X-Men Origins: Wolverine

For those who waited for this prequel to X-Men, it was worth every moment, every day of anticipation. For those who have never seen X-Men, well, this is a great place to start. In the grand tradition of the comic book, this edition features the origins of The Wolverine, the mutant who is at the core of the storyline.

There have been some excellent renditions of the ‘Batman’, ‘Spiderman’, and ‘Watchmen’ series’ in recent years. With just the right mix of CGI, storytelling, and acting, we have reached new levels in the way comic books are depicted on film. Director, Gavin Hood, has taken these tools and designed an outstanding issue in this, the third installment of the series. The bar now rests at a higher level for those who follow. I enjoy director’s who compete with their peers. When they get it right, amazing results are often achieved.

Like the original comic book series, a tale can be told with the flourish of great graphics, coupled with minimal, but carefully selected text, to achieve a creative and comprehensible story line. The great artist, Jack Kirby (Captain America, Fantastic Four), was the initial artist in the X-Men series. While not the creator of the ‘Wolverine’ character, I believe he would have approved of the camera work in ‘Wolverine’. There is great stop action framing, perhaps homage to King Kirby. I also love the angles used in shooting. In many cases, the distant view of the entire scene is shown, much like in the comic books.

Hugh Jackman stars as ‘Logan/Wolverine’. He is perfect in every frame. The effort that Jackman has put into this portrayal is clear. He has turned himself into a physical specimen rarely seen in a starring role since Bruce Lee in ‘Enter The Dragon’. Add to this his powerful ability to project his lines in any manner and its clear Jackman is far beyond the coveted ‘triple threat’ that most entertainers aspire to be. His turns on-stage as ‘Curly’ in Oklahoma, ‘Peter Allen’ on Broadway, and film roles in ‘Van Helsing’ and ‘ The Prestige’ solidify that fact. For good measure, he was the song and dance, comedic host of the 2008 Academy Awards show.

There is excellent supporting talent at every turn in this production. Liev Schreiber is particularly nasty as the ‘hell bent’ Victor Creed. Musician, Will.i.Am,
Kevin Durand and Taylor Kitsch all lend nice supporting roles as well. I particularly liked Lynn Collins, as Logan’s love interest Kayla.

Dominic Monaghan (Lost) lit the way as mutant ‘Bolt’. He was joined by and ‘A-Team’ group of mutants that put on an excellent display of their superpowers. Rounding out the team was Tim Pocock, Ryan Reynolds (as Hal Jordan/The Green Lantern’ in production), and Daniel Henney. Their scenes epitomize what many comic readers love to see in the pages, action packed, and jaw dropping abilities. They did not disappoint here.



Technical

The Blu-ray edition is vibrant and exceptional at 1924 X 1080p, 120Hz. The sound is fine on all levels at 5.1, dts-HD. The special features are many. They include the customary commentary with the director (Gavin Hood), a great feature with Marvel Comics legend, Stan Lee, and former writer Len Wein. The back and forth banter is pure gold for fans. So many tidbits of fascinating information are thrown at you, seemingly as afterthoughts. Also included are ‘Ultimate X-mode’ (ability to sit in the director’s chair, pre-visualize Wolverine and X-Facts), a helicopter scene, insight segment, and an alternate ending. The language options are English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese. The subtitles available are English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Cantonese.

Duplicity

They say revenge is a dish…well, you know the rest. ‘Duplicity’ is a twisty, witty, globe trotting spy’s night out at your favorite Italian restaurant, with a fine bottle of the house reserve. Of course, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen serve it up in a wonderful presentation. They play ex-spooks available to the highest bidder. Add a side dish of Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson, vying for your attention and we have a who’s-gonna-do-it in the grand tradition. If either of them went up in the supporting actor category, it would be to close to call. They made excellent use of the time and limited material they were provided with.

Owen has made great strides since his entrance onto the main stage in Croupier. He has steadily moved up the ranks and is now rubbing elbows with major star power. Not bad for a boy who seemed to misstep when overlooked as the heir to the 007 dynasty. Was it a fluke that he looked like the real McCoy (if only for a moment) decked out in a white dinner jacket for his first poolside scene with Ms. Roberts? Maybe. At any rate, Owen interacts well with Ms. Roberts and shows fine form. It appears that he is now firmly entrenched as the go to guy, the UK version of Nicholas Cage if you will. They even resemble one another.

Ms. Roberts is still A number one. She is quite cool and handles the role well. What, with a wagonload of talent on her heals it won’t be too long before she is bumped up to the Grand Old Dame home for yesterdays leading ladies. Don’t worry about her; she will be rewarded with elegant but tempered roles from here on out, albeit in the supporting category. There she will join the likes of Faye Dunaway, Helen Mirren, and Diane Carroll who have kept a seat warm for her at the bridge table.

‘Duplicity’ was written and directed by Tony Gilroy. He has an impressive resume as a writer: The recent ‘State of Play’, ‘Michael Clayton’ and the ‘Bourne’ Trilogy, He also directed ‘Michael Clayton’. The plot twists in ‘Duplicity’ are complicated only if you have the attention span of an action film connoisseur. In ‘Duplicity’, I found comedy, romance, suspense and intrigue. I also like the fact that not too much is given away early on. As an example, we do not know exactly why the services of the ex-agents are required. Gilroy does a solid job in piecing it together though (much like he did with Michael Clayton).

‘Duplicity’ is rounded out with nice performances from Oleg Shtefanko, as Owens’ field ops assistant; and Denis O’Hare, with Rick Worthy as the ops team leaders who provide some nice comic touches.
I recommend the film as seen on the Blu-ray edition. The picture is excellent, the sound quality superb (5.1 DTS HD, digital surround). I watch the material on a 40”, 120hz, 1080p high-end screen. I use headphones for all my reviewed as well. The extras however are limited to the ‘My Scenes’ feature mainly commentary provided by director Tony Gilroy and editor John Gilroy. That is OK, as I only use the commentary for subsequent screenings of films I find outstanding. The ‘Making of’ featurettes are nice, but not expected. Finally, I review all screenings directly after viewing.

