The Top 13 films of the fall/Holiday season

As the mercury begins to drop, along with the leaves on the trees, the focus in Hollywood turns away from popcorn and more toward Oscars. So I scoured the fall/holiday movie release schedule and came up with 13 titles I’m particularly looking forward to seeing. Aren’t we lucky?

In order of release, with dates subject to change:  

Contagion: The “disease that kills everyone” movie has been made a number of times, but when Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow and Matt Damon star, and Steven Soderbergh (“Traffic”) directs, I can only be intrigued.  (Sept. 9)


Moneyball: Although I like baseball, I can’t call myself a rabid fan. And I care even less about the world of finance. This movie, starring Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, combines both. That sounds like it could be poison, but the story of how the Oakland As used computers to draft players sounds fascinating, even to a non sports/finance fan like me. Bennett Miller ("Capote") directs, and Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network") and Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List") write.  (Sept. 23)


The Ides of March: Even if George Clooney hadn’t shot his political drama at Miami University earlier this year, I would still want to see a movie with a cast that also includes Ryan Gosling, Evan Rachel Wood and Marisa Tomei. Since he did shoot at Miami, and I didn’t get to see the filming, I’m all over this one. (Oct. 7)

 J. Edgar: Clint Eastwood directs Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays the infamous FBI Chief. Good enough for me. (Nov. 9)

The Descendants: Yes, George Clooney stars in two movies I’m anxious to see this fall. In this one, he stars as a man trying to reconnect with his daughters and learns his wife was cheating on him. Alexander Payne (“Sideways”) directs for the first time in a too long while.  (Nov. 23)

Hugo: Yes, the director of such violent classics as “Taxi Driver,” “Goodfellas” and “The Departed” tries his hand at a family film, and shoots it in 3D to boot. Better yet, the very talented Chloe Moretz (“Let Me In”) stars. This could be either wonderful or a maddening misfire; any way you slice it, it has to be fascinating. (Nov. 23)

The Muppets: Here is the movie I am most looking forward to this fall. I’ve been a Muppets fan all my life, and it seems like they’re on the rebound after churning out subpar material like “Muppets from Space” and “Muppets Wizard of Oz.” That this co-stars my favorite actress, Amy Adams, only sweetens the deal. (Nov. 23)


The Artist: Here’s the arthouse film I most want to see: A modern-day silent and black and white movie about a silent film star facing the arrival of talking pictures.(Nov. 23)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: I was a great fan of the foreign trilogy starring Noomi Rapace, and now “the feel-bad movie of Christmas” is being directed by David Fincher (“The Social Network”) Yes, please. (Dec. 21)


Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol: Too many people scoff at this franchise and at Tom Cruise, but the trailer for this looks like loads of fun to me, and it’s shot partly in IMAX too, just like “The Dark Knight.” Brad Bird (“The Incredibles” - yes, he's moving from animation to live action) directs. (Dec. 21)


The Adventures of Tintin: I’ve not been a great fan of the motion-capture style of animation used in movies like “Beowulf” and the “Christmas Carol” with Jim Carrey, but when a master of visuals like Steven Spielberg is at the helm, I have to give it a chance. (Dec. 22)

We Bought a Zoo: Cameron Crowe hasn’t directed since the misguided “Elizabethtown” and hasn’t made a truly great movie since “Almost Famous.” I’d say he’s due. Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson star.(Dec. 23) 

War Horse: Spielberg double dose! Having plumbed World War II several times, the director turns his atttenton to World War I and the story of a boy and his horse who serve in the trenches. The trailer looks gorgeous. (Dec. 28)

(The) Help! That dastardly Howard!

The Wicked Witch of the West. Darth Vader. Nurse Ratched. Hannibal Lecter. And now, joining their ranks, Hilly Holbrook from The Help!

(Trumpet flourishes, followed by crickets)

Wait, sweet little Bryce Dallas Howard played one of the most dastardly villains of all time?

