Welcome to a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
Red – Opening October 15, 2010
This trailer, which I saw before an ill-advised Sunday morning showing of “The Other Guys,” seems like the kind of movie that no one would think to make but pretty much everyone would enjoy. Uniting a cast of older actors with stalled careers (John Malkovich and Bruce Willis) and thriving ones (Helen Mirren and Morgan Freeman) as well as a handful of fun supporting stars of all ages, including Mary-Louise Parker, Julian McMahon, Brian Cox, James Remar, Richard Dreyfuss, and Ernest Borgnine, is a brilliantly hilarious way of creating an ensemble for a film whose title stands for “Retired, Extremely Dangerous.” The title might seem like a punch line all by itself, but it’s a funny one, and by the looks of this trailer, it should be a real hoot as a whole movie. The fact that it comes from DC Entertainment means that it should have a fun comic book spin to it, and plenty of action scenes to delight all viewers (like a classier version of the already quite good “The Losers”). Unfortunately, it’s only rated PG-13, but hopefully that means more of an emphasis on comedy than overly grotesque action. I especially like the use of John Malkovich and Mary-Louise Parker in this trailer. Bruce Willis has played this kind of role before, and having this cast behind him should help his up his game a bit. I’m continually flabbergasted by the fact that this film is actually being made, and I doubt I’m alone in saying that I’m excited for it. Your thoughts?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday Movie You Aught to See: The Butterfly Effect
Regardless of whether the decade ended already ended in 2009 or will end at the close of the current year, the 2000s were a wonderful period of cinema with many treasures that deserve to be remembered. Check in at Movies with Abe on Mondays for Movies You Aught to See, a look back at memorable movies from the aughts. They are posted in no particular order, and if you have a great film from the 2000s that you think merits consideration, leave a note in the comments!
The Butterfly Effect
Directed by Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber
Released January 23, 2004
This isn’t a movie that you’ll find on too many critics’ lists. This dark tale of a man who realizes he can change his past by reading his journals and flashing back to blackouts from his childhood is much better than most will tell you. Ashton Kutcher’s performance is nowhere as bad as others will have you believe, and Amy Smart is pretty terrific in her many iterations of Kutcher’s long-lost love. What’s truly fascinating, however, is the way this movie is put together, creating alternate realities as often as Kutcher’s Evan can concoct them by going back to try and help someone. It contains some of the most messed-up kids you’ll see on film, but also one of the most intriguing looks at time travel and its consequences. It’s certainly worth giving a fair shot.
The Butterfly Effect
Directed by Eric Bress & J. Mackye Gruber
Released January 23, 2004
This isn’t a movie that you’ll find on too many critics’ lists. This dark tale of a man who realizes he can change his past by reading his journals and flashing back to blackouts from his childhood is much better than most will tell you. Ashton Kutcher’s performance is nowhere as bad as others will have you believe, and Amy Smart is pretty terrific in her many iterations of Kutcher’s long-lost love. What’s truly fascinating, however, is the way this movie is put together, creating alternate realities as often as Kutcher’s Evan can concoct them by going back to try and help someone. It contains some of the most messed-up kids you’ll see on film, but also one of the most intriguing looks at time travel and its consequences. It’s certainly worth giving a fair shot.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Movie with Abe: Highwater
Highwater
Directed by Dana Brown
Released August 27, 2010
There’s a momentous culture built around surfing and the annual Triple Crown competition in Oahu. For those without the desire to stand on the beach and watch the contest or without the means to travel to Hawaii, “Highwater” provides an introduction to this world that has deep ties with honor, kinship, and Hawaiian culture. The film begins by wading in slowly to the story, and carefully and tactfully immerses viewers in this unparalleled experience of riding waves and living a lifestyle. It’s the kind of entry that only gradually becomes apparent, and by the end of the film it’s possible to comprehend (at least somewhat) and feel the excitement of this cool craft.
Director Dana Brown, who previously made another surfing film, “Step into Liquid,” composes “Highwater” in an oddly semi-linear way. The chronology of the competition is roughly followed, but each new event presents the opportunity for a new tangent, to profile an underdog competitor or mourn the tragic loss of a surfer in the midst of doing what he loved. It’s a somewhat dizzying experience because it feels like there’s so much to learn (and to remember). The cast of characters is enormously large, and many of the surfers are still nameless faces by the end of the film. Yet Brown has chosen to tackle a difficult and broad subject, and he pares down his findings admirably in a way that showcases what he finds to be the most worthwhile and compelling elements of the competition and the culture. It makes the experience more accessible, because it feels like the audience is being guided not by a professional but rather by an enthusiast parsing out the most significant and comprehensible details.
Those with an aversion to surfing shouldn’t fear too much when it comes to this film, since elongated shots of the athletes performing and perfecting their craft are recurring but infrequent. It’s the personalities of the surfers and their particular styles that interest Brown, and therefore serve as the attracting force for his audience. Even if the film doesn’t flood me with an overwhelming desire or drive to book a plane ticket to Hawaii to catch this event, it does help to provide a newly developed appreciation for this quasi-sport, quasi-art form, and that’s something I wasn’t expecting when I sat down to watch it. Movies that surprise you in any way deserve some commendation, and I’d consider this a pretty decent documentary.
B+
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Movie with Abe: I Am Love (Capsule Review)
I Am Love
Directed by Luca Guadagnino
Released June 18, 2010
This film came out in New York City way back in June, and I managed to catch it still playing at the AMC Loews 72nd St (my first time at that theatre) three weeks ago. It continues to play at that theatre this weekend, so if you’re in the mood for a nice work of art, check it out. In lieu of a proper review due mostly to time constraints and lack of concrete memory of the film, I’d like to instead present the trailer above and cite a few positive elements. “Io Sono L’Amore” is a masterful Italian film that features a coherent plot wrapped up delicately in a gorgeous story of love, food, and family. It’s the definition of an art film, but one that finds itself commendably grounded in reality. It features beautiful scenery, colors that pop, food that inspires, and most importantly, a magnificent performance from the incomparable Tilda Swinton, just as stunning in Italian as she is in English. If you’ve had the opportunity to see this film, please share your thoughts in the comments. If not, watch the trailer and sample just a taste of what “I Am Love” has to offer.
B+
*I neglected to include any mention of the film's beautiful score when I first wrote this review. As a result, please accept as a testament to its greatness a link to this montage (found on YouTube) set to the movie's soundtrack.
Directed by Luca Guadagnino
Released June 18, 2010
This film came out in New York City way back in June, and I managed to catch it still playing at the AMC Loews 72nd St (my first time at that theatre) three weeks ago. It continues to play at that theatre this weekend, so if you’re in the mood for a nice work of art, check it out. In lieu of a proper review due mostly to time constraints and lack of concrete memory of the film, I’d like to instead present the trailer above and cite a few positive elements. “Io Sono L’Amore” is a masterful Italian film that features a coherent plot wrapped up delicately in a gorgeous story of love, food, and family. It’s the definition of an art film, but one that finds itself commendably grounded in reality. It features beautiful scenery, colors that pop, food that inspires, and most importantly, a magnificent performance from the incomparable Tilda Swinton, just as stunning in Italian as she is in English. If you’ve had the opportunity to see this film, please share your thoughts in the comments. If not, watch the trailer and sample just a taste of what “I Am Love” has to offer.
B+
*I neglected to include any mention of the film's beautiful score when I first wrote this review. As a result, please accept as a testament to its greatness a link to this montage (found on YouTube) set to the movie's soundtrack.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Movie with Abe: Centurion
Centurion
Directed by Neil Marshall
Released August 27, 2010
If you’ve seen one of the posters for “Centurion” and wondered if the clever comic book imagery meant that this was an extremely sleek, stylish, animated adventure that might break cinematic ground, think again. This brainless action blockbuster is as trite as they come, attempting to mimic “Gladiator” or the recent “Robin Hood” reboot (basically any Russell Crowe film not set in the present day) and failing miserably. And it’s not as if Michael Fassbender, who turned in masterful performances in “Inglourious Basterds” and “Fish Tank,” is no Russell Crowe. This is a film that flunks purely on its failure to offer anything in the way of either logic or intrigue.
This movie makes a mess of itself only moments after it gets started. After an admittedly energetic and exciting opening sequence, protagonist and centurion Quintus Dias, played by Fassbender, is seen running through a wintery field from his captors. His jagged and uneven escape route is very much indicative of the inanity and senselessness of the film. There’s also an unexplained obsession with gratuitous, entirely unnecessary violence. No body part is spared when it comes to gouging and horrendous, overdone displays of blood and gore are ever-present. What did people do in the olden days? From this film, it appears all they did was thought of gruesome ways of killing each other.
This is the kind of movie that has been made over and over so many times that it seems as if there’s nothing left to tell and nothing left to be discovered. This film follows the “300” model of thin plotting swapped out in favor of a meaningless excess of violence. It’s not merely the same poor interpretation of and representation of history, but also the same style of filmmaking, where stories and characters’ names pale in importance when compared with folklore and legend. A particularly pathetic villain in “Centurion” is Etain, whose horrific dye job is just as frightening as her ability to track the hapless centurions on the run from who knows what. A visit to a local witch is the obvious way to postpone inevitable conflict with this huntress, and therefore the centurions give in to their wildest imaginations in order to attempt to defeat their foes. If this explanation seems like it lacks clarity, that’s because the film is entirely devoid of intelligence. The plot in a nutshell is remarkably and even shockingly simplistic, yet 97 minutes of screen time are wasted trying to tell and make it as violent as (in)humanly possible.
F
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thursday Theatre Review: AMC Loews Village 7
Weekly to a new feature here at Movies with Abe, Thursday Theatre Review. As a resident of one of the world’s foremost movie capitals, I’ve been to a number of movie theatres in New York City and have developed preferences. There’s no perfect theatre, but there are a few things that can make or break a movie-going experience. In no particular order, this is a guide to movie theatres in Manhattan.
AMC Loews Village 7
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 3rd Avenue in between 11th St and 12th St, it’s a good spot on the east side downtown, not too far from Union Square. There’s a Chinese restaurant on the same block, Ben & Jerry’s nearby, and a whole bunch of stores, delis, and supermarkets. If you’re an NYU student, it’s especially convenient given one of the dorms is directly across the street.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Usually pretty good. There are often independent offerings, and also different smaller film festivals sometimes play there (Tribeca also has a lot of their screenings at this theatre). The negative is that, if a movie is playing at the Regal Union Square, it won’t be playing at this AMC. Currently showing: “Dinner for Schmucks,” “Eat Pray Love,” “The Kids are All Right,” “Lottery Ticket,” and “Salt.”
Drawbacks: The $6 before noon feature isn’t so helpful because this theatre often doesn’t have any showtimes before noon on weekends!
Bonus features: The theatre is set up so that there are between one and two auditoriums on each floor with bathrooms on the floors in between. It’s a cool design from top to bottom rather than all laid out on one floor. Additionally, this theatre houses many advance screenings (you’ll see a line forming all the way back down 12th St towards 4th Ave sometimes).
Worth the trip? If you’re in the area. It’s not overly accessible to most of Manhattan and doesn’t always have the best selection of films. If you’re an NYU student, you should plan to go frequently since it’s just so convenient.
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 3rd Avenue in between 11th St and 12th St, it’s a good spot on the east side downtown, not too far from Union Square. There’s a Chinese restaurant on the same block, Ben & Jerry’s nearby, and a whole bunch of stores, delis, and supermarkets. If you’re an NYU student, it’s especially convenient given one of the dorms is directly across the street.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Usually pretty good. There are often independent offerings, and also different smaller film festivals sometimes play there (Tribeca also has a lot of their screenings at this theatre). The negative is that, if a movie is playing at the Regal Union Square, it won’t be playing at this AMC. Currently showing: “Dinner for Schmucks,” “Eat Pray Love,” “The Kids are All Right,” “Lottery Ticket,” and “Salt.”
Drawbacks: The $6 before noon feature isn’t so helpful because this theatre often doesn’t have any showtimes before noon on weekends!
Bonus features: The theatre is set up so that there are between one and two auditoriums on each floor with bathrooms on the floors in between. It’s a cool design from top to bottom rather than all laid out on one floor. Additionally, this theatre houses many advance screenings (you’ll see a line forming all the way back down 12th St towards 4th Ave sometimes).
