it might look/seem/feel odd. "Up" is Pixar's newest and most fanciful offering to date. Indeed, with each new Pixar film, it seems that the texture and the color palettes and the inventiveness take an evolutionary step forward with each new release. Lots of impressive imagery will be seen in the peripherals of the film. "Up" (I saw the 2-d version) takes place in the golden age of the early 1930's when life was simpler and the imagination could be fueled by undiscovered places in the world. One of the nicest renderings was a zeppelin whose interior looked as grand and as exquisite as the first-class levels of the Titanic. The most touching part of the film comes in the first act. Two young kids meet, they share an unbridled interest in exploration, grow up, get married, and begin their journey through life. It is an incredibly tender 10 minutes of film that you'll ever see. The story is about two men who start their lives looking for purpose. One is the famous explorer Charles Muntz (voiced by Christopher Plummer) who resembles Kirk Douglas in his sunset years and who goes off to faraway lands in his aforementioned zeppelin. His various discoveries, especially that of a never-before-seen type of flightless bird, are met with tremendous skepticism back home. He vows to capture it and to bring it back home. The other is the less resourceful but equally ambitious Carl (voiced by Edward Asner). At a younger age, he vowed to take his wife on an adventure of a lifetime in South America. But life got in the way and time took its toll. Although he doesn't have a zeppelin, his understanding of helium balloons allows him to go where others only dream of. Both of these men, now in their sunset years, are still looking to fulfill their destiny. In this tale, Charles's dreams are mutually exclusive of Carl's. Charles uses technology and science to forward his ambitions. Carl uses good ol-fashioned imagination and compassion to forward his. You know, as I re-read what I just wrote, it certainly sounds like a well-constructed story. And, it is. My personal reservation is that it leaned heavily on the whimsical side, which is something that I have not come to expect. I've seen every Pixar film that has ever been released and will always make it a point to see all of their future releases. But this film didn't seem as compelling or as much fun as the others. Yes, it was amusing and touching and sentimental. Yet, I enjoyed this film less so than "Wall*E" and "Ratatouille". I even was unmoved with the opening animation short, which I've come to look forward to with each Pixar release. Perhaps, like Charles and Carl, the curmudgeonly side of me is starting to creep in. Grade: B S: 0 out of 0 L: 0 out of 0 V: 0 out of 0 From mleeper at optonline.net Mon Jun 8 16:19:10 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:19:12 2009 Subject: Review: Up (2009) Message-ID: UP (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Certainly UP is one of Pixar's best films to date. The reason is not that it has some of their best animation, though that arguably is true. But their story values are may be improving faster than their animation. UP is a story with genuine pathos on themes of loss and of unfulfilled dreams. All this mixes with an adventure story with a little bit of action. Kids will love this film, but some of the notes of this film will definitely resonate with adults. A bittersweet prolog really works to make this film a much better story. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 Pixar is pushing the art of animation beyond all expectations. Early on in UP we see a boy carrying a balloon. Now in our world some balloons when inflated are opaque and some made more cheaply are translucent. Pixar would have been excused if they had taken the easy route and made the boy's balloon opaque. That would be an easier effect to create. But this is a cheap balloon and we see the background faintly through the balloon. That is just doing things the hard way just to show the audience that the visual images are better than they need to be. The animators were going to extra effort just to show their virtuosity at creating visuals. But their plotting and storytelling is more affecting than it has been in any previous major animated film that comes to mind. Their secret weapon is a prolog. The main character is Carl Fredricksen, a man probably in his late seventies. The prolog shows him as young boy enthralled by a world-famous explorer, Charles Muntz. Carl finds a girl as fascinated by adventure as Carl is. They become friends, then a couple, then husband and wife, then an old husband and wife, then she passes away and leaves him lonely. That's right, a character the viewer likes dies in the prolog. Right now I can think of only four so likeable characters killed off in previous Disney films and three are canines. It is a risk to kill off someone the viewer likes, but it gives the entire film resonance. When Carl mourns his wife, the audience does also. And the film needs this resonance since somewhere in the back-story it there it is about disappointment, loss, loneliness, and the choice between values and dreams. Not that this is a grim story, but it is a surprisingly honest and moving one. Carl Fredricksen (voiced by the wonderful Ed Asner) is an old curmudgeon and widower who lives in the same house he lived in with his beloved wife. The two had always dreamed of the adventure of going to Venezuela and seeing Paradise Falls on a certain mystical plateau that was visited by the celebrated explorer Charles Muntz (apparently the same plateau that inspired Arthur Conan Doyle to write THE LOST WORLD). Now Carl's house is to be bulldozed to make way for some big building, and Carl will be neatly filed in a rest home. But he has another plan. He will float his house high in the sky using several hundred helium balloons. He will harness the winds and fly his house to the mystical plateau. He is flying through the solitude of the sky when there is a knock at the door. It seems he is not as alone as he thought. A boy Wilderness Explorer (think Boy Scout) named Russell (Jordan Nagai) has been taken with the house. Begrudgingly Carl takes the boy in and together they fly to the plateau. The plateau turns out to be a sort of magical place. It has giant birds like living phorusrhacidae. Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) still rules the plateau and seems very active and spry. Carl is old enough to need a cane with a stand, and Muntz must be at least twenty-five years older, but somehow he is not. Most delightful are the Muntz dogs who have been fitted with collars that allow them to talk, though they still think like dogs. But Carl and Muntz are headed for a clash of values. Pixar has gone past the point where they made animated films that happened to be good stories. Now they are making good stories that happen to be animated. I rate UP a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. As good as the story is there are still some bad plot holes that should be noted. Perhaps the magic of the plateau is keeping Muntz from getting very old, but Carl should have at least observed that it was odd that a man who was out exploring the world when Carl was a young boy is still alive and spry on the plateau. Also a scrapbook is important to the plot, but it is not until the end of the film that Carl does something with this book that he more likely would have done years earlier. A short animated film, "Partly Cloudy", is packaged with UP. The idea seems to be that storks get the babies they deliver from clouds. Some babies are easier to handle than others. The animation is fine, but the story is just not very interesting. "Presto", the film that came packaged with WALL-E, was considerably better. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From homeryen88 at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 16:21:47 2009 From: homeryen88 at gmail.com (Homer Yen) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:21:48 2009 Subject: Review: Terminator Salvation (2009) Message-ID: <4a52a9000906061236i1886ef6cieb2123b3b19188c2@mail.gmail.com> "Terminator Salvation" - The Future Offers Little to Smile about by Homer Yen (c) 2009 There are three things that I noticed while trying to watch this film. I say "try" because with all of the booming sound effects, you'll hear the film more than you'll actually see it. And, that would be the first thing that I noticed. A Terminator takes a step and *boom*. A missile explodes and *boom*. I think that my ear drums are slightly annoyed with me. With its outsized distractions, it's really hard to find the story within this story. I think that the moral of the film was stated in the very last lines of the film: the difference between man and machine is that man has a heart. This film, though, seemed to lack one. Or, at least if there was one, it was buried under the summer blockbuster hysterics. *boom* "Terminator Salvation" takes place a mere nine years into the future. Skynet, a self-aware computer program in the midst of an all-out offensive against humankind, has pushed the human race to the brink of extinction. Pockets of resistance remain and the leader and the voice of hope is John Connor (Christian Bale). On a short-wave radio transmission during their darkest hour, he says: "if you are hearing me, then you are the resistance." Connor is leading a dangerous mission to infiltrate Skynet headquarters. They have discovered a possible means to end the war. He gets help from two other fighters. Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) whose presence is inextricably linked to Connor's future and Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), who in some sense is not the man that he appears to be. It's pretty much just straightforward business and action sequences for these soldiers. And that would be the second thing that I noticed. I think that there is more action-sequences-per-minute of film than any other I've seen in a long time. If you're looking for gun battles, chases with motorcycles, chases with airplanes, chases on foot...well, you'll get plenty of that here. This film is all big-budget action all the time. Yes, definitely see this if you want to see things blown up real good. The third thing that I noticed is that while we have Armageddon happening here, can't there still be a little room for some fun? For some witty dialogue? For something unexpected to happen? There isn't very much to smile about in the year 2018. Humans scamper and hide like cockroaches. The landscape is bleak and barren with nary a sign of life. No farms, no flowers, no animals. The dialogue, the atmosphere, the people all lack color. To some degree, this film seemed less like a Terminator sequel and more like a "Total Recall" redux. Remember that film? It also featured Ah-nuld, Michael Ironside, and a plot that involved a re-programmed soldier. At least that film had its share of laughs, intentional or otherwise. Here, it's organized chaos for sure. And Connor gets thrown, shot at, and skewered. Still, after all that and hearing about the heart of a man, I still found these pictures at http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/2009/02/most-dangerous-jobs-in-world.html more human. Grade: C S: 0 out of 3 L: 0 out of 3 V: 2 out of 3 From jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 8 16:24:49 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (jjmoya1955) Date: Mon Jun 8 16:24:52 2009 Subject: Review: Drag Me to Hell (2009) Message-ID: <5294b6d9-71c1-410b-b18c-7dfdbc95828a@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> Drag Me to Hell (2009) A Movie Review By Jonathan Moya The Plot: (from AllMovie.com) Determined to impress her boss and get a much-needed promotion at work, Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) lays down the law when mysterious Mrs. Ganush literally comes begging for mercy at her feet. In retaliation for being publicly shamed, Mrs. Ganush places the dreaded curse of Lamia on her unfortunate target, transforming Christine's life into a waking nightmare. Her skeptical boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) casually brushing off her disturbing encounters as mere coincidence, Christine attempts to escape eternal damnation by seeking out the aid of seer Rham Jas (Dileep Rao ). But Christine's time is fast running out, and unless she's able to break the curse, she'll be tormented by a demon for three days before literally being dragged to hell. The Review: Drag Me to Hell is Sam Raimi's diabolical return party to the horror genre after a decade stuck in the Spiderman web. It is Raimi-lite, content with scary shadows, gypsy curses, putrefying hags vomiting all manners of emerald nastiness and a good old scary s?ance. Its PG-13 rating makes it almost quaint family fare by horror standards, a Tales from the Crypt to keep the comic crowd happy until 2011 and Spiderman 5. Sniff this butt and know that The Evil Dead remake scheduled for next year is going to bring Raimi back to his dismembering and blood projecting roots. There is a lot of orifice horror in Hell. The evil slime not only falls on the fresh scrub face of the blonde Christine (Allison Lohman) but also is tongue kissed into her mouth, breathed in and plopped right into her eyes--hardhearted punishment for the softhearted loan officer misfortunate enough to administer tough love to the one mortgage defaulting, disease-eyed, talon, curse wielding gypsy woman (Lorna Raver) in the city. Lohman is the open-eye beneficiary of one of the great projectile face transplants of the last twenty years or so. It is the nasty stuff that gets inside that is really the best squirm inducing fright. Raimi and his co-caballer brother Ivan conjured up the screenplay, a couple of catfights that sticks to the basic spooks. It is a Looney Tunes nightmare on Speed and Acid. There is a dandy bitch slap turned demolition derby that takes place in a parking garage that gives new meaning to click it or ticket. Lorna Raver as the gypsy crone provides some early character developing scares simply by jujuing with a set of moldy dentures. Adriana Barazza as the good counterbalance gets the most of her fifteen minutes of screen time in Hell's s?ance scene. Allison Lohman (cast at the witching hour when Juno's Ellen Page got spooked) musters enough Buffy the Vampire Slayer toughness while just barely passing her good girl acting test. Still it is the scares before the scares that I remember: the diabolic shadows, the clanging pots and pans, an ectoplasmic handkerchief floating and attaching itself like a wind octopus. Raimi gets the little scares right so that the big horror matters. He messes with the head before taking the knife out. It is so old school old and well done that it looks brand new. For its scary good fun, it gets a B+. The Credits: (From AllMovie.com) Sam Raimi - Director / Screenwriter / Producer Grant Curtis - Producer Robert Tapert - Producer Ivan Raimi - Screenwriter / Co- producer Peter Deming - Cinematographer Christopher Young - Composer (Music Score) Bob Murawski - Editor Steve Saklad - Production Designer Cristen Carr Strubbe - Co-producer Joshua Donen - Executive Producer Joe Drake - Executive Producer Nathan Kahane - Executive Producer Isis Mussenden - Costume Designer John Papsidera - Casting Howard Berger - Makeup Special Effects Bruce Jones - Visual Effects Supervisor Gregory Nicotero - Makeup Special Effects With: Alison Lohman - Christine Brown Justin Long - Clay Dalton Lorna Raver - Mrs. Ganush David Paymer - Mr. Jacks Dileep Rao - Rham Jas Reggie Lee - Stu Rubin Adriana Barraza - Shaun San Dena Molly Cheek - Trudy Dalton Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Jun 12 19:01:39 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Jun 12 19:01:41 2009 Subject: Review: Drag Me to Hell (2009) Message-ID: DRAG ME TO HELL (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A bank loan officer refuses a loan extension to a woman of Gypsy origin. In return, the officer is cursed. The effects of the curse are horrifying and frequently revolting. Were this a new story written by Sam Raimi and his elder brother Ivan it would have been a better piece of horror. The effects and the action are all Raimi, but the story is cobbled together from familiar pieces. Largely this is a high-octane version of M. R. James's "Casting the Runes" with equal parts of shock and humor. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Sam Raimi made a name for himself with his "Evil Dead" films, one of the rare trilogies in which the second film is probably the best. However, his style was mostly to put people in a cabin and then to drop the contents of Hell's cutlery drawer on their heads. There was little time for Raimi to provide for plot or characterization. Since that time Raimi has graduated to films with more plot and characters. A SIMPLE PLAN had plenty of both, though Raimi got them from the novel that film was based on. With DRAG ME TO HELL Raimi had a chance to combine plot and characters with sequences of his slam-bang horror style. This meant, however, that he had to create "his own" story to surround and show off his horror segments. I put "his own" in quotes because he borrowed heavily from existing stories that were not his own. Much of DRAG ME TO HELL is borrowed from the once nearly-forgotten classic horror film NIGHT OF THE DEMON (in the United States it is CURSE OF THE DEMON), a somewhat free adaptation of M. R. James's story "Casting the Runes". To add spice he adds Gypsy Curse horror borrowed possibly from Stephen King's novel THINNER and Tom Holland's screen adaptation. There is also a nice little homage to ERASERHEAD. To be fair, not every good horror film ever made is startlingly original. Atmosphere, style, and production design count for a lot, and the familiarity of aspects of DRAG ME TO HELL is a disappointment, not a fatal flaw. A prolog establishes that the fictional Gypsies have dangerous supernatural powers and throws in an impressive horror effects scene. Then we get to the main line of the story. Bank loan officer Christine Brown (played by Allison Lohman) is in a desperate competition with Stu Rubin (Reggie Lee) for the position of assistant manager of the loan department. Rubin plays less than fairly and the manager, Mr. Jacks (David Paymer) suggests to Christine that she be a little more forceful and less forgiving with people who are late on their loans. (Bank officials who foreclose seem very timely villains.) The Gypsy Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) who has missed two mortgage payments is her first opportunity. Christine refuses another extension to the woman. Even when the old woman gets on her knees and begs Christine for an extension, kissing Christine's skirt, Christine is forced to refuse. When Christine remains firm Mrs. Ganush tells her in rage, "You shamed me." This incident is far from over. Christine is about to face the full force of Gypsy vengeance magic. It should be noted that while the film as a lot of visual horror, it is not the kind that requires an R-rating. This is PG-13 horror. One scene does have blood, but these are not the razor blade, knife, and needle sorts of scares--such a mainstay of insipid modern horror films. The scary scenes are every bit as intense, but it is more icky goo all over everything and "Oooo, what's that in her mouth?" sort of shock. Nothing has a sharp edge including the wit or the scares. But the visual images do come literally fast and furious. What is nice about this film is it is different from most of the horror films being made currently. What is disappointing is that it is not enough different from some of the classics of the horror genre. I rate DRAG ME TO HELL a high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. It is one thing to use vampires or flesh-eating zombies for horror. But isn't it about time we got past using members of persecuted minorities like Gypsies as horror icons? I am sure that Raimi would not make a film suggesting Jews or Presbyterians have evil mystical powers. Why pick on Gypsies? Elsewhere Raimi does play with our ethnic expectations. Christine's competitor for the promotion is Stu Rubin, a Jewish-sounding name, but he is played by a Filipino. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 12 19:05:14 2009 From: jjmoya1955 at yahoo.com (Jonathan Moya) Date: Fri Jun 12 19:05:16 2009 Subject: Review: Grand Torino (2009) Message-ID: Gran Torino (2009) A Movie Review By Jonathan Moya Rating: 4 out of 5 or A- The Plot: (from AllMovie.com) A racist Korean War veteran living in a crime-ridden Detroit neighborhood is forced to confront his own lingering prejudice when a troubled Hmong teen from his neighborhood attempts to steal his prized Gran Torino. Decades after the Korean War has ended, ageing veteran Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) is still haunted by the horrors he witnessed on the battlefield. The two objects that matter most to Kowalski in life are the classic Gran Torino that represents his happier days working in a Ford assembly plant, and the M-1 rifle that saved his life countless times during combat. When Kowalski's teenage neighbor (Bee Vang) attempts to steal his Gran Torino as part of a gang initiation rite, the old man manages to catch the aspiring thief at the business end of his well-maintained semi-automatic rifle. Later, due to the pride of the Asian group, the boy is forced to return to Kowalski's house and perform an act of penance. Despite the fact that Kowalski wants nothing to do with the young troublemaker, he realizes that the quickest way out of the situation is to simply cooperate. In an effort to set the teen on the right path in life and toughen him up, the reluctant vet sets him up with an old crony who now works in construction. In the process, Kowalski discovers that the only way to lay his many painful memories to rest is to finally face his own blinding prejudice head-on. The Review: Gran Torino hints at everything Clint Eastwood while cleverly dismantling it. There is the Dirty Harry snarl and racist litany; the cigarette smoking antihero silence of the Sergio Leone Spaghetti Westerns; the shotgun of Unforgiven existing in uneasy calm with the Magnum-like semi-automatic and even the heavy memories of war wounds past. Those parts of the Eastwood legend exist in the manicured lawn and well-maintained home belonging to the recently widowed Walt Kowalski (Eastwood), the Korean War vet living in the slightly shabby neighborhood taken over by the "gooks" that haunt his past, the Hmong-- a war removed (Vietnam) but still the same in his mind. Walt wants to be left alone to mow his grass, wash his 1972 Gran Torino, drink Pabst Blue Ribbon on his porch or to go out occasionally to the local bar or barber shop for some man talk with his war buddies. "Keep off my damn grass," he snarls with shotgun in hand to those who violate his well kempt legend. His family only jostles for their share of the inheritance. The niece wants the Torino and the son wants to put him out to pasture and sell the house. The local priest Father Jovanovich (Christopher Carley), just barely out of seminary, wants Walt to quit handling things his own way with the local Asian gang and let the church and police handle them. The Hmong community venerates him for what he has done. Eastwood delights in giving his legend closure. Gran Torino is both the last Dirty Harry and Eastwood Western- even though it will not be the last curtain call as Clint once teasingly suggested. The screenplay by Nick Schenk echoes the great Eastwood themes: violence, vengeance, redemption and finding peace with the past. It chisels down the fascism and racism to Archie Bunker softness while still keeping the will. Walt's ploy is the two-finger shooter backed up with the real weapon in his jacket. Pay attention to those who really do the shooting in Gran Torino. The twist at the end is a two- hanky surprise. Walt gets all the Jesus, peace and redemption that Hollywood allows. Gran Torino gets to have it all. Walt gets almost a real daughter and son. The legend gets closure. In addition, the audience and this critic get to see a master create a minor masterpiece on time and under budget with the simplicity of his movie-making genes. The legend gets an A and a place in The Hall of Fame. The movie gets an A-. The Credits: (From AllMovie.com) Clint Eastwood - Director / Producer Bill Gerber - Producer Robert Lorenz - Producer Dave Johannson - Screen Story Nick Schenk - Screenwriter / Screen Story Tom Stern - Cinematographer Kyle Eastwood - Composer (Music Score) Michael Stevens - Composer (Music Score) Joel Cox - Editor Gary D. Roach - Editor James Murakami - Production Designer John Warnke - Art Director Bruce Berman - Executive Producer Jenette Kahn - Executive Producer Tim Moore - Executive Producer Adam Richman - Executive Producer Deborah Hopper - Costume Designer Ellen Chenoweth - Casting With: Clint Eastwood - Walt Kowalski Bee Vang - Thao Ahney Her - Sue Christopher Carley - Father Janovich Brian Haley - Mitch Kowalski Geraldine Hughes - Karen Kowalski Brian Howe - Steve Kowalski Dreama Walker - Ashley Kowalski William Hill - Tim Kennedy John Carroll Lynch - Barber Martin Brooke Chia Thao - Vu Chee Thao - Grandma Copyright 2009 by Jonathan Moya From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Jun 12 19:06:32 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Jun 12 19:06:34 2009 Subject: Review: RiP! A Remix Manifesto (2009) Message-ID: RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This is an 86-minute documentary protesting our current very restrictive copyright laws. Canadian Brett Gaylor writes and directs this film documentary looking at the act of creating popular music by mashup--taking samples from many works of art--some copyrighted--and recombining them. The film explores the question of music, movies, stories, etc., being sampled and becoming a part of a new piece of art. The issues are complex and the approaches to the solution are even more so. This film makes it hard to agree with either side. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 [This is a documentary on a controversial issue. I will try to review the film as objectively as I can. Also I will interpret the film, but none of what I say will have any legal merit. If you want to copy, remix, or remash, any pre-existing work of art you should probably talk to a lawyer first. I'm a film reviewer, not a lawyer.] We have to start with some basic definitions. Intellectual property: Anything created using the intellect. This includes ideas, melodies, or mechanical devices. Copyright: The right to copy and use a piece of intellectual property. Copyright is a commodity that can be bought, rented, or borrowed. It can also be illegally usurped. Public Domain: The set of all intellectual property that is not controlled by copyright. Mix-Ups: A new pieces of art made from sampled bits of old pieces of art. Sometimes there are thousands of sampled pieces in a new mix-up. Mash-Up: A new piece of art made in part or in whole from ideas of old pieces of art. Re-mix: A new piece of art made in part or in whole from old pieces of art. The latter three definitions are different but closely related concepts. People are currently taking bits from pre-existing material and mixing them and electronically altering them so they may be unrecognizable and combining them to make new music. The problem is that what is being sampled is copyright material. The copyright owners are complaining that this is a form of infringement. Given the degree of modification one might ask why not start with public domain sounds? Unfortunately writer/director Brett Gaylor never examines this possibility. Gaylor is an admitted fan of re-mix artist, a male who goes by the name Girl Talk but whose real name is Gregg Gilles. RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO tells the history of copyright law, which has been extended and made more monstrous over time. Current copyright laws say that a work of art does not fall into public domain until seventy years after the original artist is dead. Due to intricacies of the law, some characters apparently do not fall into public domain even though the copyright has long run out on the initial works creating the character. Tarzan and Mickey Mouse are prime examples. The Disney Corporation has been particularly aggressive and egregious in fighting to extend copyrights on its intellectual property. Gaylor brings in expert testimony from Stanford professor and political activist Larry Lessig and from science fiction writer Cory Doctorow. Still, all to often as a viewer I wanted to stop the proceedings and argue with the screen, as there were obvious problems with the case being made. It is suggested that the copyright laws should be eased because "everybody" infringes on copyright, and making plagiarism illegal will only create a generation of lawbreakers. But even Gaylor admits that the copyright law is there to protect artists. While he argues that all art should be legal to copy, he does not look at the effects of such a decision. Gaylor takes a first step by saying his own film is copyright free and he invites people to copy it. It is, however, not clear there is much in the film that would be of value for others to take. But in