Well, yes, I would argue she has. No, she's not quite up there with Margaret Hamilton just yet, but as millions of people who have seen The Help know, Howard filled her villainous heels quite well. Maybe a little TOO well.

I seriously cannot remember the last time I felt that much seething hatred for a female character. Hell, the last time I hate a male character that much, it was Will Ferrell in Bewitched - and he wasn't trying to be hateful, which only made me want to snap his neck that much harder.

And yet, now that I think about it, that's really the secret to what makes Hildy so awful. There's no doubt that this relentless social climber does some extraordinarily mean and spiteful things. But what makes them mean and spiteful is the fact that she's actually not always trying to be mean and spiteful. In a way, she can't help it.

Part of the problem is that Hildy's a product of her times. She's one of the worst kind of racists - one who doesn't think she is. She feels that because she gives them a good job in a nice house that's help enough to them. Doesn't matter that she treats them like dirt most of the time, she's doing them a FAVOR! She's like one of those hypocrites who goes to church week in and week out, acts all pious that day, and then acts like an ass the other six days of the week.

So yes, when Hildy gets her "just desserts" (you know exactly what I mean if you know the story) there's a certain gleeful satisfaction in her comeuppance. But what sells Howard's performance isn't outright villainy. It's the fact that Howard lets us see the cracks beneath the surface. She makes it readily apparent that Hilly is so hateful because she hates herself above everyone else. And that, in the end, is her tragedy.

When I came out of the film, I feared for Howard's safety. So palpable was her hatefulness that I was afraid irate women might try to whomp her over the head with their purses - or maybe with their cell phones. At first, Howard seemed destined to be typecast as the ethereal waif in the likes of The Village, or Clint Eastwood's Hereafter. Now she might be in danger of getting typecast as the bitch.

And you know what? That's still an upgrade for Howard. Even before she became an actress, she was cursed with the middle name of the city in which Opie conceived her. Now, she has something to sink her teeth into and is less likely to get lost as "the girl" in Spider-Man 3 or Terminator Salvation.

You've come a long way, Bryce - you're one of the best assets of this movie that fully deserves its status as a sleeper hit. Glad to see people are waking up to you.

Catching up on catching up - small screen viewing

And now, movies I've seen on the small screen, since I last blogged about such things:

Gasland A-

Kind of an EPA companion piece to Charles Ferguson's Inside Job - and more evidence that Big Money wins out over the little guy - even when the damage is quite clear and convincing. Its amateurish "who me" approach could have been a liability, but it actually works to the movie's benefit. 

The Next Three Days C+
Well-made decently acted thriller with an intriguing premise, but the execution simply strains credibility past the point of no return. Good performances by Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks deserve a better vehicle.

Soul Surfer B-

If I were grading this movie by its sincerity, it would definitely be in the A-range. And there can be no doubt that the story of a teen surfer who rebounded after losing her arm to a tiger shark is inspiring. Unfortunately, the movie pushes too many manipulative buttons to ring completely true. A strong performance by AnnaSophia Robb helps keep it afloat.

Ride the High Country B+

An early Sam Peckinpah western gets most of its juice from seeing two old-timers like Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott face off. The story occasionally lags and the ending is a bit abrupt, but it's fascinating to see the seeds of The Wild Bunch being planted here. 

Shock Corridor B+

Fascinating Sam Fuller pulp that I watched not long after revisiting One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The premise (reporter fakes being mentally ill to crack a murder case) requires more suspension of disbelief than I was willing to give. Still, the acting and the visuals are powerful, particularly when stock color sequences break up the black and white. 

Godspell B+

This was on the same night as Norman Jewison's Jesus Christ Superstar, and comparing the two pictures is very telling. Godspell is just as dated as Superstar, perhaps even more so with all those afros. But Godspell is a much livelier picture because A) The song score is considerably superior, and B) Godspell wasn't so ponderous, slackly paced and convinced of its own self-importance. Godspell is especially valuable as an NYC time capsule.