Worth the trip? If you’re in the area. It’s not overly accessible to most of Manhattan and doesn’t always have the best selection of films. If you’re an NYU student, you should plan to go frequently since it’s just so convenient.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wednesday Oscar Retrospective: The Deadlocked Duel of 2004
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Wednesday Oscar Retrospective. The Deadlocked Duel is the fourth in a series of projects looking back at the past eight years of the Oscars, dating back to the first ceremony I watched and closely followed.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
The Deadlocked Duel of 2004:
“The Aviator” vs. “Million Dollar Baby” for Best Picture & Best Director
The background: Marty vs. Clint. Martin Scorsese had never won an Oscar despite being nominated for “Raging Bull,” “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Goodfellas,” and “Gangs of New York.” Clint Eastwood had won on his first try for 1992’s “Unforgiven” and earned a subsequent nomination in 2003 for “Mystic River.” Marty’s big budget epic was a historical chronicle about Howard Hughes, while Clint’s film was an intimate film about a boxer and her trainers.
Why it was just the two of them: It almost wasn’t. I actually predicted “Sideways” to win as the result of a vote split. Its Golden Globe win for Best Motion Picture – Comedy/Musical and SAG triumph had me thinking it could pull off the ultimate upset, but it had to settle for the Best Adapted Screenplay prize. “Finding Neverland” wasn’t take terribly seriously, while “Ray” was all about star Jamie Foxx’s performance which was a lock to win him the Best Actor Oscar.
Setting the stage: “The Aviator” was considered a contender for the Oscars pretty much as soon as anyone dared to make early guesses in the first months of 2004. “Million Dollar Baby,” on the other hand, came out of nowhere in November and suddenly emerged as a major threat. The Golden Globes awarded “The Aviator” Best Picture and gave Best Director to Clint, with the lead acting trophies going to one star from each film – Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Actor and Hilary Swank for Best Actress. “Million Dollar Baby” went on to win both the DGA and PGA.
Oscar night: “The Aviator” dominated with eleven nominations, while “Million Dollar Baby” picked up a still-impressive seven, including a surprise nod for lead actor Clint Eastwood. While “The Aviator” took a bunch of technical awards, for cinematography, art direction, costume design, and editing, as well as Best Supporting Actress for Cate Blanchett, that was it. “Million Dollar Baby” won two acting prizes and picked up both Best Director and Best Picture.
Consolation prize for the loser: Even though it didn’t win the top award, it still stands as the most-rewarded film of 2004, with five wins in total.
Other notable duels: Annette Bening (Being Julia) vs. Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2003. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. 2003 stands as the most predictable ceremony in recent Oscar history, so I’m all ears in terms of ideas.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
“The Aviator” vs. “Million Dollar Baby” for Best Picture & Best DirectorThe background: Marty vs. Clint. Martin Scorsese had never won an Oscar despite being nominated for “Raging Bull,” “The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Goodfellas,” and “Gangs of New York.” Clint Eastwood had won on his first try for 1992’s “Unforgiven” and earned a subsequent nomination in 2003 for “Mystic River.” Marty’s big budget epic was a historical chronicle about Howard Hughes, while Clint’s film was an intimate film about a boxer and her trainers.
Why it was just the two of them: It almost wasn’t. I actually predicted “Sideways” to win as the result of a vote split. Its Golden Globe win for Best Motion Picture – Comedy/Musical and SAG triumph had me thinking it could pull off the ultimate upset, but it had to settle for the Best Adapted Screenplay prize. “Finding Neverland” wasn’t take terribly seriously, while “Ray” was all about star Jamie Foxx’s performance which was a lock to win him the Best Actor Oscar.
Setting the stage: “The Aviator” was considered a contender for the Oscars pretty much as soon as anyone dared to make early guesses in the first months of 2004. “Million Dollar Baby,” on the other hand, came out of nowhere in November and suddenly emerged as a major threat. The Golden Globes awarded “The Aviator” Best Picture and gave Best Director to Clint, with the lead acting trophies going to one star from each film – Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Actor and Hilary Swank for Best Actress. “Million Dollar Baby” went on to win both the DGA and PGA.
Oscar night: “The Aviator” dominated with eleven nominations, while “Million Dollar Baby” picked up a still-impressive seven, including a surprise nod for lead actor Clint Eastwood. While “The Aviator” took a bunch of technical awards, for cinematography, art direction, costume design, and editing, as well as Best Supporting Actress for Cate Blanchett, that was it. “Million Dollar Baby” won two acting prizes and picked up both Best Director and Best Picture.
Consolation prize for the loser: Even though it didn’t win the top award, it still stands as the most-rewarded film of 2004, with five wins in total.
Other notable duels: Annette Bening (Being Julia) vs. Hilary Swank (Million Dollar Baby)
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2003. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. 2003 stands as the most predictable ceremony in recent Oscar history, so I’m all ears in terms of ideas.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: Skyline
Welcome to a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
Skyline – Opening November 12, 2010
What can I say? I’m a sucker for sci-fi. This trailer is the definition of a teaser where almost nothing is actually revealed. Most recently, an alien race invaded cities all around the world on ABC’s television reboot of “V.” This arrival, however, reminds me much more of the unforgettable darkening of the skies and explosive eruption of the alien ships in “Independence Day,” a fantastic film I remember very fondly. I do worry that this threatening invasion could be something terrifying like the trailer for “The Fourth Kind” indicated. The image of those blue lights shooting down from the sky interspersed with televised warnings about how scientific studies have discouraged humans from attempting to make contact with alien life is extremely effective. That final shot of the humans being sucked up into the ship like in the vacuum of a tornado is particularly frightening and reminds me a lot of “War of the Worlds.” The tagline “Don’t Look Up” is particularly awesome, and as long as this isn’t a deathly scary horror movie, count me in. You wouldn’t know it from this teaser, but there are actually actors in this movie, mostly amassed from television: Eric Balfour (many cancelled shows and the still-on “Haven”), Donald Faison (“Scrubs”), and David Zayas (Batista on “Dexter”). While it's not quite as exciting, this trailer seems most to me like the original one that surfaced for the then-untitled "Cloverfield." This looks like a wild ride, and I plan to be first in line.
Skyline – Opening November 12, 2010
What can I say? I’m a sucker for sci-fi. This trailer is the definition of a teaser where almost nothing is actually revealed. Most recently, an alien race invaded cities all around the world on ABC’s television reboot of “V.” This arrival, however, reminds me much more of the unforgettable darkening of the skies and explosive eruption of the alien ships in “Independence Day,” a fantastic film I remember very fondly. I do worry that this threatening invasion could be something terrifying like the trailer for “The Fourth Kind” indicated. The image of those blue lights shooting down from the sky interspersed with televised warnings about how scientific studies have discouraged humans from attempting to make contact with alien life is extremely effective. That final shot of the humans being sucked up into the ship like in the vacuum of a tornado is particularly frightening and reminds me a lot of “War of the Worlds.” The tagline “Don’t Look Up” is particularly awesome, and as long as this isn’t a deathly scary horror movie, count me in. You wouldn’t know it from this teaser, but there are actually actors in this movie, mostly amassed from television: Eric Balfour (many cancelled shows and the still-on “Haven”), Donald Faison (“Scrubs”), and David Zayas (Batista on “Dexter”). While it's not quite as exciting, this trailer seems most to me like the original one that surfaced for the then-untitled "Cloverfield." This looks like a wild ride, and I plan to be first in line.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Monday Movie You Aught to See: The Fountain
Regardless of whether the decade ended already ended in 2009 or will end at the close of the current year, the 2000s were a wonderful period of cinema with many treasures that deserve to be remembered. Check in at Movies with Abe on Mondays for Movies You Aught to See, a look back at memorable movies from the aughts. They are posted in no particular order, and if you have a great film from the 2000s that you think merits consideration, leave a note in the comments!
The Fountain
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Released November 22, 1506/2006/2506
This movie is just as much of a head trip as the trailer above, which I consider to be one of the best trailers I have ever seen, suggests. It’s impossible to explain, but this time-jumping love story is simply astonishing and magnificent in almost every way. Even if you don’t understand it (I’m not sure anyone does), it’s visually incredible and boasts amazing cinematography and special effects. Clint Mansell’s beautiful, haunting score resonates throughout the entire film. It also boasts an astonishing final ten minutes that’s dazzling to look and listen to no matter how many times you’ve seen it. It’s indisputably hard to comprehend but certainly not to be missed.
The Fountain
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Released November 22, 1506/2006/2506
This movie is just as much of a head trip as the trailer above, which I consider to be one of the best trailers I have ever seen, suggests. It’s impossible to explain, but this time-jumping love story is simply astonishing and magnificent in almost every way. Even if you don’t understand it (I’m not sure anyone does), it’s visually incredible and boasts amazing cinematography and special effects. Clint Mansell’s beautiful, haunting score resonates throughout the entire film. It also boasts an astonishing final ten minutes that’s dazzling to look and listen to no matter how many times you’ve seen it. It’s indisputably hard to comprehend but certainly not to be missed.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Movie with Abe: Soul Kitchen
Soul Kitchen
Directed by Fatih Akin
Released August 20, 2010
With a title like “Soul Kitchen,” it’s hard to know exactly what to expect. It turns out that it’s the German-made story of a restaurant owner who struggles to find the right flavor and financial plan for his establishment. He serves low-rent food and has a steady customer base that just can’t balance out the bills he has to pay for the large property located in a relatively abandoned area. His troublesome, partially-paroled brother, a new chef with a flair for throwing knives and kicking out customers, and an old classmate dead set on purchasing and razing the restaurant only add to his problems as he tries to keep his restaurant and his life afloat.
If nothing else, “Soul Kitchen” is a peculiar comedy that places strong emphasis on characters. The German-Greek restaurant owner, Zinos, played by Adam Bousdoukos (best described as a cross between Michael Imperioli and Eric Bana) is perceived as unreliable by his girlfriend, Nadine, and can never seem to get his act together long enough to make something last, like following Nadine to China when she moves them for a journalism job. Zinos’ brother Ilias shows up looking for an excuse to justify getting let out of prison every night but proclaims a desire to do no work. Some of Zinos’ workers use the restaurant as a practice room for their band. The most entertaining of the bunch is Shayn, Soul Kitchen’s new chef who takes Zinos’ frozen ingredients and repurposes them to look fancy and expensive. The cast is littered with other fun characters who help to complicate and enliven Zinos’ life. It’s an endearing ragtag bunch mildly reminiscent of the gang from “Micmacs.”
Despite its title, “Soul Kitchen” isn’t so much of a food movie at its start. It quickly becomes clear that Zinos doesn’t know much about good cooking, and he simply prepares easy dishes that he knows his customers love. When Shayn arrives and takes over his kitchen, the knife-wielder is horrified, dismayed, and embarrassed by Zinos’ performance in the kitchen. As the film progresses, however, Zinos gets the chance to grow and it becomes obvious that he takes more of a delight in his craft and feels more connected to the art of cooking. While it doesn’t have the upbeat mannerisms of a classic food movie like “Big Night,” this is still an extremely unique, enjoyable and bizarre treat.
B+
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Movie with Abe: Lebanon
Lebanon
Directed by Samuel Maoz
Released August 6, 2010
It’s never easy to put war on screen. There’s always a risk of getting it wrong, over-sentimentalizing the situation, or just not doing the soldiers and the conflict justice. Recent war movies from the United States like “The Dry Land” and “The Hurt Locker” have spotlighted the difficult journey home that soldiers make. Recent Israeli movies have chronicled a more current mission in Lebanon in “Beaufort” and an animated look back at the first Lebanon war in 1982 in the excellent “Waltz with Bashir.” Now, the first feature film from director Samuel Maoz takes place entirely inside a tank as a group of young soldiers makes its way into Lebanon in 1982.
The confines of the tank make for a very claustrophobic, powerful experience where escape from the reality of the situation is impossible. That setup is particularly effective not only at underlining the gravity and uncertainty of war but also of showing just how young these soldiers are. The commander in the tank gets no respect from a fellow soldier who insists on subverting his orders because he refuses to acknowledge him as a superior. A higher-ranking officer enters the tank sporadically to check in and bark orders at the clueless and scared young soldiers who have no idea what’s coming next.