State Of Play

‘State of Play’ is based on a BBC Television production of the same name. It is a political thriller set in Washington D.C. with the frantic edginess of ‘All The President’s Men’. There is even a suspense filled scene set in an underground parking garage. The Watergate Complex also makes a brief appearance. Perhaps, homage to Alan J. Pakula. Much of the film is shot in a vast, open newsroom. One simply cannot watch the film without thinking of the changes going on in real newsrooms. This is a credit to Director Kevin MacDonald, who paced the action well and made full use of the set.

The plot revolves around the collision of two reporters, one old media, and the other new. Russell Crowe is the grizzled veteran, Cal. His style is hitting the streets and sniffing out the leads and sources that will break the story. Rachel McAdams is Della Frye, Internet savvy and on the rise. When she enters Cal’s world to assist with a big story, she is reminded that her status is that of a Cub Reporter. The source of it, the Ben Bradley-ish publisher, Helen Mirren. Ms. Mirren adds a nice, whiskey in the morning bent to the cast.

Crowe is superb. His portrayal of ‘Cal McAffrey’ is intense, methodical, and steady. When the action kicks into high gear, Crowe’s pace does as well. At times, he reminds me a bit of the immortal ‘Aqualung’ depicted on the cover of the Jethro Tull LP. It may be an obscure reference, but I insisted it remain. He is secure enough in his talent, to allow the other actor’s, mainly McAdams, Ben Affleck and Robin Wright Penn to, on occasion, talk down to his character while he painfully winces, almost in acknowledgement. Lesser actors would never allow this to make the final script. It’s another reason why Crowe is among the very best.

Affleck gives a strong portrayal of a Congressman who gets caught up in the scandals that can easily be lifted from the headlines of many a Washington Post morning edition. The reminder that the plot is plausible makes a statement unto itself. Robin Wright Penn is effective as Affleck’s weary wife. While her part was more complex than most involving ‘the wife’, it could have been a bit healthier.

Rounding out the cast is a nice mix of talent. Jason Bateman in a superbly played role as a source in the investigation, Jeff Daniels, as the Congressional majority whip, Michael Berresse as the loner ex-soldier , Harry Lennex, great as usual, this time as the vexed police detective. Josh Mostel and Michael Weston also deliver nice chemistry as Crowe’s in the field tech specialists.

I also liked the appearance of Sarah Lord as ‘Mandi Brokaw’, the street hustling addict who has a break to offer Crowe in his investigation. She speaks volumes in her initial non-verbal scene, with her expression. Her style is intriguing, and I’d enjoy seeing her in a larger role, perhaps in the future.

The newspaper industry may be the last sign of an era that is phasing out. Papers are ubiquitous. They occupy a place on every corner of every major city in the world. Sadly, this is ending. But not before being documented in solid movies like this. Make sure to watch the end credits, as it takes a final look at the process of putting out a newspaper edition. ‘State of Play’ is one of the movies that will be remembered, in part, for portraying a much-loved industry.

Being There

An amazingly wonderful possibility takes root and grows in the most unlikely setting imaginable. What emerges is a truly witty and triumphant story. ‘Being There’ allows us to look at what we have become as a society and tears down the ladders we are expected to climb. What is left is a revealing look at the common denominator and the math involved in obtaining it. Along the way, it becomes clear that friendship, understanding and love are unaffected by the simplicity of one’s actions. Indeed, we find that it sprinkles the pathway with a chance to read one’s intent not through words, but by thinking, searching one’s eyes and trusting our instincts.

Peter Sellers is deeply entrenched in a character that may be the hardest role for someone of his intellect, oratory gifts, and physical presence to inhabit. I am not sure that I have ever seen a film that so brilliantly uses reactions as a major part of the script. This also makes for hilarious ‘what if’ scenarios. Sellers’ talent for this goes without saying. He is joined by an impressive array of old Hollywood talent who compliment his every gesture.

Melvyn Douglas rightfully earned the Oscar for his portrayal of Benjamin Rand, somewhat of a J. Paul Getty industrialist who has one foot in the grave and the President’s ear as well. Shirley MacLaine is wonderful as Eve, Rand’s devoted but antsy wife. Ms. MacLaine is always a good bet to take over any film she is cast in, and she steals several scenes. In one, she leaves us rolling on the floor laughing.

Jack Warden builds a role as the crafty and cranky President into a fine performance. Initially, it appeared that he would be used sparingly, but his subsequent scenes were very good. Ruth Attaway portrays Louise, a woman burdened by the truth, yet rightfully embittered by it. Richard Dysart provides intrigue as the skeptical Doctor Allenby.

‘Being There’ was directed by Hal Ashby. He was afforded an excellent script, cast, and crew. I think one of the reasons that great actors require great directors is due to their immersion into their roles. Mr. Ashby had the ability, as they say in sports, to ‘see the whole field’. It was an essential ingredient to making this a classic film. The movie was filmed in 1979, and there is much to date it. Yet, the core elements are timeless.

The movie is now on Blu-ray. There are a few extras, such as memories of the filming, an alternate ending and deleted scenes. It does look nice, but do not expect the normal HD experience. It was filmed almost 30 years ago. However, I sent this to the top of my Netflix list on the strength of its story. That and a message that I need to be reminded of from time to time when life seems absurd. This is a garden of earthly delights and one that makes being there special

Sister Wendy's American Collection

Before getting this installment of the series, I watched another one on paintings. I was a puzzled as to why Sister Wendy touched on so few works. She examined maybe ten paintings and that was it. A review I read said, “ There were just too few paintings. How is it that Sister Wendy could leave so many well-known and important works out of her documentaries?” The answer came to me while watching this segment of the series “The Art Institute of Chicago, and The Cleveland Museum of Art.”