Rise of the slumbering blogger: Catching up filmically

Saturday I cleaned up real cobwebs at my house. Today I clean off virtual cobwebs on this blog. Many distractions have set in that put me out of the swing of things. Now it's time to get back into the swing of things and not look back - except for this update on the big-screen movies I've seen since I've last posted. And I'm including films I've seen in the classic series in Dayton and Columbus.


One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest A+
One of three movies to win the top five Oscars of Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay. The writing of this film becomes all the more impressive once you realize the book was written from the point of view of the Chief

Winnie the Pooh B
Sweet, gentle fun - a very pleasant throwback to the Disney movies of old, with this entry being animated by the A-crew at the Mouse House. It rarely manages to be more than pleasant, but that seems appropriate for such an assuming character as Pooh. Eeyore (voiced by Pixar's Bud Luckey) provides most of the laughs.







Cowboys and Aliens C+


Indiana Jones and James Bond in the same movie. How can it miss? By being saddled with a confused script that manages to be overwrought and half-baked at the same time. It's fairly decent as a Western, but the more aliens there are, the more unfocused it gets. Very disappointing.

Beginners A
With its often whimsical tone and its scattered chronology, this picture could have gone wrong in all sorts of ways but holds steady, thanks mostly to strong performances by Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer and Melanie Laurent in a story about a man struggling to come to grips with his father coming out of the closet late in life. It's especially nice to see Laurent get a good vehicle after her breakout in Inglourious Basterds.

The Adventures of Robin Hood A+
You simply cannot fully appreciate this movie until you've seen it on the big screen with a crowd applauding Errol Flynn's every swashbuckle.

Crazy Stupid Love B+
A terrific cast including Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Marisa Tomei and Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone powers this episodic ensemble piece about love lost and found in unlikely places. The performances help overcome some slightly ungainly writing, especially an icky subplot about a teenage girl's crush on a 40-something.

The Wizard of Oz A+
Once again, you simply cannot fully appreciate this movie unless you've seen on it on a big screen in a packed house with Technicolors that are practically blinding.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes A-
 What seemed like a misguided idea for a reboot has turned into the summer's most pleasant surprise. Special effects movies often fail because the effects are more interesting than the humans, but in this context, it's actually quite appropriate.  Terrific motion capture work by Andy Serkis (AKA Gollum AKA King Kong) and smartly choreographed action sequences make this trump not only the Tim Burton remake, but even the 1968 original as well.

REVIEW: Captain America

The old Marvel cartoons used to sing "When Captain America throws his mighty shield" followed by a big CLANG!

If this new movie had a theme song, it would sing "When Captain America throws his mighty shield" followed by a soft *clink*.


Notice that's *clink* and not CLUNK. Captain America is not a bad movie. It's actually fairly entertaining, but the ads seemed to promise more than fair entertainment, and the movie didn't deliver that. I expected better of director Joe Johnston.

Johnston doesn't have many truly great films under his belt, but he has turned out a lot of good, solid entrainment like Jurassic Park III, which actually bested the Steven Spielberg's sequel. And having helmed another period superhero movie, The Rocketeer, Johnson seemed the ideal choice for Captain America.

Unfortunately, the movie never takes off like it should. It actually starts fairly well, drawing a compelling portrait of the scrawny Steve Rogers, who seems willing to take on any challenge despite his lack of stature. During Army training, when he leaps on top of a grenade to shield it from his fellow troops, the moment is touching. Ya gotta admire the kid's pluck.

But then, the kid gets a dose of what amounts to concentrated steroids and turns into a muscle-bound jock. And after he does that, he's just not as interesting. The first sequence where he discovers his abilities is thrilling, but the movie settles down after that, becoming ordinary when it should be extraordinary.

Part of the problem is Chris Evans. He can be an engaging actor, but he's too vanilla for this part  - too much of an everyman, even after he gets his muscles. The movie might have been more interesting had Evans showed a little discomfort in his new skin, but Evans doesn't dig deep enough.

The villain and the heroine too, are underwhelming. Hugo Weaving shows initial promise as the Red Skull but eventually just becomes another megalomaniac who wants to rule the world. As the love interest, Hayley Atwell never becomes more than fetching arm candy. Betty Grable, she ain't.