addition, it is not clear that even his film is really as free from copyright as he claims. [See the note at the end of the review.] Watching this documentary can be a little too much like trying to read "Wired" magazine. The format is supposed to be hip but very much gets in the way of understanding the case being made. And the case being made seems ill considered. The film raises good questions, but does not answer them. Gaylor intentionally makes a good case that there are serious flaws with current United States Copyright law and unintentionally makes just as good a case that he and his buddies are not the ones to straighten it out. I rate this film a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 5/10. RIP! A REMIX MANIFESTO will be released to DVD on June 30, 2009. Note: It should be noted that while the film itself labels itself in the credits a "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike"--I think that is a noun phrase--and suggests a desperately needed web site to visit for an explanation. The web site says, "Page not found; The page you are trying to reach is nowhere to be found. Someone on the staff is to blame for this! Rest assured, the proper person will get the proper amount of blame and humiliation dealt to them." That page also seems to have links to remixes. The DVD package labeling has signs saying it is a "Creative Commons"--probably a noun phrase--rather than being copyright material. However, the DVD case also contains labeling for a 2009 copyright for SteelEyeFilm and for the National Film Board of Canada. In plain, simple English this all means that you can reproduce the film, remix it, and/or remash it, as Brett Gaylor suggests you can do in the text of the film, or perhaps you can't. Specifically the creative commons rights given to you shows up in the case labeling symbology as "BY" with a men's room symbol and "ND" with an equals sign. However, the initials DRM show up in a circle with a slash through it, meaning that DRM, which may or may not mean "Digital Rights Management" is not allowed. But you do not have a right to copy the material because even though Brett Gaylor grants you that right in the text of the film, people other than him hold a copyright on the film, among others the National Film Board of Canada who are, of course, an arm of the Canadian Government. The above is purely interpretive on my part and is in no way legally binding. In the words of Lou Costello, "I don't even know what I'm talking about." Before sampling, re-mixing, or re-mashing any of this the material in the film, legal counsel is strongly recommended. Film Credits: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From Faust668 at msn.com Fri Jun 12 19:08:35 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Jun 12 19:08:37 2009 Subject: Review: Halloween (2007) Message-ID: <4c950032-8f87-4dab-b38c-cfedf16ae2fd@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com> HALLOWEEN (2007) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half Rob Zombie's "Halloween" re-imagining is a perversely violent and dishonest piece of trash that never comes close to the spirit and sheer horror of the John Carpenter classic. At once histrionic and mind-numbingly violent to the point of outdoing bloody mayhem in even "Saw" or its slew of torture porn counterparts, this Halloween movie is a pointless disgrace. Rob Zombie's "Halloween" brings back Michael Myers as the unstoppable killer with the William Shatner mask who preys on his victims on Halloween. That is fine with me since that is what John Carpenter's film and its infinite sequels showed. But Zombie also wants to show Michael's family life which consists of an obnoxious sister (Hanna Hall), a disabled, lecherous and loud stepfather (William Forsythe), and a caring mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) who works at a strip joint (I dislike the phrase but this is white trash hell). Michael also likes to kill cats, dogs and hamsters, thus paving the way for humans to be his next victims. These include a vile school bully and Michael's family, with the exception of his mother and his little baby sister whom he loves. How nice. Flash forward to fifteen years later where Michael is held at Smith's Grove Institute where his patient psychiatrist, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), has given up on Michael. Michael eventually escapes Smith's Grove but not before he kills a few security guards and a janitor. Then he finds a truck he can use to go to back to his hometown of Haddonfield, but he has to kill the truck driver first. Then he finds his long-lost sister Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) and kills her parents and, yes, the slaughter continues. Rob Zombie aims to be ambitious but the attempt at psychoanalyzing Michael Myers doesn't wash. For one, when you show Michael as a kid who tortures and kills animals and humans, and has no memory of what he had done, you are asking the audience to see Michael Myers as some latter-day serial killer. Of course, Michael is no ordinary serial killer, as we plainly see in the only intense and frightening scenes in the film where young Michael is interviewed by Dr. Loomis. There is a quiet unease about those scenes. But then Zombie lingers on every single murder with such a perverse attention to detail that you might want to gag. This movie has a bigger mortality rate than most movies and Zombie seems to punish us with extreme slicing and dicing (only the school bully murder works since we feel the bully didn't fully deserve to die). Beyond that, Zombie never lets up for showing how many ways a knife can be thrusted into someone's body, or how a baseball bat or a wooden log can be used to crush bones and break bodies. I am not a prude when it comes to violence but after enduring one grisly murder after another, I grew weary of this "Halloween" movie. I've seen the sequels and none of them come close to this torturous display of brutality. And when Michael returns to Haddonfield, we meet Laurie's teenage friends and, before you can say who Danielle Harris is playing, they are all slaughtered without much human interest or a care in the world. This leaves Laurie who hides and hides from Michael long past the point of caring, screaming at the highest pitch while Michael tears down the basement and the attic looking for her. Yawn. The acting is also high-pitched consisting of actors who spend a lot of time hollering and screaming. I don't expect great subtlety in a "Halloween" movie but give me the subdued Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance any day. Overall in terms of actors, McDowell is an uncomfortable fit as the good doctor, Dee Wallace and Brad Dourif give largely blink-and-you'll-miss performances, and the teens are too bland and dare I say anonymous, including Scout Taylor-Compton as the disarming Laurie who makes sexual comments galore (again, where is the timidness of Jamie Lee Curtis's Laurie?) John Carpenter's "Halloween" is a machine-like supernatural thriller with the machine-like precision of its monstrous Michael Myers. It was atmospheric and scary as hell, but it also did not dwell on grisliness and dementia. There was violence in the film but it was fairly limited and imaginatively done with shadows and haunting compositions (I can't forget Michael's white mask suddenly appearing behind Laurie or the way his fist finally bursts through a door). I am not going to say that Rob Zombie shouldn't make a film where we get insight on Michael and his murderous impulses. But the movie only tells us that Michael kills without provocation necessarily and without remorse, and he will kill those who nurture him except his mother and his baby sister. And then we are back in Haddonfield for mayhem as usual. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From Faust668 at msn.com Fri Jun 12 19:09:40 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Fri Jun 12 19:09:43 2009 Subject: Review: W. (2008) Message-ID: <064164f1-35f1-45b8-8c54-d9f3b2bff1ee@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> W. Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars Oliver Stone's "W." is his least angry film to date. The reason I say "least angry" is because if nothing else, the country grew to be angrily anti-Bush since the Iraq War began (in fact, this country might be angrier than Stone in the last eight years). Bush has been seen as a warmonger and an unintelligent dullard who couldn't speak in complete sentences, couldn't give an interview worth a damn, and was contradicting himself from one day to the next in all of his press conferences (he once told an interviewer that he felt the war in terror couldn't be won, and then the Republicans came out saying he didn't mean it). I think few can argue with Bush's lack of presence of mind and, as protracted and silly as some elements of the film are, "W." is occasionally a breathless bio of Dubya, though nowhere near as powerful or incendiary as Stone's own "Nixon," easily one of the great political biographies ever. Josh Brolin is Dubya, from his Yale days as a heavy drinker and fraternity pleaser, to his failure at holding numerous jobs that his father, the strict Bush Sr. (James Cromwell), helps him get including an oil rig, a baseball team owner, to his days as a Governor of Texas, and finally as the 43rd President of the United States. The movie adopts a non-linear narrative as we sense Bush can't seem to do anything right. That is until he quits drinking, helps his father win the Gulf War (with some added help from Karl Rove, a historical revision considering Rove was fired by George H.W. Bush's campaign for leaking a negative story about a fundraiser chief), and finally sees it as a message from God to be President. Dubya's mission is to go to