Sister Wendy Becket’s knowledge of so many aspects of art is astounding. In addition, she appears to float through the galleries, as if their floors were clouds. She feels at home with paintings, but can talk your ear off about ceramics. She knows the old masters, as well as the new ones from the last century. I could not help but feel that she loves art and perhaps, may live vicariously through it. The vast palette of colors artists spread as opposed to the monotony of black and white clothing every day. The restraints of her world yet the freedom, expression and possibility of the world of art she explores.

Sister Wendy enjoys the study of art. I believe there is only one thing she likes better outside of her commitments to God, and that is showing people how to appreciate art! This is the key to unlocking the meaning! As I was watching her at the Art Institute of Chicago, it became clear that it was not all about the artist and the piece on display. That means quite a bit or the piece would not be there. Rather, it is so interesting to unlock the secrets of a particular piece through observation and perhaps, researching the era in which the piece was done. These are some of the lesson learned from this incredible individual.

Let us examine a prime example of this. At the Cleveland Museum of Art, Sister Wendy discusses a painting by Frederic Church named ‘ Twilight in the Wilderness’ that was done in 1860. It shows a valley with a lake. It is American landscape. Sister Wendy, through her knowledge of history, and art, examines the symbolism within. This lays the astonishing groundwork for her interpretation.

She begins by mentioning that there is an eagle perched on a branch to the left. She swiftly states that some people like to acknowledge this and it’s meaning as an American eagle. In addition, the crossed twigs by the water and perhaps, the spiritual relevance to the viewer. She then mentions a few other observations. However, the she delves deeper. Moreover, I am paying attention, learning and aware of it!

Sister Wendy notes “that menace in the skies and the boiling, blood red tide tides of water.” Then, in a tone of resignation states that the Civil War was coming and the scene would soon be experienced across the country. Brilliant. Imagine the awareness level while browsing the galleries. It gets better. She turns to the painting next to it. As it turns out, this is a work by one of Church’s contemporaries. It too, is an American landscape. The setting is similar to the prior piece, but the sun is streaming down from the heavens and lights the trees as if a new day has begun. Yes, Sister Wendy reveals that it was done in 1866, and the war had ended.

Had I passed through that gallery, I assuredly would have missed the significance. I may have glanced, tilted my head, and then moved on. That will not happen on subsequent visits. I work at an art museum, and feel as though I have learned about art. Through watching Sister Wendy, I admit that there is so much more to learn. So much more to see, and thanks to her, I have a clear idea of where to look. Time to get out and into the galleries. Thank you Sister Wendy, for helping a blind man to see again.

The Decalogue

Krzysztof Kieslowski was a Polish filmmaker from Warsaw (1941-1996) that brought great pride to a country that has had to overcome many hardships in order to survive. This is one of the reasons I love the Polish people. Another is that I grew up with them in my native Chicago, Illinois. They are a resilient, strong, and intelligent people. Above all, they are amongst the most caring and generous souls I have ever met. It is fitting then that they had a brilliant filmmaker who stayed in Poland through thick and thin to document their lives.

I was thinking of how I might describe Krzysztof Kieslowski’s ‘The Decalogue’. My thoughts throughout kept coming back to the American series ‘Twilight Zone’. We know it is a series of ten episodes. Each one is a loose study of one of the Ten Commandments. We are also aware that each episode has a character that resides in the same group of Warsaw apartment buildings. Yet, none are carried over into subsequent episodes. Finally, it is clear that the ‘The Decalogue’ was filmed in 1988. So let us go a bit deeper. It is something Kieslowski would insist upon based on his character studies.

Krzysztof Kieslowski co-wrote each segment of ‘The Decalogue’. His collaborator was Krzysztof Piesiewicz; a lawyer who Kieslowski felt added a different perspective to compliment his own style. Kieslowski directed every movie. I originally thought that he was consulted on every aspect of the filming, as like a Coppola might be. However, I found out that Kieslowski invited nine different Cinematographers to participate. He gave each one total freedom on their movie. He remarked in an interview that this brought freshness to each episode. He said that he was particularly concerned that the crew not be bored.

The characters in the movies run the gamut from young to old, clever to naive, and intelligent to foolish. However, each has a common thread running through their lives. Each must make a decision that may change their lives. This is reflected in each of Zbigniew Preisner’s dramatic and sensitive scores. The movies are intense and there is little in the way of action-based sequences. Some of the episodes may bring sadness, while others tend to make one reflect on the subject matter.

I favored the first and last episodes. In particular, Decalogue X has a nice comedic touch throughout and it is a great way to end the series. Kieslowski certainly emphasizes that point with the last lines uttered in the Decalogue. It is his signature and a fond farewell to a wonderful project. Included below are a few lines of my initial reaction to each of the ten movies.

I

Henryk Baranowski... Krzysztof
Maja Komorowska... Irena
Wojciech Klata... Pawet

A brilliant, inquisitive child takes every opportunity to learn. Every day and each moment that passes bring questions to his fascinated mind. Those around him provide insight and enlightenment, if only to give pause to his incessant thirst. Such is the world of a child. Yet, lessons are learned throughout life, and sometimes, the experience can be as harsh as the coldest winters.

II

Krystyna Janda... Dorota
Aleksander Bardini... Ordynator
Olgierd Lukaszewicz... Andrzej

Desire is an inferno not easily controlled by mere mortals. Add anxiety and deadlines to the mix and one can only hope to handle the flame without being burned. This is precisely what one self-absorbed individual is seeking to accomplish. Standing in the way is a wise and resourceful individual who might be the solution, but also garners her scorn. The results are predictable only in the fact that nothing is certain and God still has the best curveball in the game.