The action sequences get the job done, but not with much flair. What can one say when the best scene after Captain America's arrival  is a Busby Berkeley style dance number, with a song by Alan Menken and David Zippel, the songwriters of Disney's Hercules?

It doesn't help at all that X-Men First Class already did the period superhero thing earlier this summer and did it with much more verve than Captain America. Cap's OK, and fun performances by character actors like Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci keep him going. But when Cap doesn't even stack up to Thor, something's missing.

GRADE: B-

REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Wow. A Woody Allen movie and a Harry Potter movie ranks as the two best films of 2011. Now that's magic.

The saga of "the boy"who lived" comes to a thrilling, and yes, spellbinding conclusion with this highly emotional action epic - with the emphasis on the word action.

More than any other Harry Potter film, this final entry is an action film above all else. Breathlessly paced, the picture is the shortest of the Potter films, at about two hours and 10 minutes - but it seems to zip by in far less time than that. Steven Spielberg expressed interest in directing the series before ultimately deciding against it, but to the extent that the Potter films are Spielbergian, this one is Harry's Raiders of the Lost Ark - only with one very large snake instead of thousands of smaller ones. Voldemort never seems more dangerous than he does here, not just because he's scary, but because he's vulnerable - and as Harry points out, that only makes him more menacing.

It seems pointless to recap the story, since even those who haven't read the books know this is about the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort, and the search for the horcruxes that hold pieces of the Dark Lords' soul. But it must be said that the movie executes the story extremely well, with only a couple of minor snags.

Director David Yates, who has ended up helming half of the movies, has grown impressively as a director. His first entry, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, felt rushed and uncertain, and was the weakest film of the lot. Now, however, Yates' control has vastly improved. His command of the big action set pieces is sturdy and confident, but he never lets the bombast overwhelm the emotions of the characters. In fact, the action and the emotion are often overhwelming in the best way - the way that lives you quite grasping what you saw, but knowing you still liked it. The final fate of Snape (Alan Rickman) is especially riveting.

The Potter plots have always packed with detail that can be hard to grasp if you haven't read the books. I have read every book except Deathly Hallows, and in most cases, I saw the movies before I read the books since movies are my beloved medium. I acknowledge that approach has its drawbacks, although not for the reason one might think.

Some people who don't follow the books complain that the movies, including this one, have confused them. The Potter movies have never confused me, but sometimes they do have trouble striking a balance between pleasing the die-hards and educating the more casual fan. For instance, when one character dies, Harry mentions  that characters' son, but we've barely glimpsed this son, if indeed we've ever seen him at all. So the emotional impact of that scene is muted. I was also disappointed that Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) got short shrift in this film. The series had been building up the romance between her and Harry nicely, and then practically dropped it the Deathly Hallows movies.

Still, these are minor quibbles in the grand scheme of things. The original Deathly Hallows ads promised that this would be "the movie event of a generation." And for once, I'm hard pressed to argue with the hyperbole. When the tears come at the end, the movie - and indeed this whole franchise-  has more than earned them. Remarkably, each movie in this series has never been less than very good - and this one is great.

GRADE: A

One last Harry Potter roundup ...

Harry Potter's cinematic journey ends for me tomorrow when I see Deathly Hallows Parts 1 AND 2 at a drive-in with my brother and sister. I have neither the time nor QUITE the nuttiness to watch all seven movies beforehand, but I can recap my takes on them. In doing so,  I can only marvel at how remarkably consistent the series has been. Some are better than others, of course. Incredibly, not only are  misfires absent, but the lesat of the films is still very good. Magic indeed.