“Lebanon” does a magnificent job of capturing the spirit and energy of these four soldiers marooned inside a tank. Frequent shots of one soldier’s eye opening wide as he looks frantically through the lens of his target are enormously effective at capturing the uncertainty of the situation, and green-coated pictures of the outside world with a bull’s-eye marking the center offer a confusing picture of events on the outside, hopelessly out of the control of the soldiers on the inside.
Most mesmerizing of all is the male camaraderie and manner of conduct that goes on within the confines of the tank. After a particularly harrowing moment, one soldier recalls a juvenile experience with a female teacher that serves as a fleeting but momentous distraction for both the soldiers and audiences of the film. Like all war movies, the imagery is graphic and disturbing, and much of it is difficult to stomach. Yet ultimately it’s a rewarding experience that digs deep into the souls of these soldiers through their interactions with each other, their commander, a Christian Arab ally, a Syrian prisoner, and the faceless enemy seen shooting at their tank. “Lebanon” is a thoughtful, contemplative war movie that wisely chooses to spotlight its soldiers rather than the greater conflict, creating what should be a universally relatable narrative.
B+
Friday, August 20, 2010
Movie with Abe: Mao’s Last Dancer
Mao’s Last Dancer
Directed by Bruce Beresford
Released August 20, 2010
Biographical films are an extensive undertaking. Much research is required to accurately reflect the history, sensibility, and mannerisms of the character(s) in question, and preservation of the facts, while ultimately up to the creative urges of the writer and director, is an important consideration no matter what decisions are eventually made. When the story being told requires precise skills, the process becomes even more laborious and intensive. To make a film about a state-trained Chinese dancer whose brief time in the United States compelled him to reconsider his loyalties, the theatricality and the dancing were just as crucial to its success as the plot.
Amanda Schull and Chi Cao star in the film
In their conversations about the film, director Bruce Beresford and star Chi Cao discussed the challenges and decisions they faced working on the film. Beresford, whose previous works include the Oscar-winning 1980s films “Tender Mercies” and “Driving Miss Daisy,” stressed the importance of needing a real dancer rather than a real actor to play the part of Li Cunxin since teaching an actor to do ballet would be impossible because true ballerinas have been training for almost their whole lives. Cao had never acted before, and notes that, as a dancer, he is good at taking directions, which helps considerably when working with a director. He was thrown off, however, by the occasional improvisation by other actors that didn’t work in harmony with his strict line-by-line memorization of the script. Both Beresford and Cao add that the real Li, now 49 years old, was very helpful with filling in the blanks of the story missing from his 2003 autobiography.
Director Bruce Beresford and star Chi Cao discuss the film
Cao is hardly alone in the cast without able thespian support. Veteran actors Bruce Greenwood, Kyle MacLachlan, and Joan Chen play supporting roles and, according to Cao, provided enormous guidance and inspiration. Even though his role as Li’s immigration lawyer involved no dancing (and hasn’t compelled him to attend the ballet with any greater frequency), MacLachlan emphasizes the helpfulness of sitting down with and meeting the man he plays, Charles Foster. He describes needing to capture his energy and his manner of speaking, which includes a heavy Texas accent that requires a specific elongation of the word “because.”
Actor Kyle MacLachlan discusses the film
“Mao’s Last Dancer” is a very authentic film that seeks to paint a picture of China, Texas, and the ballet in the late 1970s. Beyond accents and magnificent dancing, the film is a portrait of one person who was forced to deal with being the center of attention wherever he went due to his extraordinary abilities. MacLachlan says that the film really captures Li, whom he describes as a “man of great discipline who elegantly accomplishes things when he puts his mind to them.” The film is certainly comprehensive, and while it does seem to go on for quite a long time, it’s ultimately a rewarding and heavily moving experience.
B+
Directed by Bruce Beresford
Released August 20, 2010
Biographical films are an extensive undertaking. Much research is required to accurately reflect the history, sensibility, and mannerisms of the character(s) in question, and preservation of the facts, while ultimately up to the creative urges of the writer and director, is an important consideration no matter what decisions are eventually made. When the story being told requires precise skills, the process becomes even more laborious and intensive. To make a film about a state-trained Chinese dancer whose brief time in the United States compelled him to reconsider his loyalties, the theatricality and the dancing were just as crucial to its success as the plot.
In their conversations about the film, director Bruce Beresford and star Chi Cao discussed the challenges and decisions they faced working on the film. Beresford, whose previous works include the Oscar-winning 1980s films “Tender Mercies” and “Driving Miss Daisy,” stressed the importance of needing a real dancer rather than a real actor to play the part of Li Cunxin since teaching an actor to do ballet would be impossible because true ballerinas have been training for almost their whole lives. Cao had never acted before, and notes that, as a dancer, he is good at taking directions, which helps considerably when working with a director. He was thrown off, however, by the occasional improvisation by other actors that didn’t work in harmony with his strict line-by-line memorization of the script. Both Beresford and Cao add that the real Li, now 49 years old, was very helpful with filling in the blanks of the story missing from his 2003 autobiography.
Cao is hardly alone in the cast without able thespian support. Veteran actors Bruce Greenwood, Kyle MacLachlan, and Joan Chen play supporting roles and, according to Cao, provided enormous guidance and inspiration. Even though his role as Li’s immigration lawyer involved no dancing (and hasn’t compelled him to attend the ballet with any greater frequency), MacLachlan emphasizes the helpfulness of sitting down with and meeting the man he plays, Charles Foster. He describes needing to capture his energy and his manner of speaking, which includes a heavy Texas accent that requires a specific elongation of the word “because.”
“Mao’s Last Dancer” is a very authentic film that seeks to paint a picture of China, Texas, and the ballet in the late 1970s. Beyond accents and magnificent dancing, the film is a portrait of one person who was forced to deal with being the center of attention wherever he went due to his extraordinary abilities. MacLachlan says that the film really captures Li, whom he describes as a “man of great discipline who elegantly accomplishes things when he puts his mind to them.” The film is certainly comprehensive, and while it does seem to go on for quite a long time, it’s ultimately a rewarding and heavily moving experience.
B+
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday Theatre Review: AMC Loews Kips Bay 15
Weekly to a new feature here at Movies with Abe, Thursday Theatre Review. As a resident of one of the world’s foremost movie capitals, I’ve been to a number of movie theatres in New York City and have developed preferences. There’s no perfect theatre, but there are a few things that can make or break a movie-going experience. In no particular order, this is a guide to movie theatres in Manhattan.
AMC Loews Kips Bay 15
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 2nd Ave and 31st, it’s not the most accessible of locations, but it does offer something that others don’t: while Midtown West is littered with theatres, the East Side isn’t so lucky, and this theatre is the best and biggest you’re going to find. Though it may be a ten-minute walk from the Lexington Avenue subway, it’s not a bad area, and there are plenty of restaurants and shops nearby.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Great. I’ve done more than a few double and triple features here, including “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and “Zack and Miri Make a Porno.” There’s usually one or two fun independent choices in addition to a good number of mainstream films.
Drawbacks: Location isn’t great if you’re coming from across town, as mentioned above, but that’s pretty much it.
Bonus features: IMAX, though I don’t think I’ve seen anything there. Showtimes at this theatre also happen to be very convenient – after I used to go to 34th St, I started going to this theatre every Friday to maximize my potential for triple-features since their showtimes were most accommodating to such endeavors. It’s also just a nicely-designed and pleasant movie house.
Worth the trip? If you’re in the area. East Side residents should definitely go here, and otherwise it will have to depend on where you’re coming from and what movie you wanted to see. Usually it’s a more than worthwhile trip. Reader JB will even tell you that it's his favorite theatre in the city.
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 2nd Ave and 31st, it’s not the most accessible of locations, but it does offer something that others don’t: while Midtown West is littered with theatres, the East Side isn’t so lucky, and this theatre is the best and biggest you’re going to find. Though it may be a ten-minute walk from the Lexington Avenue subway, it’s not a bad area, and there are plenty of restaurants and shops nearby.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Great. I’ve done more than a few double and triple features here, including “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” and “Zack and Miri Make a Porno.” There’s usually one or two fun independent choices in addition to a good number of mainstream films.
Drawbacks: Location isn’t great if you’re coming from across town, as mentioned above, but that’s pretty much it.
Bonus features: IMAX, though I don’t think I’ve seen anything there. Showtimes at this theatre also happen to be very convenient – after I used to go to 34th St, I started going to this theatre every Friday to maximize my potential for triple-features since their showtimes were most accommodating to such endeavors. It’s also just a nicely-designed and pleasant movie house.
Worth the trip? If you’re in the area. East Side residents should definitely go here, and otherwise it will have to depend on where you’re coming from and what movie you wanted to see. Usually it’s a more than worthwhile trip. Reader JB will even tell you that it's his favorite theatre in the city.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday Oscar Retrospective: The Deadlocked Duel of 2005
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Wednesday Oscar Retrospective. The Deadlocked Duel is the fourth in a series of projects looking back at the past eight years of the Oscars, dating back to the first ceremony I watched and closely followed.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
The Deadlocked Duel of 2005:
George Clooney (Syriana) vs. Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man) for Best Supporting Actor
The background: Two overdue actors vying for one prize. Clooney was getting serious (growing a beard and everything) and Giamatti was finally getting lead parts. Giamatti had been snubbed two years running for his critically-praised breakout role in “American Splendor” and then his Golden Globe- and SAG-nominated performance in “Sideways.” Clooney had earned a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Comedy/Musical for “O Brother Where Art Thou,” but otherwise had just earned TV nods for “ER.”
Why it was just the two of them: Buzz for all three of the other nominees didn’t pick up until late in the race. Matt Dillon scored a Golden Globe nod but his film “Crash” didn’t peak until well after that. Jake Gyllenhaal started with a SAG nod, but all the attention for his film was elsewhere. And William Hurt was a surprise nominee at the Oscars for a film few people saw, so his chances were slim at best.
Setting the stage: Originally Clooney was campaigned as a lead before dropping down to supporting. Giamatti was accompanied at the Golden Globes and SAG Awards by costar Russell Crowe in the lead category, giving him an extra boost. Clooney took the Golden Globe and Giamatti took the SAG. Giamatti picked up a few critics’ awards as well. Neither film racked up many nominations aside from these two performers.
Oscar night: As Clooney himself pointed out right away when he won, it was a consolation prize for not winning Best Director. Clooney was also nominated for helming Best Picture nominee “Good Night, and Good Luck,” which went home empty-handed. “Syriana” lost its bid for Best Original Screenplay after it had originally been campaigned as an adaptation. “Cinderella Man” scored surprising nods for makeup and editing but lost in all three of its nominated categories.
Consolation prize for the loser: Many follow-up roles, including lead parts in films like “Lady in the Water” and “Cold Souls,” and a boatload of awards (Emmy, Golden Globe, and SAG) for the TV miniseries “John Adams.”
Other notable duels: None. The big surprise that year was “Crash” for Best Picture, but that was an huge upset rather than a duel.
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2004. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
George Clooney (Syriana) vs. Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man) for Best Supporting ActorThe background: Two overdue actors vying for one prize. Clooney was getting serious (growing a beard and everything) and Giamatti was finally getting lead parts. Giamatti had been snubbed two years running for his critically-praised breakout role in “American Splendor” and then his Golden Globe- and SAG-nominated performance in “Sideways.” Clooney had earned a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Motion Picture – Comedy/Musical for “O Brother Where Art Thou,” but otherwise had just earned TV nods for “ER.”
Why it was just the two of them: Buzz for all three of the other nominees didn’t pick up until late in the race. Matt Dillon scored a Golden Globe nod but his film “Crash” didn’t peak until well after that. Jake Gyllenhaal started with a SAG nod, but all the attention for his film was elsewhere. And William Hurt was a surprise nominee at the Oscars for a film few people saw, so his chances were slim at best.
Setting the stage: Originally Clooney was campaigned as a lead before dropping down to supporting. Giamatti was accompanied at the Golden Globes and SAG Awards by costar Russell Crowe in the lead category, giving him an extra boost. Clooney took the Golden Globe and Giamatti took the SAG. Giamatti picked up a few critics’ awards as well. Neither film racked up many nominations aside from these two performers.