III

Maria Pakulnis... Ewa
Daniel Olbrychski... Janusz
Joanna Szczepkowska... Zona Janusza

Sometimes we believe what we want to believe for selfish reasons. Then again, manipulation is not often successful without a willing victim. Regardless, the outcome is never certain until the hours pass as if acts in a play lit by the moon and staged in the shadows.

IV

Adrianna Biedrzynska... Anka
Janusz Gajos... Michal

How fully has a life been lived when its meaning can be replaced with a sentence? What we know can sometimes be the furthest thing from the truth, if we convince ourselves it is so. This Decalogue examines the value we place on our relationships. Quite often, the outcome tests the very foundations they are built on. Moreover, to be sure, that is why they are laid in the first place.

V

Miroslaw Baka... Jacek
Krzysztof Globisz... Piotr
Jan Tesarz... Taksowkarz

Choices are the freedom to make your own way. The will to bring harm is perceived as better than what? Is life so boring? Then it must be served a just dose of reality. However, isn’t that what you ran away from in the first place? So is it back where you started, or ahead to the unknown. Getting what you desire can taste very harsh. Moreover, it turns out to be anything but free.

VI

Grazyna Szapolowska... Magda
Olaf Lubaszenko... Tomek
Stefania Iwinska... Gospodyni

What you see…is it what you really want to get? On the other hand, as it has been reported “Ask for what you want, you just might get it” Additionally, the ‘object of our affection’ can turn into the ‘obsession of the object’ if one isn’t careful. Earle wrote “he may just live long enough to become a man, if he can survive the tempest of youth’.

VII

Anna Polony... Ewa
Maja Barelkowska... Majka
Wladyslaw Kowalski... Stefan
Boguslaw Linda... Wojtek

Missed opportunity. We are always in a hurry and run past the open doors. Our instinct for survival is suppressed only by our emotions. They can make miracles happen or lead us into disaster. However, one surety exists: we cannot flee them.

VIII

Maria Koscialkowska... Zofia
Teresa Marczewska... Elzbieta

What becomes of the past? All we know is that it can be resurrected at a moments notice. That is the power of the mind. Most anything can push memories to the forefront. A glance. A gesture. Perhaps, the past is reawakened in a familiar story. Whatever the case, if it calls at your door, be sure before you invite it in. This time, you can change it.

IX

Ewa Blaszczyk... Hanka
Piotr Machalica... Roman

Sometimes, we have to go to the edge to see what is really in front of us. Had we been looking, we could have seen it coming from behind. The difference is measured in the miles logged running to avoid truth, at all costs.

X

Jerzy Stuhr... Jerzy
Zbigniew Zamachowski... Artur

Two brothers, two distinct lives. Ah, if one is conservative, the other must be liberal. If one is rich, the other is poor. How deep does it go? Moreover, what might it take to make them alike? Nothing you say? Oh but it is so simple and has been around forever…

Knowing

An interesting tale that I went into blind. Again, this newfangled notion of Knowing all about the various aspects of a film spoils things. More than likely, it is because I am growing older and used to a movie naturally unveiling its secrets and charms. Perhaps, the youth of today, who were born into the information age are naturally conditioned to expect a synopsis that will make sense with the subliminal every-scene-flashed-before-your-eyes trailers. At any rate, it was nice to let this one unfold on its own.

Knowing is a decent, well made film. It stars Nicholas Cage. Cage is a reliable actor because he plays himself, as he believes the character would be as Nicholas Cage. Audiences accept Cage in this way. We like him as a measured lunatic (Honeymoon In Vegas), a funny lunatic (Vampire’s Kiss), and a full on lunatic (Wild At Heart). When allowed to, Cage steps out of his skin and into roles fashioned for the big boys (Leaving Las Vegas). He excels in such surroundings, but you get the sense he does not love them.

Chandler Canterbury is fine as Cage’s young son burdened with having to grow up too soon. Rose Byrne turns in a nice performance as a link to the to the mystery Cage so desperately needs to resolve. Both provide welcome company to Cage’s tossed-into-the rabbit hole existence.

Special effects abound, and the CGI just keeps getting better with each new release. The computer gaming industry pushed visual and audio technology to greater heights until Hollywood got a hold of it. The town did what it does best: make magic. These days, teams of amazing technologists can be as important to a film as the cinematographer. They will one day replace them, when exterior locations are too unhealthy for filming.

My only grousing with ‘Knowing’ is in some of the run of the mill goofy movie dialogue. However, it is minimal, and I tried to chalk it up to the characters ‘state of shock’ disposition. I would have liked to see a bit more science, especially from the academia angle that was introduced early on. However, it is addressed in the ‘special features’ section.

The story line is equal parts fantasy and science. As a sci-fi fan, I rate the film a respectable six out of ten tribbles. I would like to compare this film to some favorable films I have seen, but it would give too much insight into the plot. In addition, I would rather be sparse in a review so you might enjoy the surprises as well.‘Knowing’ is a nice rental when you’re in the sci-fi mood.

Deception

Going into this I had fair warning as to what it was about. The name guarantees as much. That said my interest raised as each chapter unfolded. Knowing how the genre is, working out the inevitable twists and curveballs ensued. That is part of the experience. Yet, this film has something different about it. A subtle expression that grows into an intriguing smile.

Director Marcel Langenegger worked with writer, Mark Bomback, to make the film work for both their tastes and sensibilities. Their collaboration is for the good of the project. He also brought in Dante Spinotti, a fine Director of Photography. He was largely responsible for the look of the Chinatown sequence and it was my favorite sequence of events.

I wanted to see ‘Deception’ on the strength of Hugh Jackman and Ewan McGregor’s involvement with the film. Both are extraordinarily fine actors and I could not imagine either appearing in anything sub-par. They took on assignments that cast them in a different light than most are used to viewing them in.