Harry Potter and  the Sorcerer’s Stone
This was my introduction to the Potter world, because I hadn’t read the books at the time, and I was quite enthralled. The pacing is a bit sleepy at times, but that’s a result of having to spend so much time on exposition. (Too bad about the dodgy Quidditch effects, though.) Too many people like to crack on director Chris Columbus for not being a visionary artiste. However, he deserves a great deal of credit for establishing the template for the series, and especially for his role in finding Radcliffe, Watson and Grint.
GRADE: A-

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
This tends to be the film I remember the least well, maybe because the thrill of discovery was gone for me. I read the book before seeing the film, and the film follows the novel so slavishly, there was no sense of surprise. On the plus side, it’s much better paced than the first film. Kenneth Branagh is a hoot as the stuck-up but hapless Professor Lockhart. GRADE: B+

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Potter fans like to complain about this one because it dared to muss their beloved text, but I think that’s exactly why this is the best film of the series by far: It lives and breathes on own without being shackled to the words of J.K. Rowling (who, it must be said, had no problem with the changes). Everything, from the direction to the performances to the digital effects, is greatly improved. The time travel scenes at the end of the movie, which double back on themselves, are outstanding, thanks to director Alfonso Cuaron’s clever eye. GRADE: A

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The series gets its first British director, Mike Newell, and having someone who knows what a British school is like goes a long way toward making the film feel authentic. Contains some breathtaking scenes, like the opening World Cup of Quidditch, and the truly terrifying climax with He Who Shall Not Be Named. Debits: The pace goes slack in a few places, and some characters, like Rita Skeeter, feel like window dressing. GRADE: A-

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
When the film works, it works very well, particularly during the action scenes, and whenever the deliciously nasty Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) is onscreen, but on the whole, the movie tries to cram too much into too little time. This is what happens when the longest book becomes the shortest film. GRADE: B+

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Has many great moments and is the best-looking of the Potter films. Overall, it’s my second favorite of the series; my only quibble is that the final act seems a little rushed and lacks punch. GRADE: A-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
Perhaps inevitably, it’s a little slow to get going, since the story is being spread across two movies. It gradually picks up steam, however, and the visualization of the deathly hallows, with the animated shadow puppets, is one of the best moments of the series. GRADE: A-

(FAVORABLE!) REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Memo to: Michael Bay, film director

From: Eric Robinette, who now needs corrective oral surgery to reattach his jaw

RE: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

DAMN YOU, MICHAEL BAY! YOU MADE A MOVIE THAT DELIVERED!! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO MAKE FUN OF YOU NOW?!?!?!

I kid, I kid - well, sorta. Mike, I've been making fun of you for about 10 years now, mercilessly slamming you, sometimes with wild abandon. And I have to admit, it's been rather fun. You usually make it so damn EASY with your lack of storytelling skills, your unwillingness to stage an action scene with any kind of cohesion,  and a sense of humor that would make anyone above the age of 12 roll their eyes out of their heads.

But, unlike some of my fellow critics who fall victim to groupthink, I'm willing to give you credit when it's due. And with your third Transformers movie, it's due for the first time in a very long while.  I actually liked this one. Sometimes I really liked it.

It feels very odd to defend you, but in a way, it's time for us critics to face facts. To criticize you for not being a storyteller is to criticize the moon for being round. That's just the way you are. You're not a narrative filmmaker. You never have been and you probably never will be. Your one halfway decent film before this one, The Rock, succeeded more because of a good cast than a good script.

You exist first and foremost to mount spectacle, and your ability to do that is the yardstick by which you deserve to be measured. And on that scale, you succeeded quite well in Dark of the Moon.  You may not be a narrative filmmaker, but this movie works because you became a three-dimensional filmmaker.

For this third film in the robotic series, you very wisely decided to shoot it in 3D, using the same camera systems that James Cameron developed for Avatar. As a result, the 3D in this movie actually pulled me into the film instead of feeling like a fancy effect for show.

Much more importantly, the 3D forced you to cut differently than you typically do. Most of the time, you seem to edit your films by loading them into the computer, allowing for edits of no more than two seconds, and then hitting the "RANDOM" button. In other words, you threw everything you had up on the screen and saw what stuck. Not much did.