Iraq after 9/11 because some connection is established between Sadaam Hussein and the Al-Quaeda terrorist group. But is he merely exploiting his father's legacy with Iraq or trying to prove to his father that he can succeed as something, like being President of the U.S.! He can't hack it as Governor, an oil rig worker or anything else and he seems to ease into his presidency with lots of help. Oh, the irony, the Freudian irony. Stone and his screenwriter Stanley Weiser ("Wall Street") have used several books on Bush to adapt the life of what some regard as the worst U.S. President in history (some historians point to Harry S. Truman or Herbert Hoover as infinitely worse). Stone doesn't seem to hold any one opinion on Dubya at all - he basically presents us with this Alfred E. Newman-type and consciously doesn't want us, the voters, to repeat the same mistake again. As expected from Stone, especially after "Nixon," the movie assumes empathy and a degree with sympathy for someone who has abused his power to perform historical actions, like a pre-emptive war strike, taking away liberties from its own citizens in the interests of a "Patriot Act," and so on. Clearly, if you have lived through the last eight Bush years, you know what to expect from Stone's film. Building on the humanity of the man, Josh Brolin is so brilliant as Bush Jr. (encompassing virtually every frame of the film) that it is hard to resist the film, despite a drawn-out narrative, which includes AA meetings with an Evangelical Reverend (powerfully played by Stacy Keach) and one too many conversations with George Sr. The movie aims for a more Freudian subtext than needed, something that "Nixon" only flirted with. In "Nixon," we saw a more full-bodied portrait of the man behind the President, in addition to the media outcry, the war protests (Vietnam then) and a three- dimensional relationship between Nixon and his wife, Pat. "W." only seems fit to skirt the characters and the political turmoil rather than embody them. More of Laura Bush enabling Dubya would've been nice. Speaking of, "W.'s" most involving scenes feature young Bush's romance with Laura Bush (a dynamic Elizabeth Banks) as they work together during his early campaigning for Governor of Texas (we see that Bush Jr. is more willing to punch below the belt than his father, particularly when attacking the late Ann Richards). And though many know what led to the Iraq War, Stone knows how to thrillingly stage scenes in the War Room as all the Bush administration figures gather to make this war possible, and to resist ending it. Interestingly, it shows Bush is not paid attention to and implicitly exists as some sort of patsy where all the blame can be laid on this dullard without question. Also worth noting is that the film sees Condoleeza Rice (Thandie Newton in a strangely mannered performance) as a stick figure with nothing to offer and Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) as a disgruntled general whose past experiences apparently mean very little (a heated exchanged between Powell and Scott Glenn's Donald Rumsfeld will make one chuckle). Added to that is a sneeringly evil and charismatic Dick Cheney (astoundingly played by Richard Dreyfuss, who deserved an Oscar nomination) and a subdued evil presence in subtle strokes by Toby Jones as Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff, the manipulator behind the scenes who teaches Bush how to address the press during Bush's first run for governor. "W." is one of Ollie Stone's mellower films and gives Dubya the benefit of the doubt (Stone insists that he stopped hating Bush after 2004). The film does not give an endorsement of Bush's policies nor does it completely condemn them. It states that Bush became a man and showed his dad that he could rise as a leader, and not be seen as the black sheep of the family. Ironically, it also shows he failed despite succeeding. A fascinating and flawed portrait with Josh Brolin giving Bush a strong measure of humanity, but this W is still no Tricky Dick. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com From mleeper at optonline.net Tue Jun 23 18:40:04 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Tue Jun 23 18:40:07 2009 Subject: Review: Dead Snow (2009) Message-ID: DEAD SNOW (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: A week-long Easter vacation visit to a remote cabin in the mountains turns into a horror for eight young medical students. Following the inspiration of Sam Raimi films Norwegian director Tommy Wirkola does his own horror film of something nasty out in the woods. This is very much by-the-numbers horror film making. It is not at all bad, but it has little that is fresh and new. DEAD SNOW is done with sufficient style to keep it interesting, but a little originality would have gone a long way. This is not going to create much of an international market for Norwegian horror film. Rating: +1 (-4 to +4) or 6/10 Last year we saw an unusual sort of horror film from Sweden. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was a vampire film, but it was distinctly Swedish, and the biting cold and the darkness of Sweden in the winter filled every scene. It was one of the better films last year. Perhaps inspired by the success of that film, this year we get to see a Norwegian horror film. But the style of the film is distinctly American. The film was made in Norway and the language is Norwegian with English subtitles. It even starts with a thundering rendition of Edvard Grieg's "The Hall of the Mountain King" from "Peer Gynt". But the plotting and the atmosphere are all inspired by films from right here in the United States. And in fact if you were not noticing the similarities, one of the characters is a film nerd who reminds us how similar the situation of the characters is to that in films like Sam Raimi's EVIL DEAD I & II. The film starts out as a more serious horror film--if "serious" is the right word--but by the last twenty minutes it will definitely visit gonzo-Raimi-land. DEAD SNOW starts with eight Norwegian medical students, four male and four female, on Easter Break. They are headed into the mountains in a remote part of their country. Here they have a cabin in the snow and they expect to spend the week snowmobiling, drinking beer, and having sex. But we keep seeing signs that there is something moving in the woods outside. It is something that moves fast and kills, but we cannot see what. Our eight students are oblivious to it all. Then the first night someone comes to the door. He is a camper in the area who demands a cup of coffee. He tells the visitors that they are on dangerous ground. In World War II the German Army was particularly brutal in this area. The area was of strategic value to them and they wanted to be sure to control the locals. When they started losing the war the entire unit of soldiers turned to looting the town and then went off to hide in these forests. He is mysterious as to why this piece of history, more than 60 years old, is still important. But the visitors come only too well to understand. Director/co-writer Tommy Wirkola films the proceedings generally effectively, but he really has very little original to give us. Except for detail about what exactly the threat is, this is mostly well-trodden territory. (I will not reveal what the threat is here, but it is less than imaginative and was used as far back as 1977 in a Peter Cushing film.) While the general photography is atmospheric, an effect of a head pulled apart is very unconvincing. One character supposedly loses an arm, but it is really just misplaced because we can easily see it tucked in his jacket. Several of the characters end up covered with and/or spitting blood, a brighter hue than the real thing making it not very convincing. There will be a lot of stage blood visible before the final frame. There are also some script errors. We are told early on that cell phones do not work this high up the mountain, but later when the plot calls for it a cell phone seems to work perfectly well. The film frequently uses false scares intended to make the viewer jump. But Wirkola's film is not nearly as spellbinding as it would have to be to make those shots work. In the end the worst fault of this film is that it is too good an imitation of the films that Wirkola admires. I rate the film a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale or 6/10. There is some vulgar language, but that seems to be the custom these days. Norwegians are a lot like Americans. DEAD SNOW opens theatrically in New York June 19, and on demand via "IFC in Theaters" starting June 10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Jun 23 18:42:20 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Jun 23 18:42:22 2009 Subject: Review: Away We Go (2009) Message-ID: AWAY WE GO A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** AWAY WE GO, by acclaimed director Sam Mendes, is his most different movie. All of his other pictures (REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, JARHEAD, ROAD TO PERDITION and AMERICAN BEAUTY) are in-your-face, big films, full of very dramatic moments. They have their funny bits, but their underlying tone is always dark and foreboding. In a complete change of pace for Mendes, AWAY WE GO is a little movie, a sweet and quirky comedy that works -- but only if one doesn't overanalyze it and look for Mendes's traditional deep meanings. But, as a comedy, it isn't one of those big laugh-out-loud types. Instead, it's one full of witty lines that'll keep you smiling most of the time. The secret to the film's modest but satisfying success is the cast. With two likable leads, John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph as Burt Farlander and Verona De Tessant, and a terrific supporting cast, including a