Mr. Jackman dives into his role with the same gusto he has become famous for. I feel that few actors can match his range. His ‘Wolverine’ is much more than a raging mutant. Jackman squarely lifted the ‘X-Men’ gambit to his shoulders and skyrocketed into mega-franchise orbit. He also has history on Broadway and lit the boards afire in ‘The Boy From Oz’. His turn as 'Van Helsing' the great vampire hunter sees Hugh in the action-adventure region and earning high praise.

Mr. McGregor plays an accountant who goes through his daily paces as one of the army of eternal extras who drift through the scenes of New York’s rich, powerful, and flamboyant theater of the absurd. McGregor’s skill is on display as a timid, almost apologetic excuse of a being that I would have loved to seen introduced ala ‘Twilight Zone’ by Rod Serling. His character certainly passes through it.

What gives ‘Deception’ its edge is an outstanding performance by Michelle Williams. Her interaction with both stars is intense, but in particular, with McGregor she is magical. Ms. Williams says more with a glance than words could express. Each scene finds her generously sprinkling talent in all directions. Oh, she does indeed speak, and I savored every word.

A quick nod to Charlotte Rampling who I might well have wrote the above paragraph for had she been given more screen time. She makes ample use of what time she does receive. Ms. Rampling has a rather brutal, but matter-of-fact way of taking over a scene. Her dominance is simply never in question.

The sliding scale for a psychological thriller begins with ‘Hitchcock brilliant’ and works its way down from there. ‘Deception’ is definitely north of its genres norm, and a solid companion on one of those nights when the phone is not ringing.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

I think anything is believable; it's all in the way the story is told. 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' is just such a story. And besides, we want to believe in that which touches the heart, scares us half to death or brings sidesplitting laughter. This is why we love to watch movies. It is why the best of them appear to be timeless.

This film is excellent on every level. The story was handled perfectly. It is a rich and expansive tale. One might think that time is the subject here, but in truth, it is nothing more than another excellent love story. ‘Nothing more’ because it doesn’t get lost in it’s circumstances. The direction of David Fincher wrings every bit of energy and emotion from the cast that allows this story to thrive.

Brad Pitt crafts an unforgettable performance as 'Benjamin Button'. It is perhaps, his finest work to date. He creates an even-tempered, and sophisticated man.
A man who thirsts for a knowledge and understanding of a world that seems upside down, but that also has dropped great compassion on his doorstep.

Taraji Henson is outstanding as the mother that recognizes beauty, the future and the hand of god in her son's disposition. Mahershalalhashbaz Ali compliments Hensen's 'Queenie' as 'Tizzy', the other man in her life. Jared Harris is 'Captain Mike' who in the proverbial split-second decision becomes Benjamin's mentor in the ways of the world.

Menageries of characters pass through ‘Benjamin’s’ world. It is they who are rambunctious and animated. They show Benjamin the aspects of life that can easily be missed, and thus bypass the great experiences that life offer. It is Benjamin who realizes that one must be brave enough to grasp these opportunities.

'Benjamin Button' was a movie I had read about, seen the trailers for and was convinced I shouldn't see. I thought I knew pretty much all there was to know already. It wasn't long into the film that I knew I was wrong. With the end credits came the realization that I had just experienced an incredible story.

The Visitor

One of the major issues leftover from W.’s administration was immigration. ‘The Visitor’ addresses the thorny subject by presenting a story of four people affected by it. As with most issues on this country’s agenda, it’s not quite so cut and dried as people make it out to be. One might assume you are either for or against. ‘The Visitor’ tears that apart and forces the viewer to re-examine the complexities involved. And I’m not sure that by the last act we can be certain who the ‘Visitor’ truly is.

Aside from some sober realities, ‘The Visitor’ is full of magic on many levels. Richard Jenkins plays ‘Walter’, an academic who appears to be not merely burned out, but a scorched shell of an individual that has been sleepwalking through life. His world changes as many do when a chance occurrence presents him with a decision requiring a spark of humanity.

On the opposite end of the spectrum (and a welcome balance) are Dania Gurira (Zainab) and Tarek (Haaz Sleiman). They are a young couple who live life to it’s absolute fullest , while traveling on a near empty tank of gas. They embody every bit of spirit, hope and determination of those who came before them in the massive wave of immigration from the early days of the last century.

An excellent performance from Hiam Abbass (Mouna) lifts the film to new heights. Her addition to the cast was that good. The savvy filmgoer might be tempted to believe they have gotten the best of the plot guessing game with her arrival. Perhaps. But by this time in the story, anxiety begins to creep in and soon the viewer will be gripped by the decisions leading to the finale.

My paternal Grandparents were among those afforded the opportunity for a new life in America. I couldn’t help but think of them while watching ‘The Visitor’s’ story unfold. In the high stakes world of public opinion with political futures at stake, something gets lost. It is drowned out amidst the analysts’ incessant babble. It is an individual’s chance to build upon their dreams in a country that depends upon them to survive that is disappearing.

Twilight

Many elements of 'Twilight' have been explored in other vampire movies. One might gather that this film has little to offer. Not so. There are also several old rules that get tossed out the window here, and that makes for an interesting film. The objective is not fright and blood. It is certainly not ritual (unless you include baseball). And the only relation to ‘Lost Boys’ is found in the ‘new kid on the block’ story line. So on to the good and the bad (no ugly in ‘Twilight’). It is definitely a film with Barbie, Ken and their teenage daughters in mind. But fans of the genre might just be entertained.

Since it was based on a novel, there was plenty of obligatory set-up work to be handled. Director Catherine Hardwicke does so while maintaining a smart pace. She is able to move onto, well, just the potatoes I’m afraid, without dragging her feet. The story is set mainly in the Pacific Northwest. This allows for a nice compromise between the old day/night conflicts of most vampire adventures.

Some of what is found in ‘Twilight’ is a cross between a series on the WB and ‘The Bold and the Beautiful’. The vampires contained within ‘Twilight’ are for the most part quite affable. And as odd as it may seem, the notion of a vampire maintaining a strictly vegetarian diet is not a new one. But it does tend to water things down. And while there is a side order of hearty munchers included, it doesn’t quench one’s thirst for, well, vampirism.