Oscar night: As Clooney himself pointed out right away when he won, it was a consolation prize for not winning Best Director. Clooney was also nominated for helming Best Picture nominee “Good Night, and Good Luck,” which went home empty-handed. “Syriana” lost its bid for Best Original Screenplay after it had originally been campaigned as an adaptation. “Cinderella Man” scored surprising nods for makeup and editing but lost in all three of its nominated categories.
Consolation prize for the loser: Many follow-up roles, including lead parts in films like “Lady in the Water” and “Cold Souls,” and a boatload of awards (Emmy, Golden Globe, and SAG) for the TV miniseries “John Adams.”
Other notable duels: None. The big surprise that year was “Crash” for Best Picture, but that was an huge upset rather than a duel.
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2004. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: Stone
Welcome to a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
Stone – Opening October 8, 2010
Edward Norton’s name in the credits is reason enough for me to see a film. While I’m still missing a few of his early and most recent films, I’m almost always impressed to see who I consider to be my favorite actor on screen. I don’t know when his film “Leaves of Grass,” which is great, is ever going to be released, so this looks to be the next time he’ll be arriving in cinemas. So here you have Edward Norton, one of the best current actors, Robert De Niro, one of the best actors of the 1970s and 1980s, and Milla Jovovich, a three-time Razzie nominee? Up until that point, the movie looks good, but Jovovich’s presence in a film is never a good thing. This looks like the kind of flick that could either be surprisingly good or really, really bad (sort of like De Niro’s abysmal “Righteous Kill”). Sex and blackmail are intriguing and all, but the story can really devolve if not handled properly. I’m hopeful that the talent on both sides of the camera can make it considerably better. Norton was excellent in prison in 1998's "American History X," and he's pretty much terrific in everything that he does. Norton and De Niro were a lot of fun together in 2001’s “The Score,” and this more serious effort should provide a nice reteaming for them. Frances Conroy is also in the cast so that may help to balance out Jovovich being there. Director John Curran has a pretty impressive resume that includes “The Painted Veil” and “We Don’t Live Here Anymore.” And this is writer Angus MacLachlan’s first film since he penned “Junebug,” which was a wonderfully original and winning dramedy. As I mentioned before, this could end up being truly terrible, but I’m hoping for the best. What do you think?
Stone – Opening October 8, 2010
Edward Norton’s name in the credits is reason enough for me to see a film. While I’m still missing a few of his early and most recent films, I’m almost always impressed to see who I consider to be my favorite actor on screen. I don’t know when his film “Leaves of Grass,” which is great, is ever going to be released, so this looks to be the next time he’ll be arriving in cinemas. So here you have Edward Norton, one of the best current actors, Robert De Niro, one of the best actors of the 1970s and 1980s, and Milla Jovovich, a three-time Razzie nominee? Up until that point, the movie looks good, but Jovovich’s presence in a film is never a good thing. This looks like the kind of flick that could either be surprisingly good or really, really bad (sort of like De Niro’s abysmal “Righteous Kill”). Sex and blackmail are intriguing and all, but the story can really devolve if not handled properly. I’m hopeful that the talent on both sides of the camera can make it considerably better. Norton was excellent in prison in 1998's "American History X," and he's pretty much terrific in everything that he does. Norton and De Niro were a lot of fun together in 2001’s “The Score,” and this more serious effort should provide a nice reteaming for them. Frances Conroy is also in the cast so that may help to balance out Jovovich being there. Director John Curran has a pretty impressive resume that includes “The Painted Veil” and “We Don’t Live Here Anymore.” And this is writer Angus MacLachlan’s first film since he penned “Junebug,” which was a wonderfully original and winning dramedy. As I mentioned before, this could end up being truly terrible, but I’m hoping for the best. What do you think?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Monday Movie You Aught to See: A Christmas Tale
Regardless of whether the decade ended already ended in 2009 or will end at the close of the current year, the 2000s were a wonderful period of cinema with many treasures that deserve to be remembered. Check in at Movies with Abe on Mondays for Movies You Aught to See, a look back at memorable movies from the aughts. They are posted in no particular order, and if you have a great film from the 2000s that you think merits consideration, leave a note in the comments!
A Christmas Tale
Directed by Arnaud Desplechin
Released November 14, 2008
This lovely French film is a presented as a modern-day fairy tale, with an imaginative and eye-popping opening that helps to introduce the assorted members of the Vuillard family, who have all come home after learning that matriarch Junon has been diagnosed with cancer. The ensuing interactions are dramatic, funny, intimate, and entirely captivating. French screen legend Catherine Deneuve leads an extraordinarily talented cast that also includes outstanding performances from Mathieu Amalric and Emmanuelle Devos, who recently starred together again in this year's “Wild Grass.” This film is unlike any other you’re likely to see, and it’s a moving family drama with an enormous amount of heart and wit.
A Christmas Tale
Directed by Arnaud Desplechin
Released November 14, 2008
This lovely French film is a presented as a modern-day fairy tale, with an imaginative and eye-popping opening that helps to introduce the assorted members of the Vuillard family, who have all come home after learning that matriarch Junon has been diagnosed with cancer. The ensuing interactions are dramatic, funny, intimate, and entirely captivating. French screen legend Catherine Deneuve leads an extraordinarily talented cast that also includes outstanding performances from Mathieu Amalric and Emmanuelle Devos, who recently starred together again in this year's “Wild Grass.” This film is unlike any other you’re likely to see, and it’s a moving family drama with an enormous amount of heart and wit.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Movie with Abe: Countdown to Zero
Countdown to Zero
Directed by Lucy Walker
Released July 23, 2010
If you’re looking for an uplifting film that might give you a few good laughs, go see something like “Dinner for Schmucks.” This documentary from the director of 2006’s “Blindsight” is a brutally real and extremely frightening case for the dismantling of all nuclear programs around the world. Its title may be misleading to some: this is not a historic chronicle of how the number of countries with the capability to assemble and launch nuclear bombs has been diminished to zero. Instead, it’s a disturbing history of how a large number of countries have gained such capabilities, and the dangers that lie ahead if the programs are not ceased and dismantled.
As a research project, “Countdown to Zero” is very extensive and certainly a compelling argument against anyone who argues for the validity of nuclear programs. There is an even mix of historical documentation, geographical focus, and vivid imagery to scare the pants off of any person who might ever find themselves within the five-mile range of a major city. The choice of Times Square in New York City as the sample city for destruction is especially terrifying when screening the film at the AMC Empire 25, located in the heart of Times Square and definitely in range of that hypothetical nuclear bomb dropped on New York City.
This can’t necessarily be classified as an exposé since it spotlights events that most of the world is aware are occurring. People are polled at random on the streets of many major cities to make their best guess at how many nuclear missiles there are in the world, and many are way off but most simply have no idea. It’s the kind of horror movie that doesn’t need a script – this is actually real, and there are devastating implications for any country detonating any number of nuclear arms. The recounting of several near-misses where launch sequences were accidentally mimicked shows just how close the world as we know it today came to never existing. It’s only out of sheer luck and chance that a disaster has not yet occurred. As has come to be expected at the end of documentaries that strive for social change, a notification pops up at the close of the film that suggests what concerned individuals can do to help. In this case, however, it doesn’t seem that one person can likely make a difference, and if a nuclear bomb does go off, the effects will be felt by much more than one person. This is a depressing documentary that serves a greater purpose of global education, but for the average moviegoer may be little more than a recipe for a recurring nightmare.
B+
Directed by Lucy Walker
Released July 23, 2010
If you’re looking for an uplifting film that might give you a few good laughs, go see something like “Dinner for Schmucks.” This documentary from the director of 2006’s “Blindsight” is a brutally real and extremely frightening case for the dismantling of all nuclear programs around the world. Its title may be misleading to some: this is not a historic chronicle of how the number of countries with the capability to assemble and launch nuclear bombs has been diminished to zero. Instead, it’s a disturbing history of how a large number of countries have gained such capabilities, and the dangers that lie ahead if the programs are not ceased and dismantled.
As a research project, “Countdown to Zero” is very extensive and certainly a compelling argument against anyone who argues for the validity of nuclear programs. There is an even mix of historical documentation, geographical focus, and vivid imagery to scare the pants off of any person who might ever find themselves within the five-mile range of a major city. The choice of Times Square in New York City as the sample city for destruction is especially terrifying when screening the film at the AMC Empire 25, located in the heart of Times Square and definitely in range of that hypothetical nuclear bomb dropped on New York City.
This can’t necessarily be classified as an exposé since it spotlights events that most of the world is aware are occurring. People are polled at random on the streets of many major cities to make their best guess at how many nuclear missiles there are in the world, and many are way off but most simply have no idea. It’s the kind of horror movie that doesn’t need a script – this is actually real, and there are devastating implications for any country detonating any number of nuclear arms. The recounting of several near-misses where launch sequences were accidentally mimicked shows just how close the world as we know it today came to never existing. It’s only out of sheer luck and chance that a disaster has not yet occurred. As has come to be expected at the end of documentaries that strive for social change, a notification pops up at the close of the film that suggests what concerned individuals can do to help. In this case, however, it doesn’t seem that one person can likely make a difference, and if a nuclear bomb does go off, the effects will be felt by much more than one person. This is a depressing documentary that serves a greater purpose of global education, but for the average moviegoer may be little more than a recipe for a recurring nightmare.
B+
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Movie with Abe: The Other Guys
The Other Guys
Directed by Adam McKay
Released August 6, 2010
When something stupid and inexplicable happens once, it has the potential to be funny. When it happens over and over again, however, without any hint of sense, logic, or maturity in the interim, it’s inexcusable. It’s no surprise that the trailer for “Jackass 3-D” plays before this film; both of these movies are made for the same audience. This isn’t designed for those who liked smarter films like “Knocked Up,” “Superbad,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It’s not even for those who liked the awful “Walk Hard,” because that film was disgusting and despicable, but for all of the right reasons (it tried hard to be a parody, and was necessarily stupid). “The Other Guys” just doesn’t make any sense at all, and how this film failed so miserably is a mystery.
This could have been the next “Rush Hour,” but some reason, it’s made up of irreverent, illogical jokes and themes that become tired within the film’s early moments. Will Ferrell is a great funnyman who honed his skills on “Saturday Night Live” before branching out to loud comedy in films like “Talladega Nights” and subtler, more nuanced work in dramaedies like “Stranger than Fiction.” He’s great at playing an idiot, as evidenced by his role in the shockingly good SNL-skit-turned-full-length-movie “A Night at the Roxbury.” Mark Wahlberg has done both comedy and drama, and most memorably earned an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a cop with a penchant for rudeness and cursing in “The Departed.” With these two men in the lead, this could (and should) have been a slam-dunk.
Instead, this fun enough premise becomes a remarkable disaster within the first half hour. This is the “Cop Out” model of cop comedies, pairing together two people who would never, ever be allowed to carry a gun and trying to sell the fact that they could be partners. Ferrell is a desk jockey who calls his smoking-hot wife (played by Eva Mendes, just to make the point clear) plain and seems to exhibit no trace of proper social skills. Wahlberg, on the other hand, plays an out-of-control, temperamental disgraced cop who got benched for shooting Derek Jeter during a crucial game. The movie essentially consists of Ferrell acting unfathomably idiotic and Wahlberg getting pissed at him and raising his voice. There’s also Michael Keaton in an embarrassing supporting role as the police captain who has a second job at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Steve Coogan and Anne Heche are even thrown in for good measure as financial criminals that, you guessed it, only Ferrell and Wahlberg can catch because no one else believes their theories.
There are funny moments in “The Other Guys,” but they’re few and far in between. It’s unbelievable how bad the film does get, and the moments of semi-hilarity are minimized by the general sense of anger that may come over you while watching the film. A low point is reached when Mendes breaks out in song, crooning “pimps don’t cry” to Ferrell. It’s not quite as horrific as an abysmal creation like “Grandma’s Boy,” but it does still beg the question – who approved this film? Who actually thought this was a good idea? It’s likely that most won’t despise this film as much as I did, but it was simply infuriating to watch it and think that this film can gross $35 million in its first weekend. This could have been done so much better, and there’s really no way it could have come out any worse. Give me the regular guys next time, I'm begging you.