scene-stealing one by Maggie Gyllenhaal as LN, the movie is a real crowd-pleaser. Structured mainly as a road trip, the film follows a very pregnant Verona, who is only six months along but appears ready to give birth at any moment, and her live-in boyfriend Burt. The plot, which proves to be fairly unimportant, has them touring a few cities in the U.S. and Canada, visiting friends and relatives as they look for a place to settle down. The script's best part comes when it has Verona and Burt, a mid-thirties couple, stopping to see LN at a college in Montreal. As they walk into LN's office, they find her nursing her two boys simultaneously. Since the oldest boy, around five or six, appears to be old enough that he might be inclined to invite his friends over for lunch, Verona and Burt are shocked by what they observe. Regaining their composure, they accept LN's invitation for dinner. LN, a pseudo-free spirit who acts like a refugee from a commune, has a whole list of bizarre child-raising dos and don'ts, with her breast-feeding of her kids and her friend's kids being at the top of the "do" list and the use of strollers being at the top of the "don't" list. Having done child birthing twice, she brags that her pain means that "when I watch CNN, I can understand war." Hands-down, the movie's funniest scene surrounds a stroller that Verona and Burt give LN. Little things in the script provide delectable pleasures. Burt makes his living by selling "insurance futures" to insurance companies. He doesn't have an office and does his work strictly over his cell phone while using a fictitious name. He explains that insurance companies need insurance too. And the dialog is particularly fine, with one my favorite lines being a warning that "a drought is coming, like a Biblical flood in reverse." If you go looking for Mendes's next big movie, boy, oh boy, will you be disappointed, as many critics have been. And if you go expecting a comedy filled with huge laughs or a drama chock full of big message moments, you'll similarly leave unsatisfied. But, if you go into the theater wanting to be entertained, you will get what you came looking for. You'll enjoy going along with Verona and Burt on their journey, and you'll leave with a smile on your face and a feeling that you're glad you got to know them. AWAY WE GO runs 1:38. It is rated R for "language and some sexual content" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, June 19, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Camera Cinemas. The movie was shown recently at the Camera Cinema Club (http://www.cameracinemas.com) of Campbell and San Jose. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Tue Jun 23 18:43:06 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Tue Jun 23 18:43:08 2009 Subject: Review: Moon (2009) Message-ID: MOON A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** "The power of the moon," intones the narrator in what appears to be a television commercial advertising an energy company, "the power of the future." It's a future of clean energy, thanks to a certain mineral on the moon. On the dark side of the moon, a lone worker named Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) toils away, fixing any problems with the huge helium 3 automated harvesters, which are mining the moon's energy source for the citizens of planet Earth. Battling mental fatigue, Sam is really eager for the two weeks left on his three year contract to be over, so that he can return to his family back on Earth. Sam has very limited contact with others. The live link with Earth has been down for years, since it was knocked out in a storm. Periodically, his wife and daughter do send him recorded video messages, which are relayed via a link from Jupiter. Of course, he sends them loving messages back. The only "live" contact he has is with his robot (voiced by Kevin Spacey). Ever chirpy and helpful, the robot communicates with a sweet and reassuring voice, as well as through smiley faces on its video screen that vary from happy faces to sad ones and everything in-between. Rockwell's performance is a real tour de force and nothing like the comedic role in his other main sci-fi film, GALAXY QUEST. But, regardless of the quality of his acting, MOON does have problems. It is very hard to sustain a one-person drama for the entire length of a motion picture. These difficulties are exacerbated by director Duncan Jones's story, which is essentially just a short story. Not a lot happens in what proves to be a very simple plot. As Sam tries to kill the time until his contract is over, he starts seeing things. Or does he? Is he losing his marbles or is something weird going on? The answer is quite surprising, as is the movie's ending resolution to Sam's increasing predicaments. But, as intriguing as it is at times, overall the film makes its running time feel much longer than it is, as we experience some of the same tedium that appears to be driving Sam crazy. MOON runs 1:37. It is rated R for "language" and would be acceptable for kids around 10 and up. The film opens in limited release in the United States on Friday, June 19, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the Cinemark theaters. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Jun 23 19:57:21 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Jun 23 19:57:23 2009 Subject: Review: The Wrestler (2008) Message-ID: THE WRESTLER (2008) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Four stars One of the reasons I like director Darren Aronofsky's films is that they are alive and completely conscious, similar to his contemporaries such as Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone. "The Wrestler" is more than a film - it is a firecracker of a movie that explodes and implodes with so much emotion, it leaves you burned out, exasperated and exhausted. This film quickens the pulse, radiates your nerves and leaves you with one of the greatest performances of the 21st and 20th century by the remarkable Mickey Rourke. High praise, indeed. Rourke is the long-suffering, physically scarred and emotionally spent Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a pro-wrestler who has sucuumbed so heavily to the world of wrestling, he no longer feels joy from anything other than pleasing the audience. He can't please himself, though he tries with a local stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei, in a truly spellbinding performance) who smiles and clearly loves the guy, but she can't get involved (we know she will). There is the Ram's estranged daughter, Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood) who wants nothing to do with him and deeply hates him, especially since he has forgotten every single birthday of hers. Meanwhile, The Ram takes punishment in the ring with a variety of defensive weapons that will make most audiences flinch. There are staple guns, barbed wire, razors hidden in wrist paddings and much more. If any of you have seen such matches in hotel lobbies or in union halls, not to mention seeing the horrifying "Beyond the Mat" documentary, you'll have a good idea of what lies ahead. The Ram has a heart attack at one point, and decides to retire and work at a deli department at the local supermarket. He has to make enough money to pay the rent for his trailer, give a few 20's to his confidante, Cassidy, and perhaps buy a nice jacket for his daughter. The question is how long can the Ram stay away from the ring. "The Wrestler" is greatly focused on the Ram, from one battle on the ring to the next to fighting his restrained emotions in the suburbs and nightclubs of New Jersey, specifically Rahway. He can't connect to his daughter, claiming he is nothing "but a piece of meat." She feels sorry for him but she can't forgive him. Then there is Cassidy who helps him find an appropriate gift for his daughter. They have a scene in a bar where they sing to Ratt's "Round n' Round" that proves a song can speak volumes for the characters' sakes more so than just having a good song on a soundtrack. Rourke has always been a fascinating presence in films ranging from "Rumble Fish" and "Pope of Greenwich Village" to his very underrated work in "White Sands" and his superb cameo in "The Pledge." He has had his own personal demons to fight, reducing his beatific visage to a squished rubber mat due to his boxing days and alleged plastic surgery. It is as if he hated his matinee idol look, turning away from it and crushing it because he was an actor first and foremost. Such a parallel to Rourke's own life and career leads director Darren Aronofsky and Mickey Rourke to never shy away from the Ram's personal hell, a man who is bent on self-destruction without knowing it. He has the wrestling ring - it is his playground of emotion where he can feel loved by his peers and his fans. He just can't feel love from anyone else. Rourke shows such a depth and range of emotions that it will burn a hole through your heart. "The Wrestler" is not just powerful cinema - it is transcendental and contains quite possibly the most unforgettable and deeply personal performance of any actor since, dare I say, Harvey Keitel in "Bad Lieutenant." A unique and hellish masterpiece. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html From Faust668 at msn.com Tue Jun 23 19:57:51 2009 From: Faust668 at msn.com (Jerry Saravia) Date: Tue Jun 23 19:57:53 2009 Subject: Retrospective: Mystery, Alaska (1999) Message-ID: <2631981d-3571-4afa-83ef-86e3616a31cb@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com> MYSTERY, ALASKA (1999) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: Three stars and a half Sports movies are not my favorite genre, though I have admired movies like "Rocky," "Raging Bull," "Tin Cup" and "Hoosiers," to name a few. "Mystery, Alaska" focuses on ice hockey, which is hardly a sport I can stand watching (and I am partly Canadian), yet it won me over. This is a dramatic, offbeat kind of comedy-drama that aims high with an unusual set of characters and an uplifting enough story to rise above its cliches. Set in the fictional town of Mystery, Russell Crowe is John Biebe, the local sheriff who is something of a local hockey hero. Unfortunately, his hockey team is letting him go and making him coach to make room for a teenage player with the right stuff. John's ego is hurt but he goes along with it. His wife, Donna (Mary McCormack), supports him yet feels his pain. And just in the nick of time comes an announcement that the NHL is sending the New York Rangers to play an exhibition game with this Alaskan team. The problem is that the team only plays on Saturdays and insist on playing in a black pond of ice! The NHL and the Rangers see it differently, as does eager promoter Charles Danner (Hank Azaria), a former Mystery resident who gave the Mystery team glowing reviews on a Sports Illustrated issue. "Mystery, Alaska" juggles a few characters around such as Charles Danners' pining for John's wife; the local attorney (Maury Chaykin) who deals with a big shot retail owner (Michael McKean, always a pleasure to see); Burt Reynolds as the local Judge Burns who hates the game and hates his son for playing it; another hotshot player (Ron Eldard) who has nothing better to do than to play hockey and have sex, including having an affair with the mayor's wife (Lolita Davidovich); and Mystery's mayor (Colm Meaney) who wants nothing more than to expose their little town to the big hockey leagues. "Mystery, Alaska" is a charming, inoffensive picture with enough humor and pathos to make it special. All these actors are some of my favorites so to see them on screen is a pure delight. Russell Crowe plays one of the looser characters of his career, not the glum variety of post-"Gladiator" period, and he has a special chemistry with McCormack. Also worth noting is Hank Azaria who is so full of life playing a sports promoter that you are ready to play along with whatever he pitches. And what a pleasure to see Burt Reynolds at his understated best, throwing asides with the ease of a real actor who doesn't have to do much to sell a scene. If he had more colorful roles like this one, Burt might have really taken recharged career in this post-"Boogie Nights" period. Only Maury Chaykin's attorney character leaves something to be desired, and I would've like more screen time for my favorite Spinal Tap member, but that is just me. "Mystery, Alaska" waxes on praise and pride for the underdogs, and resentment and pure vitriol for anything too commercial or mainstream that intrudes on small-town values. When the big game arrives at the climax (and I will not dare spoil who the winner is), the town's residents on the bleachers read the newspapers as the Rangers make their entrance on the ice. The Mystery residents welcome the chance to play with a national team and yet detest them at the same time. Same with the retail chain that almost opens in their town - anything commercial is outlawed. It's that kind of old-fashioned small-town movie that may leave you feeling satisfied. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html Email me at Faust668@msn.com or at faustus_08520@yahoo.com BIO on the author of this page at: http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/index.html From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Jun 26 16:21:26 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Jun 26 16:21:29 2009 Subject: Review: Off Jackson Avenue (2009) Message-ID: OFF JACKSON AVENUE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: Three (or more) crime stories intersect each other in this tale set in Queens, New York's underbelly. A Mexican immigrant is forced into sexual slavery; an unreadable Japanese hit man prepares for killing; a car thief tries to steal enough to buy himself a legitimate business. The film makes a slow and grim build to a suspenseful third act. Newcomer writer/director/actor John-Luke Montias (in his second feature film) shows us several faces of crime. Rating: low +2 (-4 to +4) or 7/10 Three contiguous stories of different sorts of crime unfold simultaneously and finally tie together. Olivia (played by Jessica Pimentel) has been lured to Queens from Oaxaca, Mexico with promises of a job was a waitress in a new restaurant. Instead she has her passport taken from her and is brutally forced into sexual slavery. Her first day is shown in harrowing detail. But she is determined she will get herself out of the predicament. Meanwhile hit-man Tomo (Jun Suenaga) has been brought to Queens from Japan to eliminate at client's business competitor. He Chinese client and the client's family are clearly impressed by Tomo's cold professionalism. But under the facade Tomo is a mother-obsessed English teacher in Japan. Tomo supplements his meager income as a contract killer. And he is not adapting well to the United States. Thirdly there is Joey (played by the film's writer director John-Luke Montias). Joey desperately wants respectability. He has a tire shop that he intends to buy just as soon as he can steal enough cars to earn the $100,000 to buy the shop. But Joey just does not have the kind of mind that can make it all work. The film is shot on a low budget with no familiar faces. But that gives the film more of a realistic and almost documentary feel. A standout performance comes from Stivi Paskoski as Milot, the vicious Albanian pimp who keeps the women in line at the bordello house. It is Milot who gives the film most of its dramatic tension. He has frightened the more experienced girls into a docile compliance almost more frightening than Milot himself. Meanwhile Tomo keeps track of his ailing mother back home with a fixation that is keeping him from performing is hit. And Joey spars with his uncle who shares Joey's home and undermines the thief's confidence. The film has a disturbing, if fascinating, first half. But Montias lightens the tone in the second half of the film, particularly with his own character. His Joey proves that car theft is not glamorous like it appears in the movies. And the main character of each story struggles to win the approval of a family member who is not about to give it. Montias does not balance the stories evenly, not that that is really necessary. The story of Olivia really takes center stage. It is the main story and Tomo and Joey really get secondary status. It is as if Montias is really telling that story, but it was not too short a story to fill the film. While OFF JACKSON AVENUE has that uncomfortable first half, once the film gets going it is compelling, with the story of Olivia doing most of the compelling. Finally it builds to a satisfying and almost funny denouement with a cleverly intricate sequence involving all of the primary characters of the plot. I rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 7/10. OFF JACKSON AVENUE opens at the Quad Cinema in New York July 17. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From mleeper at optonline.net Fri Jun 26 16:21:58 2009 From: mleeper at optonline.net (Mark R. Leeper) Date: Fri Jun 26 16:22:01 2009 Subject: Retrospective: The Rising: Ballad of Mangal Pandey (2005) Message-ID: THE RISING: BALLAD OF MANGAL PANDEY (a film review by Mark R. Leeper) CAPSULE: This 2005 film tells the story of the roots of the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny in India done as history writ large. This colorful epic tells the story of the friendship of an East India Company soldier and his commanding officer who reluctantly find themselves on opposite sides of India's nascent conflict to throw off British rule. Mangal Pandey becomes the father of his country's independence movement ninety years before India finally became independent. This is a serious film based on true events but with just a little more singing and dancing. Rating: high +2 (-4 to +4) or 8/10 [The mutiny is also known as India's First War of Independence, the Great Rebellion, the Indian Mutiny, the Revolt of 1857, the Uprising of 1857, and the Indian Rebellion of 1857.] While staying within the conventions of Bollywood films, THE RISING: BALLAD OF MANGAL PANDEY proves to be as colorful a historical epic film as KHARTOUM and some of the adaptations of Kipling, but here the British are the villains and the Indians are the heroes. The story is told in flashback from the day that Mangal Pandey (played by Aamir Khan) is to be executed by the British army for instigating mutiny among the Indian troops. While the British East India Company fights in Afghanistan, Sepoy (or Indian soldier) Mangal Pandey saves the life of Captain William Gordon (Toby Stephens). The two become close friends. Gordon seals the friendship by giving Pandey his pistol. Ironically it is a gun that will separate them. The British are importing and arming themselves with the new Pattern 1853 Enfield rifles. Loading the rifles requires adding the gunpowder, which was provided in greased cartridges that had to be bitten to open. In a controversy that still has not been settled today the belief spreads among the Sepoys that the cartridges were greased with beef and pork fat. The Hindus lose their caste position if they taste beef, and the Muslims may not taste pork. The East India Company takes the high-handed position that soldiers must do what they are ordered to do even if using the cartridges goes against their religion. Gordon is told simply to deny the rumor and Pandey, trusting his friend, makes an example of himself by demonstrating in front of a company of Sepoys his faith in his friend. When evidence is found that the rumors about the grease prove to be true Pandey feels