In as much as vampire movies go, ‘Twilight’ is aiming for a radical departure from the norm. Given that, and as a fan of the genre, my interest was maintained. I enjoyed the setting of the film, as well as the ‘new’ elements as to what vampires can and cannot do. Let’s see what the next chapter brings.

The Vampire Genre (part one)

Superhero movies have always left me somewhat unfulfilled. I don’t dislike them; it’s mainly because I used to read every comic book I could get my hands on as a child. There was a lot to imagine about their worlds. Much was left unsaid, and the imagination takes over. So when the film version comes around, it is someone else’s imagination that is left to digest. Not so with the vampire genre. Time to indulge in a few choice moments of the anti-hero.

I’ve never read a vampire comic book. I’m not sure they were around in the sixties and seventies. But I have had a certain fascination with them nonetheless. The greatest single vampire movie shot is that of Bela Lugosi with the moonlight highlighting his chiseled features as ‘Dracula’. The picture was menacing, if only to a kid growing up in the sixties. Staring at him, I was transfixed. I could also have written the screenplay from what that look inspired. It remains a classic in my book.

Dark Shadows and Jonathon Frid’s ‘Barnabas Collins’ came next in the sixties. The black and white sets were ideal for Frid’s eerie portrait of the family vampire. Indeed I can still hear him summoning his servant to be ‘Come to me, Julia’. A few other TV favorites follow.

A quick nod to a comedic marvel goes to everyone’s favorite geriatric vampire, Grandpa Munster! But in a more dramatic light, I thought ‘Forever Knight’; a Canadian series was extremely well done. The notion of a vampire cop might be a bit hard to take, but it was top notch.Again, I found myself rooting for‘Lucien LaCroix’, the master vampire who was disgusted with vampire cop (Geraint Wyn Davies) Nicholas Knight’s ‘humanity’. ‘LaCroix’ was played perfectly by veteran stage actor, Nigel Bennett.

Years later, I saw another take on the genre with ‘Lost Boys’. It was the first ‘vampire gang’ flick. I found it rather disappointing because I was rooting for the new kid to turn into a vampire and munch happily ever after. Look, if evil is the order of the day; I’m rooting for the undead. Like when the ‘Master’ took out the priest in ‘Salem’s Lot. And you know that you loved James Mason’s rendering of that scene in the kitchen. Live (or die) a little. It’s only a movie. But cut the happy ending nonsense every once in a while.

No disrespect intended, but I’m skipping ‘Buffy’, ‘Kolchak’, ‘Van Helsing’, ‘30 Days of Night', 'Near Dark', & ‘Night Watch’ because it’s 4:51 AM and I’d be here until daylight and we can’t have that. ; )=

Doubt

This film opens with a view of a street scene from the sixties. We see the neighborhood and those who inhabit it, preparing for the daily parade to the center of the community, the Catholic Church. And that is as far as we are taken from church grounds. Without researching the production, I can be reasonably sure that it originated as a play. It is not so much what happens on these grounds that is the reason we are here, it is what might have occurred.

This is a story-based film, and one that I was looking forward to. Philip Seymour Hoffman is an outstanding actor (and one of my favorites. Meryl Streep isn’t but she is excellent in everything she chooses to be a part of. With story being the action, I didn’t feel enough kick. It was too subdued. What we received packed little punch and was nothing more than an episode of ‘Little House on the Prairie’. I say this because in the end it was always the moral of the story that was most important. And often times, that was left for the viewer to interpret. This is central to 'Doubt' as well.

I loved the feel of the film, as I was raised in the sixties. Everything looked right and it brought back memories of a time when buildings had character, automobiles were distinct and the people who lived around you were not strangers.
It is a period piece that succeeds exceedingly well on that level. And true to form, Meryl Streep is fantastic. I had thought that this took place in any one of the cities with a large Irish population But Ms. Streep has an unmistakable Boston accent (and perfect I might add).

The Catholic Church in America is a once powerful entity that for a time was as influential as the government itself. But it began to crumble; as did the government when the truth was revealed to those whose support made the institutions possible. Lying beneath the surface was an ugly network of pathetically powerful men. A cabal based on power, greed, lust and deception. Demons who were meant to dwell in the final chapter of the book they used to advance their cause. There is little doubt where they are headed.

Slumdog Millionaire

I love foreign films. I feel this way because storytelling comes first. If explosions, skin or violence is required to accurately tell their stories, so be it. But the story is everything in films made outside the USA. When I think of great ‘story’ based films, ‘The Usual Suspects’ (USA), ‘Run Lola Run’ (Germany), and ‘Roshomon’ (Japan) come to mind. There is only one element to these films that is similar. They all involve a recounting or revisiting of events that lead up to the finale. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ belongs in this category as well.

This film has the courage to go almost two-hours. The ‘standard’ for movies these days is 90 minutes. That’s mainly because studios listen more to focus groups than directors. The same standard applied in the sixties with record releases. The cardinal rule: never go over three minutes in length. This ‘wisdom’ was obliterated when FM radio and ‘album oriented rock’ ushered in an era of unprecedented creativity. In 'Slumdog Millionaire', Writer, Simon Beaufoy, Editor, Chris Dickens, and Directors, Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan complimented each other in a magnificent display of ensemble work behind the scenes. The precious extra minutes were used unselfishly and gave the story room to breath, and ultimately triumph

Another aspect of risk (beautifully handled here) was in seaming together multiple time periods. Many potentially excellent films are ruined as the story gets lost in the time tunnels, and confusion ensues. In ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, we have three characters, interpreted by nine actors. Six of them being children. Each part was brilliantly acted, and the continuity was allowed to develop clearly and naturally. Again, Directors, Danny Boyle & Loveleen Tandan were the reason it worked. They say you get what you give, and they must have been quite generous with the young cast.