When you shoot in 3D, you have to let the images hold for a certain amount of time, or else the 3D effect doesn't register. For the same reason, you can't whip the camera around too much. So in this film, your action scenes aren't the usual blizzard of flash cuts and whip pans. I could actually tell who was chasing whom, and which robot was ripping another robot's eyes out.

Like Cameron before you, you realized that sequences shot high in the air, with the camera tilting downward, are big money shots in 3D. That scene where you had troopers dive out of planes in wingsuits, swooping around Chicago, absolutely blew my mind. In a good way, for once. I was even impressed that you didn't get carried away with the "comin' atcha" effects.

You also assembeled a surprisingly good cast. In the "adult" roles, you have not one, not two, but three veterans of Coen Brothers movies: John Turturro, John Malkovich, and Frances McDormand, all having a high old time slumming it for you. I imagine Joel and Ethan must be giggling their butts off. I even enjoyed the new girl, Rosie Huntington Whiteley. I'd stop well short of calling her a real actress, but at least she can deliver lines passably and doesn't have a stuck-up sneer twisting her face like that girl you fired.

But don't let all this praise get to your head, Mike. The movie doesn't always work. At two and a half hours, it's too long by at least 30 minutes. I suppose you were responding to complaints that the putrid second movie had too little personality in it, but you really ought to stop wasting your time with pathos. You're not very good at it. When you attempt it, all that "emotion" seems silly and hollow. When the most touching relationship is between a boy and his car, it seems silly to aim for more than that.

If anything, you're even worse with comedy. Whether you direct the fourth Transformers or not, ditch Shia's parents. Nobody cares about them, and they're not funny. I've heard 10-year-olds crack more sophsiticated sex jokes.

I was about ready to give the movie a fairly high grade, but even the action climax wears out its welcome. Most of the destruction of Chicago is stunning, especially when Shockwave winds through a building like a giant mechanical millipede. But as usual, you don't know when to quit, letting the last act drag past the high point.

Still, I guess it wouldn't be you if there wasn't some amount of excess, would it? I'm just grateful I came out feeling happy. As delightful as it is to slam you, I would always rather enjoy myself. And I did this time.  You made a movie at which I had fun. Thank you and congratulations. Would it be too much to ask to keep it up?

GRADE: B

The 2011 movie halftime report: We'll always have Paris

Earlier this year, the motion picture Academy announced yet another Best Picture rule change. Now, the nominees are no longer fixed at 5 or even 10. The nominees will now number at least five, and as many as 10, but will most often end up somewhere in between. 

For awhile there, I thought my 10 Best List for 2011, would be something like that. If I made the cutoff grade at least an A-, I figured I would end up with at least 5 or not more than 10. After looking through my roster, I came up with exactly 10, released in the Dayton area before the end of June.  For better or worse, I'm generous that way. 

Midnight in Paris: You may notice I haven't written about this movie yet. There's a reason for that. Woody Allen's latest is one of those movies where the less  you know about it going in, the more you will enjoy it. So I won't expound on that, except to say that the movie is utterly wonderful and left me with a big smile on my face both times I've seen it ... so far. Anybody wanna take me to Paris?

Super 8: The best popcorn entertainment of the year, this throwback to early Spielberg, written and directed by J.J. Abrams and produced by Spielberg, it's like a reminder of a time when movies weren't bent on selling anything other than themselves. Pure joy.

Blue Valentine: This movie, on the other hand, is pure trauma, as Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams all too vividly portray a once-loving couple who have gone way past the breaking point. Shattering, but impossible to shake. 

Jane Eyre: One of today's best young actresses, Mia Wisikowska, shines once again in the title role of this new Bronte adaptation, which might even be a little better than the 1944 picture with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine. And here is picture one that shows this to be the year of Michael Fassbender.

The Cave of Forgotten Dreams: Just when 3D had about worn out its welcome, along comes Werner Herzog, of all people, to put it to practical use, exploring the earliest known cave with paintings. It's never less than fascinating and wondrous all at once,  and the 3D does what 3D ought to do - make you feel like you're there. 