F
Directed by Adam McKay
Released August 6, 2010
When something stupid and inexplicable happens once, it has the potential to be funny. When it happens over and over again, however, without any hint of sense, logic, or maturity in the interim, it’s inexcusable. It’s no surprise that the trailer for “Jackass 3-D” plays before this film; both of these movies are made for the same audience. This isn’t designed for those who liked smarter films like “Knocked Up,” “Superbad,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It’s not even for those who liked the awful “Walk Hard,” because that film was disgusting and despicable, but for all of the right reasons (it tried hard to be a parody, and was necessarily stupid). “The Other Guys” just doesn’t make any sense at all, and how this film failed so miserably is a mystery.
This could have been the next “Rush Hour,” but some reason, it’s made up of irreverent, illogical jokes and themes that become tired within the film’s early moments. Will Ferrell is a great funnyman who honed his skills on “Saturday Night Live” before branching out to loud comedy in films like “Talladega Nights” and subtler, more nuanced work in dramaedies like “Stranger than Fiction.” He’s great at playing an idiot, as evidenced by his role in the shockingly good SNL-skit-turned-full-length-movie “A Night at the Roxbury.” Mark Wahlberg has done both comedy and drama, and most memorably earned an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of a cop with a penchant for rudeness and cursing in “The Departed.” With these two men in the lead, this could (and should) have been a slam-dunk.
Instead, this fun enough premise becomes a remarkable disaster within the first half hour. This is the “Cop Out” model of cop comedies, pairing together two people who would never, ever be allowed to carry a gun and trying to sell the fact that they could be partners. Ferrell is a desk jockey who calls his smoking-hot wife (played by Eva Mendes, just to make the point clear) plain and seems to exhibit no trace of proper social skills. Wahlberg, on the other hand, plays an out-of-control, temperamental disgraced cop who got benched for shooting Derek Jeter during a crucial game. The movie essentially consists of Ferrell acting unfathomably idiotic and Wahlberg getting pissed at him and raising his voice. There’s also Michael Keaton in an embarrassing supporting role as the police captain who has a second job at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Steve Coogan and Anne Heche are even thrown in for good measure as financial criminals that, you guessed it, only Ferrell and Wahlberg can catch because no one else believes their theories.
There are funny moments in “The Other Guys,” but they’re few and far in between. It’s unbelievable how bad the film does get, and the moments of semi-hilarity are minimized by the general sense of anger that may come over you while watching the film. A low point is reached when Mendes breaks out in song, crooning “pimps don’t cry” to Ferrell. It’s not quite as horrific as an abysmal creation like “Grandma’s Boy,” but it does still beg the question – who approved this film? Who actually thought this was a good idea? It’s likely that most won’t despise this film as much as I did, but it was simply infuriating to watch it and think that this film can gross $35 million in its first weekend. This could have been done so much better, and there’s really no way it could have come out any worse. Give me the regular guys next time, I'm begging you.
F
Friday, August 13, 2010
Double Movie with Abe: Animal Kingdom and La Soga
Animal Kingdom
Directed by David Michod
Released August 13, 2010
La Soga
Directed by Josh Crook
Released August 13, 2010
This weekend, two violent films about vicious criminals in foreign countries open in the United States. One is “Animal Kingdom,” which follows one young man’s immersion in the deadly activities of his extended family in Australia. The other is “La Soga,” a familiar tale of revenge and corruption that centers on a lawman of sorts in the Dominican Republic. In the former, the cops are just as terrifying and brutal as the criminals, and in the latter, the cops and the criminals are so intertwined it’s hard to distinguish the difference. For two films with relatively similar premises, the results are quite unalike.
Ben Mendelsohn and Joel Edgerton star in "Animal Kingdom"
“Animal Kingdom” is a taut, completely gripping film that takes one individual, basically a child, and forces him into a dangerous life where he interacts on a daily basis with his bank robber uncles and is hounded by the police in an effort to get him to turn on them. This is a family that makes the SAMCRO Teller-Morrow gang on “Sons of Anarchy” seem harmless. From its very start, the film builds up from a dismaying beginning to an increasingly unsettling chain of events that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats. It’s one of the subtlest, most fine-tined thrillers in a long time that uses its lack of action to maintain its suspense. The result is utterly captivating and extremely intense.
Manny Perez stars in "La Soga"
“La Soga,” by contrast, falls flat from the start. In the first, admittedly decently exciting, scene, cops chase a drug dealer and then shoot him in the head in front of a crowd of devastated onlookers. From there, things only go downhill as the main character, a quasi-cop dead set on getting revenge on the drug dealer who killed his father when he was a child, discovers disturbing links between the police force and the criminals he hunts on a daily basis. The butcher’s son (which is the English-language title of the film) is caught between a rock and a hard place with his morals pulling him in the opposite direction of his job, and neither option looks bright. It’s an all too predictable tale that packs expected surprises and a whole slew of clichés, both in terms of story and cinematographic choices.
In terms of which film’s plot might actually be more realistic, it’s probably “La Soga,” yet the execution of that story is so poor and uncreative compared with the more volatile and daringly fresh “Animal Kingdom.” Though “La Soga” is written by native Dominican Manny Perez, who also stars as La Soga himself, and was shot on location in the Dominican Republic, it feels horribly transplanted and unreal. It’s as if Brooklyn-born director Josh Crook is trying to tell a story that he doesn’t actually know and might be more effectively conveyed by someone from the culture. “Animal Kingdom,” on the other hand, is a heavily Australian production that makes great use of Australian actors, particularly Guy Pearce, who usually dons an American accent for films like “Memento” and “L.A. Confidential,” and Joel Edgerton, in addition to the other members of the cast who may be less known to American audiences. These two stories aren’t all that different, but one will keep your eyes focused tightly on the screen while the other may send them rolling around in boredom and frustration.
“Animal Kingdom”: A-
“La Soga”: C-
Directed by David Michod
Released August 13, 2010
La Soga
Directed by Josh Crook
Released August 13, 2010
This weekend, two violent films about vicious criminals in foreign countries open in the United States. One is “Animal Kingdom,” which follows one young man’s immersion in the deadly activities of his extended family in Australia. The other is “La Soga,” a familiar tale of revenge and corruption that centers on a lawman of sorts in the Dominican Republic. In the former, the cops are just as terrifying and brutal as the criminals, and in the latter, the cops and the criminals are so intertwined it’s hard to distinguish the difference. For two films with relatively similar premises, the results are quite unalike.
“Animal Kingdom” is a taut, completely gripping film that takes one individual, basically a child, and forces him into a dangerous life where he interacts on a daily basis with his bank robber uncles and is hounded by the police in an effort to get him to turn on them. This is a family that makes the SAMCRO Teller-Morrow gang on “Sons of Anarchy” seem harmless. From its very start, the film builds up from a dismaying beginning to an increasingly unsettling chain of events that will keep viewers on the edge of their seats. It’s one of the subtlest, most fine-tined thrillers in a long time that uses its lack of action to maintain its suspense. The result is utterly captivating and extremely intense.
“La Soga,” by contrast, falls flat from the start. In the first, admittedly decently exciting, scene, cops chase a drug dealer and then shoot him in the head in front of a crowd of devastated onlookers. From there, things only go downhill as the main character, a quasi-cop dead set on getting revenge on the drug dealer who killed his father when he was a child, discovers disturbing links between the police force and the criminals he hunts on a daily basis. The butcher’s son (which is the English-language title of the film) is caught between a rock and a hard place with his morals pulling him in the opposite direction of his job, and neither option looks bright. It’s an all too predictable tale that packs expected surprises and a whole slew of clichés, both in terms of story and cinematographic choices.
In terms of which film’s plot might actually be more realistic, it’s probably “La Soga,” yet the execution of that story is so poor and uncreative compared with the more volatile and daringly fresh “Animal Kingdom.” Though “La Soga” is written by native Dominican Manny Perez, who also stars as La Soga himself, and was shot on location in the Dominican Republic, it feels horribly transplanted and unreal. It’s as if Brooklyn-born director Josh Crook is trying to tell a story that he doesn’t actually know and might be more effectively conveyed by someone from the culture. “Animal Kingdom,” on the other hand, is a heavily Australian production that makes great use of Australian actors, particularly Guy Pearce, who usually dons an American accent for films like “Memento” and “L.A. Confidential,” and Joel Edgerton, in addition to the other members of the cast who may be less known to American audiences. These two stories aren’t all that different, but one will keep your eyes focused tightly on the screen while the other may send them rolling around in boredom and frustration.
“Animal Kingdom”: A-
“La Soga”: C-
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thursday Theatre Review: AMC Loews 34th Street 14
Weekly to a new feature here at Movies with Abe, Thursday Theatre Review. As a resident of one of the world’s foremost movie capitals, I’ve been to a number of movie theatres in New York City and have developed preferences. There’s no perfect theatre, but there are a few things that can make or break a movie-going experience. In no particular order, this is a guide to movie theatres in Manhattan.
AMC Loews 34th Street 14
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 34th St right near 8th Avenue, it’s only a minute from Penn Station, making it pretty accessible to a bunch of subway trains (and anyone who would take a train or bus into Penn Station just to come see a movie). It’s a very populated area with plenty of restaurants, amenities, and shops right nearby. It also happens to be one of the only theatres that almost certifiably has a coffee stand right outside (not linked to the theatre or anything, but highly convenient if you want to grab a quick hot beverage to bring into the theatre.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Pretty good. It tends to be mostly mainstream fare but I’ve done many double and triple features there. Last September, I saw “Whiteout,” “Extract,” and “9” back-to-back, and a year earlier I saw “Body of Lies,” “W,” and “Changeling” all in a row.
Drawbacks: Since it’s not too far from the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square, some films are only playing at one of the theatres, often reducing the possible choices.
Bonus features: IMAX, though I can’t recall ever going to see anything there. Showtimes at this theatre also happen to be very convenient – for a long time, I would go to this theatre every Friday to maximize my potential for triple-features since their showtimes were most accommodating to such endeavors.
Worth the trip? Yeah. It’s pretty easy to get to, and there’s usually a pretty reliable selection of films playing. Plus, get your coffee or hot chocolate right outside!
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: On 34th St right near 8th Avenue, it’s only a minute from Penn Station, making it pretty accessible to a bunch of subway trains (and anyone who would take a train or bus into Penn Station just to come see a movie). It’s a very populated area with plenty of restaurants, amenities, and shops right nearby. It also happens to be one of the only theatres that almost certifiably has a coffee stand right outside (not linked to the theatre or anything, but highly convenient if you want to grab a quick hot beverage to bring into the theatre.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Pretty good. It tends to be mostly mainstream fare but I’ve done many double and triple features there. Last September, I saw “Whiteout,” “Extract,” and “9” back-to-back, and a year earlier I saw “Body of Lies,” “W,” and “Changeling” all in a row.
Drawbacks: Since it’s not too far from the AMC Empire 25 in Times Square, some films are only playing at one of the theatres, often reducing the possible choices.
Bonus features: IMAX, though I can’t recall ever going to see anything there. Showtimes at this theatre also happen to be very convenient – for a long time, I would go to this theatre every Friday to maximize my potential for triple-features since their showtimes were most accommodating to such endeavors.
Worth the trip? Yeah. It’s pretty easy to get to, and there’s usually a pretty reliable selection of films playing. Plus, get your coffee or hot chocolate right outside!
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Wednesday Oscar Retrospective: The Deadlocked Duel of 2006
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Wednesday Oscar Retrospective. The Deadlocked Duel is the fourth in a series of projects looking back at the past eight years of the Oscars, dating back to the first ceremony I watched and closely followed.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
The Deadlocked Duel of 2006:
“Cars” vs. “Happy Feet” for Best Animated Feature
The background: Talking cars driving around the country vs. dancing penguins. Both animated films were enormously successful at the box office. “Cars” earned $244 million and “Happy Feet” took in $198. Pixar (the studio behind “Cars”) had twice before won in this category – “Finding Nemo” and “The Incredibles.”
Why it was just the two of them: “Monster House” may have been fun, but it wasn’t really in the running.
Setting the stage: “Happy Feet” was sort of always the underdog to the goliath Pixar picture. “Cars” won the Golden Globe, the PGA, and a handful of other critics’ awards. Most significantly, “Happy Feet” bombed at the Annie Awards, earning a paltry two nominations (feature and writing) while “Cars” won in two of its nine nominated categories, for best feature and best music.