I would be negligent not to mention a marvelous supporting cast. Not to be outshone, the people and settings throughout were spectacular. Cinematographer, Anthony Dod Mantle, made the most of capturing an amazing country. The film was shot entirely in India. A few months before viewing ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ I was extremely fortunate to have seen the amazing documentary ‘Story of India’ on public television. I am certain that it enhanced this film for me.

‘Slumdog Millionaire’ is funny, adventurous, cruel, dramatic and clever. Boyle and wove all of these elements into pure delight. A.R. Rahman's score set the tone for lively, dramatic and humorous sequences. At the end of the film, I felt a sigh of relief; having already known everyone mentioned in this piece was recognized for their excellence. I don’t know why, but when I have experienced outstanding film making, I want everyone else to have the same chance as well. If this piece was truly headed straight to DVD, one wonders if it would have been seen at all.

Much speculation has occurred in Hollywood over the connection, particularly financial, with Bollywood. But here is yet another example of something originating from outside of Hollywood that is literally defines ‘world class’ film making. I hope the global boundaries that are falling ‘flat’ in the business world take root in movies as well. Here’s hoping that we can do away with the preface and just call them ‘films’.

Quantum Of Solace

In the beginning there is trouble…there’s always trouble. Moments into a Bond adventure, we buckle up for a wild ride. When the opening sequences are clever, well planned and preposterous enough, the following ninety minutes usually follows suit.

The plot in a Bond film is nothing more than filler. To elaborate on which ruse is used to set 007 loose is pointless. There has been one thing missing from recent Bond outings though. Namely his nemesis’ super powered bodyguard. Gone are the ‘Odd Job’ and ‘Jaws’ type henchmen that he had to overcome before saving the earth, and the heaven’s above. What we have been seeing in the past two Bond offerings is a healthy dose of ‘Parkour’ instead.

This is the French acrobatic art of running, leaping, jumping and landing like a cat on any structure available. Parkour is natural propulsion and making use of anything in one’s field of vision to keep moving. In Quantum of Solace, Bond puts it to good use. It makes for exciting maneuvers as the action goes up, down and all around. I find its inclusion to be a great boost to natural stunts and leaving CGI where it belongs, in the background and at a minimum.

Audiences are smart enough to know when effects are in play. We have been through the initial ‘all green screen’ productions and the hyperbole accompanying them. FX have their place, but make it count for something if it has to be used. Blockbusters in the latter half of the last century, namely ‘Earthquake’, ‘Towering Inferno’, and ‘The Poseidon Adventure’ led to the ‘Die Hard’ franchise. Then the resurgence of comic book characters as Matinee Idols. Bond is not a comic book figure.

Daniel Craig has done a fine job in creating his own version of Bond. He does so while maintaining all the right moves. His is the study of a man with a heavy past, present and by the end of the film, future. He shows just enough emotion, letting his subtle nuances light the character. Craig gives us a more human, a more believable Bond.

Playboy flare is unnecessary for this Bond. He has a natural charisma that doesn’t require the facial gestures and randiness of his predecessors. The audience does not have to be hit over the head with Bond’s allure. We get it. His romance is simply a compliment to the six vodka source of energy. Bond is mission focused. Sleep must wait. This is the foundation of the way the man does business.

‘M’ has a beefier role this time out. Dame Judith Dench is spot on. You get the sense that all Bond really needs is his trusty sidekick and vice-versa. ‘M’ does all this and more for Bond. Ms. Dench speaks volumes with a glance and this film is so much the better with her in it. With much respect to Mr. Craig, she is also the finest actor in the film. I am sure he would agree.

‘Quantum of Solace’ is a fine companion to ‘Casino Royal’. Not the best Bond film, but an interesting study of the character we always want to know just a little better. And in that sense, we have been rewarded through Craig’s performance. And we shall continue to seek out this Bond… James Bond.

Seven Pounds

I was just sick of the incessant pre-release advertising for movies. Most publicity budgets these days are well over the amount most of the classics cost to make. It’s the relentless assault of images from the films at a level that throws every scene at you. Trailers come hard and often at such a fast clip that the mind records, analyzes and digests them entirely. The drive for weekend dominance. Rapid-fire box office profit. Look, it’s a Will Smith/Rosario Dawson movie. And I was determined to see it based on that alone.

Will Smith is a fine actor who has definitely evolved. His fame and fortune were had on the strength of his ability to entertain. Initially with music, then television and finally film. There are two people on the planet that can immediately lighten a mood under any circumstances. One is named Will, the other Williams. Both do exceedingly well when asked to turn it around in an intense drama. Smith has earned respect through hard work and consistency. It is fitting then that the Fresh Prince has elevated to the throne of the reigning King of Hollywood.

Seven Pounds is a movie that finds Ben (Smith) in the midst of plotting a course for the future. The details of which are slowly revealed. But it would be a mistake to think of these happenings as the focal point. That is reserved for Ben and his drive for what we all desire – to have meaning associated with his existence. And it’s the journey to this end that brings the movie its strength. This is not a comedy and the buffoonery and cuteness Smith can muster up is nowhere to be seen. It was a wise choice to play this one straight and thus provide an unadulterated view a great actor plying his trade.

Rosario Dawson (Emily) is a great actor in her own right. I remember seeing her in a movie some years ago that she electrified with her presence, but the role was limited. Here, we get the opportunity to see Rosario delve deeply into a character that is entirely as intricate as that of Ben. Her treatment of the multi-dimensional Emily plays well against Smith’s complicated task of pulling just the right strings in his emotional turn as Ben.

