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".