X-Men First Class: And here's part two of the year of Michael Fassbender, who excellently plays Magneto in this prequel that cures the ailing franchise. The whole cast is dynamite, and so are the action scenes. 

Rango: After getting lost in the tumult of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise, Gore Verbinski and Johnny Depp reminded me of why I so admire them both - for their persistent willingness to be bizarre and endearing at the same time. Some people were put off by the quirky style, but that's what made the film a cut above all the other animation out there.

Cars 2: Dear fellow critics: Eat my dust!

Bridesmaids: Always a groomsman, never a groom. You don't have to be a chick to find this hysterical.

Paul: Hm. Maybe this should also be the year of tributes to Steven Spielberg. I laughed a lot at this grossly underrated comedy. 

The A for Effort award goes to: Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. No film released this year - hell no film released in at LEAST the past five years - has been as ambitious as this one. And yet ambition doesn't always equal success. Parts of this movie are magisterial, other parts are remote and confounding. I know that ranking this below Cars 2 will be enough to have people revoke my film buff card, but I only saw this once, and every film buff knows it takes more than one viewing to process this. Or maybe I just really hate trees after one fell through my house. Either, way, check back at the end of the year. Maybe The Tree of Life will grow on me. (rim shot) 

Thoughts in shuffle mode - Stewart, Cooper, Powell, GIlliam ...

Well, geez - I almost missed my mark to keep up blog posting at least twice a week. I better get in my licks now before Middletown's hot air balloon festival subsumes my existence.

The other day I mentioned seeing Born to Dance with Jimmy Stewart. Most people know this as the movie in which Jimmy Stewart sings! (That sentence demanded an exclamation point.)



It's a charming little programmer. Not a "great" movie by any means, but Jimmy is charmingly awkward. And I would like to have $1 for every time Eleanor taps, please.



I also watched Wings last week. No, even though this is me writing, I'm not talking about that band Paul McCartney was in after the Beatles. I'm talking about the very first movie to win the Best Picture Oscar. It doesn't have much of a reputation - many consider it clunky and creaky. It IS dated and overlong, to be sure, but I was surprised at how much I liked it. Sure, Sunrise from the same year was the better choice, but Wings has a lot to recommend it. William Wellman is the director, so it looks great - and the aerial photography is astounding. The performances are solid, and it's easy to see why Clara Bow was an "it" girl.  It's also a kick to see Gary Cooper in a very early (and very short) role. He had magnetism even then.

I've also been reading the book The Battle of Brazil, about the making of Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and it made me order a new copy of that film. I have the old deluxe Criterion laserdisc set, but alack, those don't play too well on hi-def TVs - so I ordered a used copy of the Criterion DVD set. More on that later.

I knew the story about the wrangling and mangling around the film, but the book is an illuminating read nonetheless. I particularly loved this quote from Gilliam, talking about studio suits

"You listen to these people, and you just have to shake your head. They are so goddamned sure they know what they're talking about, and all they are ever doing is guessing. They invent their own research, then depend on it as if it were science. They have no respect for the intelligence of their audience. Then when they succeed, they break their ass trying to tell you how brilliant they were in doing it."

Seems like little has changed in 30 years ,,,

Focusing features - back to the diary

Some time back on this blog I had decided to adopt more of a diary-like format to get me to write in it more often.

As too often happens with me, the best laid plans fell flat. Granted, I've been through a lot of trauma this year, including having a tree fall through my house, but I hate that I haven't written here very much and that my audience has dwindled as a result. 

So I'm going to try again to re-spark this. Can't make any promises it'll stick. I guess I'd like to try to post at least twice a week. I seem to work better if I set myself goals and deadlines.

Haven't seen anything new theatrically since I saw Cars 2, and the rest of the current crop doesn't impress me. I do not voluntarily give Michael Bay my money, so I'm skipping Transformers Trois. The reviews for Tom Hanks' Larry Crowne make it look eminently skippable. The jury's still out on Horrible Bosses, and I need to see Zookeeper like I need to be stampeded by an elephant. 