Woody Harrelson plays against character in a supporting role as well. His diminished minutes here have no correlation to the caliber of his performance. His subtle expressions as Ezra are a visible reminder of Harrelson’s mastery of the mask. Another seasoned veteran, Barry Pepper, is cast as Ben’s childhood buddy turned attorney. I have been formulating a theory for some time that Hollywood indirectly chooses replacements to fill the gaps left when a particular actor disappoints, grows old or simply cannot turn on the magic any longer. Barry Pepper was the chosen one who stepped in and filled the shoes of one Gary Busey. He was a potent addition to any cast before the years of abuse, accidents and age left him ravaged. Pepper is a measured, perhaps tempered hint of the Busey hi-life days. Whereas Busey did not have the controlled humility to play an updated version of ‘Sergeant York’, Pepper would be the odds on favorite.

So, I enjoyed the film. I watched it on a 40”, Samsung 1080P/40,000:1, 630 series LCD. It is much preferred to the experience of a tiny-sectioned movie ‘viewing room’ they call theaters these days. Had I the opportunity to see it, say, in a ‘Music Box’ type, true majestic theater (in Chicago), I would have jumped on it. But those days are gone, and the reasons for operating such magnificent establishments have evaporated with them. Lucky for us then, that art like ‘Seven Pounds’ is still being cranked out somewhere in the hearts and minds of a city that is so often accused of having neither.

W.

Regardless of what your opinion is of George W. Bush, this is a fine film. The story of W. is well told, and moves at an agreeable pace for a two hour biopic. The film is clear and engaging. I have high praise for Oliver Stone’s direction. He clearly values story over statement. That could have gone the other way with a petty ego at the helm. Stone shows professionalism at every turn during W.

Josh Brolin is simply outstanding as W. He has the voice and mannerisms nailed. Brolin dances skillfully between cowboy, carouser and candidate. Stone also went with a side of Bush I’ve never seen, albeit my exposure has been minimal. This Bush is in-charge all the way and Brolin hammers it home with gusto. We do see a bit of the suspected manipulation from Carl Rove (Toby Jones) and Dick Cheney (“Vice”). Jeffrey Wright is on top of his game as he brings both strength and intellect to Colin Powell. But when all is said and done, Stone wants us to know Bush is the man. For a fabled “liberal”, Stone is without question fair in the light he casts W. in.

Thandie Newton is spot on as “Condee”. Rice is a tough read, especially her voice. Newton gets most of it down well. The one drawback to the Rice character, is the feeble nature and "yes man" posturing we are expected to believe. Richard Dreyfuss is fine as Dick Cheney, especially when making a point. Dreyfuss’ Cheney captures the shrewd west wing vet. He emphasizes the notion that he has served two Bushes and both are better off for it. I also enjoyed Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush. Again, a stronger and more influential partner than I suspected. Not at all the stay at home ‘50s type housewife we’ve been fed over the years.

Throughout the film, I wondered if the ‘fly on the wall’ perspective was accurate. Several scenes left me considering 'inside information’ might have made it’s way into the script. Perhaps. Whether or not creative license was at play, the story was strong. And no matter what the subject matter may be, storytelling is the most important part of any movie. Mr. Stone does so quite well.

The Wrestler

Mickey Rourke is among my very favorite actors. I’ve seen everything he has done and his body of work is substantial. Several of his performances in the ‘old days’ should have earned him Oscar nominations. To say he stood as high as any of his peers would be accurate. That said, I do not think that ‘The Wrestler’ is his best work. It is amongst it though.

The Wrestler is a work that shines in its ability to tell the tale of Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson in the gritty fashion that he lived it. The Ram is a survivor of a career that has seen him at the pinnacle and descent from the Professional Wrestling world. He has handled the pain and injuries along the way. He must now grapple with his emotions, a trickier foe in a far more brutal arena.

Rourke portrays two characters here. The first is that of ’The Ram’. All in the VFW halls and locker rooms love him. It is the bottom of the wrestling world in terms of glamour. But the camaraderie is strong, as the wrestlers reminisce about the limelight, the glory days. Inside the ropes, they pummel each other. Outside, there is great pride and friendship. Darren Aronofsky has done a superb job in achieving this sense, along with the real wrestlers taking part in the film.

The other character that Rourke brings to life is that of Robin (“call me Randy”). It is Robin who must tend to the wounds that his alter ego ‘The Ram’ inflicts. It is Robin who is constantly reminded of the uncomfortable existence it takes to keep ’The Ram’ alive. It is time then, for Robin to summon the courage it takes to change things for the better.

Along the way he encounters Marisa Tomei as a kindred soul in need of change as well. Tomei creates 'Pam' a multi-faceted mirror for Robin to peer into. Her ability to blend humor, despair, intelligence and sultriness into the role of Pam is beautiful done. Hers is an integral part in 'The Wrestler'. She pulls it all off in fine fashion and form.

Evan Rachel Wood plays a distant and damaged link to Robin's past. Her contribution to the film is significant, with a capital "S". As mentioned, the real life wrestlers assembled for the film are great. Each one has crafted a character for the ring that enables their considerable physical talents to enthrall the local crowds who in turn heap praise upon them. They need each other and Director Aronofsky faithfully depicts that.

Having followed the buzz and accolades awarded the film, director and actors, I feel that they have truly earned it. Watching Mickey’s ‘official’ return to Hollywood, and the publicity it generated made me very happy. I waited to view the film after the hoopla and award galas died down. I was enjoying the Mickey Rourke show too much. The look on Angelina Jolie's face as Rourke kissed her hand at an awards show said it all. For that moment in time, the man standing beside her, Brad Pitt, did not exist. Rourke's charisma survived the ups and downs of a harsh life that Rourke admitted was of his own doing.

I think the side story, that of the resurgence of Mickey Rourke is every bit as interesting as ‘The Wrestler’. Rourke was nothing if not astounding, brilliant in films such as ‘Rumblefish’, and ‘The Pope of Greenwich Village’. The success continued and then, it seemed as if Mickey disappeared. Often times, that is the case in Hollywood when one doesn’t follow the script. What happened? It can be explained in three simple words, "Royalty in Exile".