Oscar night: A strange swap occurred with songs from each film. A tune from “Happy Feet” had won at the Golden Globes and then wasn’t even nominated at the Oscars, while a song from “Cars” didn’t earn a Globe nod but did get recognized by the Oscars with a nomination. Even with an additional nomination in its corner, “Cars” still managed to lose out to “Happy Feet,” which danced away with a victory.
Consolation prize for the loser: The prior awards and the (slightly) higher box office. Both are remembered fondly, I’d say.
Other notable duels: None. This is probably the least interesting year for duels (except maybe 2005 – next week’s post).
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2005. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. I’m short on ideas since Best Picture doesn’t really count and there weren’t any other surprises.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
“Cars” vs. “Happy Feet” for Best Animated FeatureThe background: Talking cars driving around the country vs. dancing penguins. Both animated films were enormously successful at the box office. “Cars” earned $244 million and “Happy Feet” took in $198. Pixar (the studio behind “Cars”) had twice before won in this category – “Finding Nemo” and “The Incredibles.”
Why it was just the two of them: “Monster House” may have been fun, but it wasn’t really in the running.
Setting the stage: “Happy Feet” was sort of always the underdog to the goliath Pixar picture. “Cars” won the Golden Globe, the PGA, and a handful of other critics’ awards. Most significantly, “Happy Feet” bombed at the Annie Awards, earning a paltry two nominations (feature and writing) while “Cars” won in two of its nine nominated categories, for best feature and best music.
Oscar night: A strange swap occurred with songs from each film. A tune from “Happy Feet” had won at the Golden Globes and then wasn’t even nominated at the Oscars, while a song from “Cars” didn’t earn a Globe nod but did get recognized by the Oscars with a nomination. Even with an additional nomination in its corner, “Cars” still managed to lose out to “Happy Feet,” which danced away with a victory.
Consolation prize for the loser: The prior awards and the (slightly) higher box office. Both are remembered fondly, I’d say.
Other notable duels: None. This is probably the least interesting year for duels (except maybe 2005 – next week’s post).
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2005. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. I’m short on ideas since Best Picture doesn’t really count and there weren’t any other surprises.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: The Town
Welcome to a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
The Town – Opening September 10, 2010
What does this movie not have going for it? Ben Affleck’s feature film debut from three years ago, “Gone Baby Gone,” was a masterful and powerful thriller featuring great performances. Now, he’s adapting another crime novel set in Boston and stepping into the lead role himself, rather than his brother Casey. Affleck may not be the best actor in the world, but he delivered a strong, Golden Globe-nominated performance in 2006’s “Hollywoodland,” and by the looks of the trailer, he seems like a good fit for the lead role. If not, however, there are plenty of other cast members to pick up the slack. Interestingly enough, none besides Chris Cooper and Pete Postlethwaite have been field-tested in terms of mainstream movie success, though they are all terrific actors. Jeremy Renner scored an Oscar nod for indie Best Picture champ “The Hurt Locker” last year, though most people still haven’t seen it. Rebecca Hall has had semi-lead roles in films like “Starter for 10,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” and “Please Give,” but she’s not yet a household name in the United States. Jon Hamm has garnered critical acclaim for his portrayal of Don Draper on AMC’s Emmy-winning series “Mad Men.” He tried and failed to anchor a movie with March’s “Stolen,” and a second chance to play a determined law enforcement official should play out much better. The story seems genuinely interesting and engaging, not to mention exciting, and while some will cry foul due to likely cop/criminal clichés, I think it should prove to original and awesome. What do you think?
The Town – Opening September 10, 2010
What does this movie not have going for it? Ben Affleck’s feature film debut from three years ago, “Gone Baby Gone,” was a masterful and powerful thriller featuring great performances. Now, he’s adapting another crime novel set in Boston and stepping into the lead role himself, rather than his brother Casey. Affleck may not be the best actor in the world, but he delivered a strong, Golden Globe-nominated performance in 2006’s “Hollywoodland,” and by the looks of the trailer, he seems like a good fit for the lead role. If not, however, there are plenty of other cast members to pick up the slack. Interestingly enough, none besides Chris Cooper and Pete Postlethwaite have been field-tested in terms of mainstream movie success, though they are all terrific actors. Jeremy Renner scored an Oscar nod for indie Best Picture champ “The Hurt Locker” last year, though most people still haven’t seen it. Rebecca Hall has had semi-lead roles in films like “Starter for 10,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” and “Please Give,” but she’s not yet a household name in the United States. Jon Hamm has garnered critical acclaim for his portrayal of Don Draper on AMC’s Emmy-winning series “Mad Men.” He tried and failed to anchor a movie with March’s “Stolen,” and a second chance to play a determined law enforcement official should play out much better. The story seems genuinely interesting and engaging, not to mention exciting, and while some will cry foul due to likely cop/criminal clichés, I think it should prove to original and awesome. What do you think?
Monday, August 9, 2010
Monday Movie You Aught to See: Walk on Water
Regardless of whether the decade ended already ended in 2009 or will end at the close of the current year, the 2000s were a wonderful period of cinema with many treasures that deserve to be remembered. Check in at Movies with Abe on Mondays for Movies You Aught to See, a look back at memorable movies from the aughts. They are posted in no particular order, and if you have a great film from the 2000s that you think merits consideration, leave a note in the comments!
Walk on Water
Directed by Eytan Fox
Released March 4, 2005
Pay no attention to the silly voice-over heard in the trailer above. This is a sleek, serious thriller that follows a Mossad agent posing as a tour guide in Israel to get close to the grandchildren of a wanted Nazi war criminal. This insightful and intimate film from director Eytan Fox, who would later make "The Bubble," has a marvelous story that’s both meaningful and exciting and poses some serious questions. Israeli actor Lior Ashkenazi crafts a fantastic portrait of the Mossad agent forced to question what he knows about people when he befriends his marks. This is a great, subtle thriller with just the right amount of imagination.
Walk on Water
Directed by Eytan Fox
Released March 4, 2005
Pay no attention to the silly voice-over heard in the trailer above. This is a sleek, serious thriller that follows a Mossad agent posing as a tour guide in Israel to get close to the grandchildren of a wanted Nazi war criminal. This insightful and intimate film from director Eytan Fox, who would later make "The Bubble," has a marvelous story that’s both meaningful and exciting and poses some serious questions. Israeli actor Lior Ashkenazi crafts a fantastic portrait of the Mossad agent forced to question what he knows about people when he befriends his marks. This is a great, subtle thriller with just the right amount of imagination.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Video on Demand with Abe: Colin Fitz Lives!
Colin Fitz Lives!
Directed by Robert Bella
Released August 4, 2010 on Video on Demand
Ever wondered what it would be liked to reach into a movie time capsule and pull out a relic from over a decade ago that barely saw the light of day? “Colin Fitz Lives!” played at Sundance and a number of other film festivals back in 1997 and never got a theatrical release. Now, thirteen years later, the film is readily available in homes around the country on Video on Demand. For one thing, it’s a unique opportunity to see actors like William H. Macy (fresh off of “Fargo”), John C. McGinley (before “Scrubs”), Chris Bauer (well before “True Blood”) and Martha Plimpton (much younger but just as shrewdly entertaining as she is today in guest spots on “The Good Wife” and “How to Make It in America,” reminiscent of Sandra Bernhard). More importantly, however, it’s a fantastic demonstration of how a long-shelved remnant of the recent past plays in today’s world.
In this case, the emergence of this old keepsake goes off with a few kinks but ultimately fares relatively well. It’s part mockumentary and part existential comedy, riffing on metaphors about the impact of one person on an entire society. The legacy of fictional rocker Colin Fitz is recounted by voiceover narration and interviews with diehard groupies during the opening credits, and Fitz’s presence hangs over the entire film without him ever being seen. A universal sense of balking authority and just living life freely emanates from all things related to Fitz. It’s much more serious than any of Christopher Guest’s films (released after this was made), but the premise of the musician is similar.
In terms of plot, “Colin Fitz Lives!” is basically describable as a long night spent by two security guards protecting the grave of the titular deceased rocker. Numerous figures come along and disappear just as quickly and mysteriously as they appeared. It’s best comprehended as a sort of cross between “The Big Kahuna” (made two years later) and the famous Shakespeare play “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Those allegedly supernatural elements of the story might just as well be dreams or figments of the security guards’ imagination, and everyone involved certainly does their share of waxing philosophic.
There’s a great current of nostalgia coursing through this film. Obviously, those involved with the film didn’t anticipate it not getting released for thirteen years. Yet the sense of timelessness that Colin Fitz and his music seem to have had mirrors the unique nature of this film, an artifact from the not-so-distant past that might not immediately be recognizable as such. Even more fittingly, the fleeting look that audiences get at all of the supporting characters is indicative of the time that has passed. Some actors, like Macy and McGinley, have found great success in their careers in the time since this film was produced, while lead actors Matt McGrath and Andy Fowle really haven’t done much in that time. This film isn’t nearly old enough to be considered from a classic period by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s very interesting to see the 1990s back again after only a decade-long absence, strangely familiar yet at the same time familiarly strange.
B+
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Movie with Abe: The Dry Land
The Dry Land
Directed by Ryan Piers Williams
Released July 30, 2010
A few years ago, it wasn’t so easy to find a movie dealing with hot-button topics related to the “War on Terror” and soldiers coming home from abroad. Now, as soldiers are still stationed overseas, more and more films are tackling the subject of what happens when soldiers return from the throes of war and must readjust to life at home. In 2008, films like “The Lucky Ones” and “Stop-Loss” began to broach the topic, and last year “The Hurt Locker” hinted at it while “Brothers” put a familial spin on the subject. “The Dry Land” transplants a soldier from one desert to another and chronicles his harrowing journey back to normalcy.
Stars America Ferrera and Wilmer Valderrama discuss the film
“The Dry Land” is an intimate, personal exploration of the effects of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). Star America Ferrera, who plays Sarah, the wife of returning soldier James, stresses that this is an honest and true story, but not a universal story. Ryan O’Nan, who stars as James, underlines that this story doesn’t have a political agenda; instead, it’s just “the story of this one guy.” Director Ryan Piers Williams describes it as a “coming home movie” rather than a war movie. O’Nan emphasizes that “we’ve seen the footage James is replaying in his head, and seeing it again becomes redundant.” In keeping with this line of thinking, there are no flashbacks in “The Dry Land” to James in the midst of war: all he and the audience have is the reality of the world and the place in which he now exists.
Director Ryan Piers Williams and star Ryan O'Nan discuss the film
For Ferrera and costar Wilmer Valderrama, spreading the word about PTSD and bringing this film to people all around the country is of prime importance. Ferrera explains that military audiences that have seen the film acknowledge that this is just the tip of the experience while non-military audiences often presume that this must be the worst case scenario. Without a solution to the politics of ending the current conflict and bringing soldiers home, Valderrama believes that “we can aim to be more prepared for PTSD today,” and Williams says that “what we can do is to support the people who are coming back.” Valderrama describes PTSD as a “family affair, a family effort,” as the film portrays it, and notes that there has been a psychologist present at some Q & As of the film o answer the wealth of questions that are asked about PTSD.
One of the things that separates “The Dry Land” out from the films that came before it is a lack of sensationalism or big budget (IMDB estimates it at $1 million). This little film sets its story in rural Texas and even sends James to work in a slaughterhouse of all places, making for one very meaningful metaphor. A small, tight-knit cast affords audiences the opportunity to really get to know these characters and begin to understand their struggles. O’Nan performs commendably for his first feature film role (as a lead, no less!), and Ferrera and Valderrama, most widely known as the title character on “Ugly Betty” and Fez on “That 70s Show,” respectively, get the chance to prove that they can do drama just as effectively as comedy. Melissa Leo, Jason Ritter, and Benito Martinez also offer finely-tuned supporting performances that help to make the landscape of the film feel real. “The Dry Land” may be a bleak, depressing film, but it’s an important one with a message that should be transmitted to people around the country, military and civilian.