betrayed by the man he treated as a brother. This new outrage added to pre-existing discontent among the Sepoys fans the fires of rebellion. The production is colorful, but perhaps the color shown most often is the bright red of the British uniform. To get in some different bright color and more song opportunities we have a long sequence of a Holi spring festival. This is the festival of color highlighted by the custom of people throwing handfuls of brightly colored power at each other. (One wonders if it is historically accurate that the brightly colored powder was so available in 1857.) I suppose the sequence is a sort of semi-comical relief from the otherwise serious and straightforward plotline. Occasionally one is not really sure of director Ketan Mehta's intentions. The British policy seems absolutely negative except in one sequence in which Gordon breaks up a Suttee ceremony of widow burning, saving the life of the widow. Presumably that that action is intended to be shown in a light favorable to the British but as the one positive aspect of British rule shown, it is not clear. Because elsewhere the film is anti-British, to the point of being a polemic, this one breach is puzzling. The British East India Company is excoriated for dealing in human slavery. But later one of the slaves is in a Bollywood production number of dubious taste in which she sings "I am a slave of your charms." A utilitarian touch is notable. This film is in English and Hindi. But when there is a scene in English that is important to the plot the distinctive voice of the distinguished Indian actor Om Puri narrates explaining in Hindi what is happening. This is occasionally almost word-for-word what the dialog tells us, but it is a reminder that this film is made for a Hindi-speaking audience who may not be fluent in English. (Also, subtitles on the DVD are available in seven different languages of India as well as in English.) This is a big, spectacular film that may even be an education for American audiences. We see little historical spectacle from Hollywood these days and hopefully Bollywood will help fill the gap. I rate THE RISING: BALLAD OF MANDAL PANDEY a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale or 8/10. Film Credits: What others are saying: Mark R. Leeper mleeper@optonline.net Copyright 2009 Mark R. Leeper From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri Jun 26 16:23:17 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Jun 26 16:23:19 2009 Subject: Review: Last Lullaby (2009) Message-ID: LAST LULLABY A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** 1/2 "You decided you wanted her dead," Price (Tom Sizemore), an aging hit man, tells his new client, "that means she's already dead. She just doesn't know it yet." And a few days later, when Sarah (Sasha Alexander) hasn't been murdered yet, Price has to reassure his restless client that hiring him means the act is certain -- repeating a variation on his personal corporate motto -- "She's already dead, just hasn't had the obit yet." LAST LULLABY is brilliantly directed by Jeffrey Goodman, who was at our screening for a Q&A afterwards. He said that when he first spoke to Sizemore about the role, Sizemore said "I am Price." Whether that is right or not, his very believable acting in LAST LULLABY argues that the actor's assessment is correct. In fact, Goodman said that if someone told him that in real life Sizemore had killed someone, he'd sure believe it. In a consistently captivating performance, Sizemore plays a taciturn contract killer who thinks he has retired from the job. A beefy, middle-age guy, Price hasn't forgotten any of his skills and likes nothing better than dealing with the young bucks who try to get in his way. But it isn't only Sizemore whose acting is performed with dead-on accuracy. The entire cast works at what appears to be the top of their form. As the movie opens, we observe Price as he stumbles onto a job. Realizing that a kidnapping is in progress of a woman named Jules (Sprague Grayden from "Jericho"), he decides to help her out -- but not quite in the way you might imagine. He saves her from her second-rate kidnappers, who would probably kill her and take the ransom too. Price decides to kidnap her himself and kill her current crop of incompetent kidnappers. The director shows a real gift for figuring out how to stage dramatic and effective gun fights, of which there are several in the film, without letting the movie dissolve into a typical action thriller. More a drama than a thriller, the movie's best part is its carefully constructed sound design. The director told us that his picture was a revolt against movies today, which, while trying to reflect our society, just keep getting louder and faster. He slows the scenes down and minimizes the use of music and most background noise, so that the characters take the forefront. Calling his style "naturalistic," the director clearly wanted us to pay more attention to the nuances of the characters. It really works. There are some good twists and turns in the plot and an excellent story as well, but it is the human emotions and motivations that will stay with you long after you leave the theater. If more movies were as well designed and realized as LAST LULLABY, going to the theater would be dramatically more satisfying. New filmmakers should look at it as a paradigm on how movies should be made. LAST LULLABY runs 1:33. It is rated R for "violence and language" and would be acceptable for teenagers. The film is playing in limited release now in the United States. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at one of the Camera Cinemas from June 12 to 18, 2009. The movie was shown recently at the Camera Cinema Club (http://www.cameracinemas.com) of Campbell and San Jose and was shown as part of San Jose's Cinequest Film Festival (www.Cinequest.org), which ran February 25-March 8, 2009. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line. From steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com Fri Jun 26 16:27:03 2009 From: steve.rhodes at internetreviews.com (Steve Rhodes) Date: Fri Jun 26 16:27:05 2009 Subject: Review: My Sister's Keeper (2009) Message-ID: <0fWdnZ9RmNv_ctnXnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink.com> MY SISTER'S KEEPER A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 2009 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): ** 1/2 Faced with a clear choice between an entirely original story and one told a thousand times before, director and co-writer Nick Cassavetes takes the easy, well trodden path. MY SISTER'S KEEPER tells two stories. One is the fascinating and fairly unique tale of an eleven-year-old girl, Andromeda 'Anna' Fitzgerald (Abigail Breslin), who is suing her parents so that her body will no longer be used for spare parts for Kate (Sofia Vassilieva), Anna's long-dying sister. With plenty of potential legal intrigue, this part of the narrative plays a background role, more of a hook to sell the movie in the trailers than a central premise. In this portion of the narrative, Alec Baldwin does a superb job playing Campbell Alexander, a shyster who advertizes his law office in all the media, bragging of his 91% success rate. He's a lovable guy, who is filmed in a handsome glow. With a service dog named "Judge," who goes with him everywhere, you can probably guess how one of the film's most effective jokes comes about. But MY SISTER'S KEEPER isn't Anna's story. It's Kate's, whose life we see in a long series of sappy montages (Kate at the beach, Kate on her first date, etc.), some of which, no how manipulative they are, still manage to work. The setup for the plot has Kate's parents, played by a reserved Jason Patric and an over-the-top Cameron Diaz, creating a girl in a test tube (Anna) for the express purpose of being able to keep leukemia patient Kate alive longer. When we join the story in progress, Anna is said to have become fed up with supplying her body as a medical parts growing ground for cures for Kate. Since Anna loves Kate dearly, this explanation appears flaky from the get-go. Something else is clearly going on, other than Anna wanting to declare her body off-limits to her parents. This is all such a shame, since in this tale of medical rebellion lurks an intriguing premise of a truly original motion picture. Instead we get lots of maudlin moments, interrupted briefly by courtroom drama or small funny bits. Working against the movie, which is, at its heart, a small movie, is the casting. Way too many high profile actors show up in major and minor parts. In addition to Diaz and Baldwin, Joan Cusack plays the judge, a woman with her own heart-rending back story, and Emily Deschanel ("Bones") has a cameo as a cancer doctor. Even Deschanel's mother, who looks like Emily, gets to have her own cameo. It's all very distracting. With a cast of more unknowns and with a focus on the legal drama, MY SISTER'S KEEPER could have been a mesmerizing examination of a subject rarely dealt with. Instead, MY SISTER'S KEEPER plays like the thousandth version of a TV movie of a week about a tragically dying person. MY SISTER'S KEEPER runs a long 1:49. It is rated PG-13 for "mature thematic content, some disturbing images, sensuality, language and brief teen drinking" and would be acceptable for kids around 12 and up. The film opens nationwide in the United States on Friday, June 26, 2009. In the Silicon Valley, it will be showing at the AMC theaters, the Cinemark theaters and the Camera Cinemas. Web: http://www.InternetReviews.com Email: Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com *********************************************************************** Want reviews of new films via Email? Just write Steve.Rhodes@InternetReviews.com and put "subscribe" in the subject line.