B+
Directed by Ryan Piers Williams
Released July 30, 2010
A few years ago, it wasn’t so easy to find a movie dealing with hot-button topics related to the “War on Terror” and soldiers coming home from abroad. Now, as soldiers are still stationed overseas, more and more films are tackling the subject of what happens when soldiers return from the throes of war and must readjust to life at home. In 2008, films like “The Lucky Ones” and “Stop-Loss” began to broach the topic, and last year “The Hurt Locker” hinted at it while “Brothers” put a familial spin on the subject. “The Dry Land” transplants a soldier from one desert to another and chronicles his harrowing journey back to normalcy.
“The Dry Land” is an intimate, personal exploration of the effects of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). Star America Ferrera, who plays Sarah, the wife of returning soldier James, stresses that this is an honest and true story, but not a universal story. Ryan O’Nan, who stars as James, underlines that this story doesn’t have a political agenda; instead, it’s just “the story of this one guy.” Director Ryan Piers Williams describes it as a “coming home movie” rather than a war movie. O’Nan emphasizes that “we’ve seen the footage James is replaying in his head, and seeing it again becomes redundant.” In keeping with this line of thinking, there are no flashbacks in “The Dry Land” to James in the midst of war: all he and the audience have is the reality of the world and the place in which he now exists.
For Ferrera and costar Wilmer Valderrama, spreading the word about PTSD and bringing this film to people all around the country is of prime importance. Ferrera explains that military audiences that have seen the film acknowledge that this is just the tip of the experience while non-military audiences often presume that this must be the worst case scenario. Without a solution to the politics of ending the current conflict and bringing soldiers home, Valderrama believes that “we can aim to be more prepared for PTSD today,” and Williams says that “what we can do is to support the people who are coming back.” Valderrama describes PTSD as a “family affair, a family effort,” as the film portrays it, and notes that there has been a psychologist present at some Q & As of the film o answer the wealth of questions that are asked about PTSD.
One of the things that separates “The Dry Land” out from the films that came before it is a lack of sensationalism or big budget (IMDB estimates it at $1 million). This little film sets its story in rural Texas and even sends James to work in a slaughterhouse of all places, making for one very meaningful metaphor. A small, tight-knit cast affords audiences the opportunity to really get to know these characters and begin to understand their struggles. O’Nan performs commendably for his first feature film role (as a lead, no less!), and Ferrera and Valderrama, most widely known as the title character on “Ugly Betty” and Fez on “That 70s Show,” respectively, get the chance to prove that they can do drama just as effectively as comedy. Melissa Leo, Jason Ritter, and Benito Martinez also offer finely-tuned supporting performances that help to make the landscape of the film feel real. “The Dry Land” may be a bleak, depressing film, but it’s an important one with a message that should be transmitted to people around the country, military and civilian.
B+
Friday, August 6, 2010
Movie with Abe: The Disappearance of Alice Creed
The Disappearance of Alice Creed
Directed by J Blakeson
Released August 6, 2010
There’s hardly any better way to get to know characters than to have a small few of them. “The Disappearance of Alice Creed” features only three characters – the daughter of a wealthy man and the two men who kidnap her. It’s a brave gamble that pays off remarkably well. Precious few locations are used in the film and it’s up to the three people on screen to convey anything that might need to be known, and all three respond commendably to that charge. It’s a magnificently captivating experience to see these three people in the midst of what has to be the most intense day of their lives.
For actress Gemma Arterton, who plays the kidnapped Alice Creed, this film was a great chance to prove she can really act. It was filmed in between big-budget epics “Prince of Persia” and “Clash of the Titans,” both of which have already been released in the United States, and afforded a much more personal role squeezed in among the blockbusters. Arterton says that she “needed to do something that scared me” and was especially impressed with the opportunity to make a good thriller rather than a typical British film, which she describes as “comedies and kitchen-sink dramas.” This experience, she says, was more like doing a play, adding that it was filmed pretty much chronologically.
Arterton spends most of the film tied up, but her character is hardly one-dimensional. While audiences should initially be sympathetic to the clear victim in this situation, things get blurry as the film goes on. When her kidnappers remove her gag, the first thing out of Alice’s mouth is a lie, fabricating a fake daughter to encourage them to let her go. When asked about Alice, Arterton points out that “some people really aren’t on her side.” For Arterton, that’s fine, since she doesn’t enjoy playing characters that everybody likes and finds it boring. She describes Alice as “stuck-up, spoiled, clever, wily, and relentless.” The complexity of the kidnapping victim makes for an extraordinarily three-dimensional film.
Arterton’s fierce performance as Alice, who she was worried would be really annoying because she “was screaming all the time,” is only one of three terrific turns in the film. Martin Compston, who plays young kidnapper Danny, is great as the more panicky and less put-together villain whose motivations from the start are unclear. There’s no comparison, however, to the marvelous Eddie Marsan (“Happy-Go-Lucky”), who delivers a terrifying, brilliant performance as lead kidnapper Vic. The three of them make for a fantastic tiny ensemble. The film itself is more than worthy of its superb stars. From its excellent, exciting opening sequence to the twists and turns that come in only 100 minutes of energetic storytelling, it’s one of the most enticing and intriguing films of the year so far.
B+
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Thursday Theatre Review: AMC Lincoln Square 13
Weekly to a new feature here at Movies with Abe, Thursday Theatre Review. As a resident of one of the world’s foremost movie capitals, I’ve been to a number of movie theatres in New York City and have developed preferences. There’s no perfect theatre, but there are a few things that can make or break a movie-going experience. In no particular order, this is a guide to movie theatres in Manhattan.
AMC Lincoln Square 13
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: Very convenient. It’s right on Broadway at 68th St, and I’ve spent many hours over the past few years waiting in line for screenings along 68th St. There’s a Starbucks down the street, an Ollie’s Chinese restaurant right across the street, and a cool relatively new Apple Store just a few blocks away. As the name suggests, it's in Lincoln Square, which is a great area and contains many cultural and entertainment activities and resources. It’s only a few minutes from the 1, 2, and 3 trains.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Pretty great. At the moment, they’re pretty much playing only mainstream fare, but I’ve seen some smaller films like “For Your Consideration” and “Grace is Gone” there. It’s quite a busy theatre as pretty much the biggest cineplex above Times Square, and therefore a big draw for anyone who lives on the Upper West Side. Usually you can find the film you’re looking for at this theatre if it’s a major studio release. I’ve done a few double features at this theatre, including a Western pair, “The Assassination of Jesse James” and “3:10 to Yuma.”
Drawbacks: It’s not as convenient as the Times Square theatre, depending on where you’re coming from, and doesn’t necessarily have a more diverse selection of films. Otherwise, it just gets crowded, especially when it comes to free screenings.
Bonus features: IMAX. I saw “Beowulf” there and I think that “The Dark Knight” opened up pretty big too. Also, all of the auditoriums have names and they’re very big for the most part.
Worth the trip? Sure. It’s a nice area that’s not too far out of the way, and if you want to go to a nicer-than-average theatre with a great selection of films, check this one out.
Note: the next few weeks will feature AMC theatres since there are so many of them in the city.
Location: Very convenient. It’s right on Broadway at 68th St, and I’ve spent many hours over the past few years waiting in line for screenings along 68th St. There’s a Starbucks down the street, an Ollie’s Chinese restaurant right across the street, and a cool relatively new Apple Store just a few blocks away. As the name suggests, it's in Lincoln Square, which is a great area and contains many cultural and entertainment activities and resources. It’s only a few minutes from the 1, 2, and 3 trains.
Pricing: Standard tickets are $13 (surcharge for 3-D and IMAX). Like other AMC theatres, all showtimes before noon, seven days a week, are only $6. Pre-purchased discount passes, which are either $6.50 or $8, depending on how new the film is, are also accepted.
Film selection: Pretty great. At the moment, they’re pretty much playing only mainstream fare, but I’ve seen some smaller films like “For Your Consideration” and “Grace is Gone” there. It’s quite a busy theatre as pretty much the biggest cineplex above Times Square, and therefore a big draw for anyone who lives on the Upper West Side. Usually you can find the film you’re looking for at this theatre if it’s a major studio release. I’ve done a few double features at this theatre, including a Western pair, “The Assassination of Jesse James” and “3:10 to Yuma.”
Drawbacks: It’s not as convenient as the Times Square theatre, depending on where you’re coming from, and doesn’t necessarily have a more diverse selection of films. Otherwise, it just gets crowded, especially when it comes to free screenings.
Bonus features: IMAX. I saw “Beowulf” there and I think that “The Dark Knight” opened up pretty big too. Also, all of the auditoriums have names and they’re very big for the most part.
Worth the trip? Sure. It’s a nice area that’s not too far out of the way, and if you want to go to a nicer-than-average theatre with a great selection of films, check this one out.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Wednesday Oscar Retrospective: The Deadlocked Duel of 2007
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Wednesday Oscar Retrospective. The Deadlocked Duel is the fourth in a series of projects looking back at the past eight years of the Oscars, dating back to the first ceremony I watched and closely followed.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
The Deadlocked Duel of 2007:
Julie Christie (Away from Her) vs. Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose) for Best Actress
The background: The veteran Oscar-winning Brit vs. the French breakout. Christie had won on her first try back in 1965 (ten years before Cotillard was even born) for “Darling” and earned two successive nominations, in 1971 and 1997. Cotillard had appeared in a few English-language films like “Big Fish” and “A Good Year” and had been nominated for three César Awards, the last of which she one. By comparison, of course, Christie had been nominated for seven BAFTA Awards, winning once for “Darling.”
Why it was just the two of them: Two of the eventual Oscar nominees were surprises and therefore weren’t likely to end up the victor. Cate Blanchett had received Golden Globe and SAG nods for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” but few expected her to end up on the final Oscar ballot. She hadn’t won for her initial portrayal of the monarch nine years earlier, and the follow-up film was enough of a flop to cancel out her chances. Laura Linney’s nomination for “The Savages” was her award. Young Ellen Page might have had a shot if “Juno” didn’t have so many haters and wasn’t going to definitely go home with the Best Original Screenplay prize.
Setting the stage: The Golden Globes were hardly helpful in determining a frontrunner, as both actresses took home awards in their respective categories – Christie for Drama, Cotillard for Comedy/Musical. Christie steamrolled around with a good deal more critics’ awards and the SAG trophy, but Cotillard eked out one major victory: the BAFTA.
Oscar night: Neither film got a big boost in terms of nominations. “Away from Her,” somewhat surprisingly, was up for Best Adapted Screenplay, replacing the strangely-snubbed “Into the Wild,” while “La Vie en Rose” was up for Best Costume Design and Best Makeup. Cotillard ended up clinching the Best Actress award, becoming the third person to earn an Oscar for an entirely foreign-language performance, and the first French thespian to do so.
Consolation prize for the loser: Nothing really. Besides a memorable small part in “New York, I Love You,” Christie hasn’t done much since. Cotillard, on the other hand, has done extremely well for herself with great roles in “Nine” and “Inception.”
Other notable duels: Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There) vs. Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) for Best Supporting Actress (victor: third nominee Tilda Swinton)
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2006. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. There were a lot of surprises that year but only one duel that I can recall.
Each year after the Oscar nominations are announced, there’s at least one category where two nominees end up in a heated battle for the award right up until Oscar night, dividing predictors and keeping Oscar watchers anxiously in suspense. This series is devoted to analyzing the biggest and most intense of those battles each year, in any category.
Julie Christie (Away from Her) vs. Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose) for Best ActressThe background: The veteran Oscar-winning Brit vs. the French breakout. Christie had won on her first try back in 1965 (ten years before Cotillard was even born) for “Darling” and earned two successive nominations, in 1971 and 1997. Cotillard had appeared in a few English-language films like “Big Fish” and “A Good Year” and had been nominated for three César Awards, the last of which she one. By comparison, of course, Christie had been nominated for seven BAFTA Awards, winning once for “Darling.”
Why it was just the two of them: Two of the eventual Oscar nominees were surprises and therefore weren’t likely to end up the victor. Cate Blanchett had received Golden Globe and SAG nods for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” but few expected her to end up on the final Oscar ballot. She hadn’t won for her initial portrayal of the monarch nine years earlier, and the follow-up film was enough of a flop to cancel out her chances. Laura Linney’s nomination for “The Savages” was her award. Young Ellen Page might have had a shot if “Juno” didn’t have so many haters and wasn’t going to definitely go home with the Best Original Screenplay prize.
Setting the stage: The Golden Globes were hardly helpful in determining a frontrunner, as both actresses took home awards in their respective categories – Christie for Drama, Cotillard for Comedy/Musical. Christie steamrolled around with a good deal more critics’ awards and the SAG trophy, but Cotillard eked out one major victory: the BAFTA.
Oscar night: Neither film got a big boost in terms of nominations. “Away from Her,” somewhat surprisingly, was up for Best Adapted Screenplay, replacing the strangely-snubbed “Into the Wild,” while “La Vie en Rose” was up for Best Costume Design and Best Makeup. Cotillard ended up clinching the Best Actress award, becoming the third person to earn an Oscar for an entirely foreign-language performance, and the first French thespian to do so.
Consolation prize for the loser: Nothing really. Besides a memorable small part in “New York, I Love You,” Christie hasn’t done much since. Cotillard, on the other hand, has done extremely well for herself with great roles in “Nine” and “Inception.”
Other notable duels: Cate Blanchett (I’m Not There) vs. Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone) for Best Supporting Actress (victor: third nominee Tilda Swinton)
Come back next week for a look at the Deadlocked Duel of 2006. If you have a prediction or a suggestion, please leave it in the comments. There were a lot of surprises that year but only one duel that I can recall.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger
Welcome to a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger – Opening September 22, 2010
After a look at Woody Allen’s best movie of the most recent decade yesterday, it’s only fitting that I happened to catch the trailer for Allen’s next film online. The trailer feels so much like an Allen film, with the somewhat awkward, matter-of-fact narration and the massive heaps of infidelity being hinted at if not outlined outright. What’s interesting about this film is that Allen doesn’t appear to be working with any of his regular players, amassing a new troupe including experienced veterans, like Anthony Hopkins and Naomi Watts, and newcomers like Freida Pinto, in her first role since making her film debut as Latika in “Slumdog Millionaire” two years ago. Like many of Allen’s past features, the characters are multi-generational, even if it’s a man of an older generation trying to (and likely succeeding in) wooing a younger woman. I particularly love the casting of Pinto as one man’s temptress and Antonio Banderas as another tempter. It’s nice to see the usually serious Watts loosen up (it was a blast in “I Heart Huckabees”) and also keep her native accent for once. Josh Brolin can also be found in the cast as a frazzled, down on his luck husband. It seems like a capable enough ensemble to handle Allen’s sharp writing, and while it’s a worthwhile debate as to whether Allen can actually create new stories after pretty much penning a new take on the same general ideas time after time, he usually adds enough new flavor to make it worthwhile. The important distinction about this film which separates it from recent disappointments like “Whatever Works” and “Scoop” is that it follows a whole cast of characters without necessarily pinpointing any sole protagonist. If one story isn’t great, maybe another can make up for it. At least one is bound to be truly enjoyable, and it’s likely that a few others, if not all of them, will be as well.
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger – Opening September 22, 2010
After a look at Woody Allen’s best movie of the most recent decade yesterday, it’s only fitting that I happened to catch the trailer for Allen’s next film online. The trailer feels so much like an Allen film, with the somewhat awkward, matter-of-fact narration and the massive heaps of infidelity being hinted at if not outlined outright. What’s interesting about this film is that Allen doesn’t appear to be working with any of his regular players, amassing a new troupe including experienced veterans, like Anthony Hopkins and Naomi Watts, and newcomers like Freida Pinto, in her first role since making her film debut as Latika in “Slumdog Millionaire” two years ago. Like many of Allen’s past features, the characters are multi-generational, even if it’s a man of an older generation trying to (and likely succeeding in) wooing a younger woman. I particularly love the casting of Pinto as one man’s temptress and Antonio Banderas as another tempter. It’s nice to see the usually serious Watts loosen up (it was a blast in “I Heart Huckabees”) and also keep her native accent for once. Josh Brolin can also be found in the cast as a frazzled, down on his luck husband. It seems like a capable enough ensemble to handle Allen’s sharp writing, and while it’s a worthwhile debate as to whether Allen can actually create new stories after pretty much penning a new take on the same general ideas time after time, he usually adds enough new flavor to make it worthwhile. The important distinction about this film which separates it from recent disappointments like “Whatever Works” and “Scoop” is that it follows a whole cast of characters without necessarily pinpointing any sole protagonist. If one story isn’t great, maybe another can make up for it. At least one is bound to be truly enjoyable, and it’s likely that a few others, if not all of them, will be as well.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Monday Movie You Aught to See: Match Point
Regardless of whether the decade ended already ended in 2009 or will end at the close of the current year, the 2000s were a wonderful period of cinema with many treasures that deserve to be remembered. Check in at Movies with Abe on Mondays for Movies You Aught to See, a look back at memorable movies from the aughts. They are posted in no particular order, and if you have a great film from the 2000s that you think merits consideration, leave a note in the comments!
Match Point
Directed by Woody Allen
Released December 28, 2005
This undervalued film from the mind of comedy maestro Woody Allen was a serious return to form for the director five years ago. Dismissible as a remake of his 1989 film “Crimes and Misdemeanors” set in London and minus the comic character played by Allen himself, this serious drama about infidelity and morality with a brilliant screenplay instead became a completely separate and magnificent film. The operatic score enhances the mood, and as always, Allen solicits excellent performances from his leads. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Matthew Goode, Emily Mortimer, and Scarlett Johansson may not have been the actors Allen used to use in his films, but they do an astonishing job here, and clearly Allen loves working with Johansson enough to cast her in two of his subsequent films.
Match Point
Directed by Woody Allen
Released December 28, 2005
This undervalued film from the mind of comedy maestro Woody Allen was a serious return to form for the director five years ago. Dismissible as a remake of his 1989 film “Crimes and Misdemeanors” set in London and minus the comic character played by Allen himself, this serious drama about infidelity and morality with a brilliant screenplay instead became a completely separate and magnificent film. The operatic score enhances the mood, and as always, Allen solicits excellent performances from his leads. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, Matthew Goode, Emily Mortimer, and Scarlett Johansson may not have been the actors Allen used to use in his films, but they do an astonishing job here, and clearly Allen loves working with Johansson enough to cast her in two of his subsequent films.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Double Documentary with Abe: Smash His Camera and Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, and Rebel
Smash His Camera
Directed by Leon Gast
Released July 30, 2010
Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, and Rebel
Directed by Brigitte Berman
Released July 30, 2010
This weekend at the movies, two unlikely heroes emerge from the depths of certainly controversial and arguably destitute professions. Both are senior citizens – one is 79, the other is 84 – and both are working just as hard as they were fifty years ago. Ron Galella, paparazzo extraordinaire, still races to events to photograph all the big stars and doesn’t let the lack of a press pass dissuade him. Hugh Hefner, founder and CEO of Playboy, still reviews the entire magazine before it goes to press each issue, insisting on some of the signature features and article standards that have been in place since close to the inception of the publication. Neither shows any signs of letting up or slowing down anytime soon, and the almost unparalleled devotion to their unconventional crafts makes them utterly captivating subjects.
One privilege enjoyed by documentary filmmakers Gast and Berman is that their subjects are still alive and in good health. Galella and Hefner can speak for themselves and share their sides of their own stories. That doesn’t hinder either filmmaker from exhaustively researching the events in their lives. Gast interviews art experts and therapists to examine the validity and longevity of Galella’s impromptu photos and his obsession with certain celebrities. Berman starts off with celebrities as diverse as Gene Simmons and George Lucas and then zeroes in on some of Hefner’s closest friends and colleagues, from elderly former staff members to James Caan. The compilation of interviews and opinions is staggering on both ends, and offers a remarkably insightful glimpse into each of these much-reviled men, especially when posited next to their own recollections and personal statements.
Though the despicableness of what they do may be equivalent to some, Galella and Hefner are not completely alike. While Galella was sued by Jackie Onassis and punched in the face by Marlon Brando several decades ago, he hasn’t enjoyed the overwhelming publicity that Hefner has. And even though one interviewee compares Galella’s New Jersey residence to that of Tony Soprano, it’s hardly the Playboy Mansion. Yet both men have contributed in an equally intriguing way to the society around them. Gallela has millions of photographs documenting multiple decades in his basement, and his lab technicians find treasures like an old photo of a curly-haired Larry David back before he was famous, standing next to a more well-known celebrity of the time. From the beginnings of his empire, Hefner ran a color-blind organization and even played an active role in the repeal of anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws in a number of states. These men have surprising virtues that may tempt their haters to reconsider their feelings towards them, and it’s especially interesting to see how they have both changed and not change in the many years since they entered into their respective fields.
Neither movie paints its subject as without faults by any measure. The former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art has plenty of nasty things to say about Gallela, and he never seems to acknowledge that what he does may in fact be interpreted as an invasion of privacy by the celebrities he so doggedly follows (or stalks). Hefner has plenty of enemies, and even his loyal secretary admits she often thought he was the worst man in the world to work for years and years ago. What becomes clear throughout both of these films, however, is that it’s worth taking a closer look at what these two men whose careers have each spanned over fifty years are contributing to society. While it’s unlikely that those unwilling to consider either of these people as a positive force in the world will opt to open their minds enough to see this film, these two films are nonetheless fascinating and worthwhile portraits of two oft-misunderstood men.
Both: B+
Directed by Leon Gast
Released July 30, 2010
Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist, and Rebel
Directed by Brigitte Berman
Released July 30, 2010
This weekend at the movies, two unlikely heroes emerge from the depths of certainly controversial and arguably destitute professions. Both are senior citizens – one is 79, the other is 84 – and both are working just as hard as they were fifty years ago. Ron Galella, paparazzo extraordinaire, still races to events to photograph all the big stars and doesn’t let the lack of a press pass dissuade him. Hugh Hefner, founder and CEO of Playboy, still reviews the entire magazine before it goes to press each issue, insisting on some of the signature features and article standards that have been in place since close to the inception of the publication. Neither shows any signs of letting up or slowing down anytime soon, and the almost unparalleled devotion to their unconventional crafts makes them utterly captivating subjects.
One privilege enjoyed by documentary filmmakers Gast and Berman is that their subjects are still alive and in good health. Galella and Hefner can speak for themselves and share their sides of their own stories. That doesn’t hinder either filmmaker from exhaustively researching the events in their lives. Gast interviews art experts and therapists to examine the validity and longevity of Galella’s impromptu photos and his obsession with certain celebrities. Berman starts off with celebrities as diverse as Gene Simmons and George Lucas and then zeroes in on some of Hefner’s closest friends and colleagues, from elderly former staff members to James Caan. The compilation of interviews and opinions is staggering on both ends, and offers a remarkably insightful glimpse into each of these much-reviled men, especially when posited next to their own recollections and personal statements.
Though the despicableness of what they do may be equivalent to some, Galella and Hefner are not completely alike. While Galella was sued by Jackie Onassis and punched in the face by Marlon Brando several decades ago, he hasn’t enjoyed the overwhelming publicity that Hefner has. And even though one interviewee compares Galella’s New Jersey residence to that of Tony Soprano, it’s hardly the Playboy Mansion. Yet both men have contributed in an equally intriguing way to the society around them. Gallela has millions of photographs documenting multiple decades in his basement, and his lab technicians find treasures like an old photo of a curly-haired Larry David back before he was famous, standing next to a more well-known celebrity of the time. From the beginnings of his empire, Hefner ran a color-blind organization and even played an active role in the repeal of anti-abortion and anti-contraception laws in a number of states. These men have surprising virtues that may tempt their haters to reconsider their feelings towards them, and it’s especially interesting to see how they have both changed and not change in the many years since they entered into their respective fields.
Neither movie paints its subject as without faults by any measure. The former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art has plenty of nasty things to say about Gallela, and he never seems to acknowledge that what he does may in fact be interpreted as an invasion of privacy by the celebrities he so doggedly follows (or stalks). Hefner has plenty of enemies, and even his loyal secretary admits she often thought he was the worst man in the world to work for years and years ago. What becomes clear throughout both of these films, however, is that it’s worth taking a closer look at what these two men whose careers have each spanned over fifty years are contributing to society. While it’s unlikely that those unwilling to consider either of these people as a positive force in the world will opt to open their minds enough to see this film, these two films are nonetheless fascinating and worthwhile portraits of two oft-misunderstood men.
Both: B+