So that leaves me to discuss the classics. The summer classic movie series has started around here. Saw Hitchcock's Frenzy last week. and I still think that's Hitch's best picture of his troubled post-Birds period. Some may argue that it's hard to get into because the "wrong man" (Jon Finch) is a particular prick, but I think that makes the picture novel and daring. Sadly, Athena Massey, who played Finch's sort-of love interest, only died this past weekend.

Fun trivia: the editor of the movie, John Jympson, and the cinematographer, Gil Taylor, performed the same duties on A Hard Day's Night. This is what you notice when you're a credits geek like me. 

This past weekend I saw West Side Story. Still a great picture, and Natalie Wood is still miscast, but the fact that Natalie doesn't look the least bit Hispanic isn't what bothers me. It's the same problem I have with My Fair Lady - the face and the voice simply don't match. 

Of course, the same voice in both cases is the ubiquitous Marni Nixon, who also dubbed Deborah Kerr in The King and I, and sang the high, operatic notes of "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. (Marilyn handled the rest.) 

Marni was the epitome of  a session musician - the player who is technically proficient but has very little personality. And a friend of mine made a very good point. Why is it that females so commonly get dubbed, yet it doesn't happen as often with men? 

Case in point: Jimmy Stewart warbled his way through a movie I watched this weekend, Born to Dance. Jimmy readily admitted he didn't have a very good singing voice, yet according to Robert Osborne of TCM, the MGM brass thought that a "professional" voice would have sounded phony. 

Oh really? Well, that didn't stop them from dubbing Ava Gardner in the 1950s Show Boat, even though she had a perfectly capable singing voice, as That's Entertainment 3 revealed. For that matter, Audrey Hepburn sang pretty well in Funny Face, although I understand she didn't have the operatic tone needed to pull off the Lerner and Lowe numbers of My Fair Lady. 

Still. with all this replacement going on, why was Brando permitted to sing as flat as a board in the film version of Guys and Dolls? And why in God's name did they let Lee Marvin grunt his way through Paint Your Wagon? Hell, at least Clint Eastwood could carry a tune, which is more than can be said for Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia.

These are rhetorical questions, of course, but I think we know the answer...

REVIEW: Cars 2

Save Cars 2!

That's what I felt shouting after seeing Pixar's latest movie, to which other critics have been uncommonly unkind. I left the theater jazzed.  I was baffled as to how they missed the boat by a mile or two.

I didn't see this sappy, cluttered, confusing, inconsequential mess, this ... this CARTOON that Pixar DARED to make. And then, looking over the reviews, I found that a lot of writers weren't so much reviewing the movie as they were the IDEA of the movie. "They made a sequel to Cars? How crass! How commercial! How shallow!"

I prefer to review what's up there on the screen. And what I saw was a great deal of fun. No, it does not rank alongside Pixar's great films. Yes,  I'd probably rank it last, alongside the original Cars.

But as Michael Wilmington of Movie City News (formerly of the Chicago Tribune) sagely pointed out, naming Pixar's worst movie is like trying to pick the Beatles' worst album. Sure, you could find an album that wasn't as great as the others, but the Beatles didn't have it in them to make a bad album. And I doubt that Pixar has it in them to make a bad movie.

Cars 2 tells a pair of stories that dovetail with each other. About a third of Cars 2 is an international grand prix racing movie with Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) at the center. The other two-thirds is an homage to  James Bond pictures, with Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) being mistaken for a master spy who's trying to find out why racers in the grand prix are being sabotaged.

The James Bond angle, in particular, was right up my alley. I love that series. So I got a giant kick out of seeing Finn McMissile transforming from an Aston Martin to a submersible. Very Goldfinger/Spy Who Loved Me. I loved the various chases and shootouts, which were thrilling to watch.

Some people had problems with the fact that Mater was front and center in this movie, but not me. Mater is not merely a dumb country bumpkin. In fact, the story addresses that very perception. Mater is a bumbler to be sure, but he never means to cause trouble. His heart is always in the right place, and since he IS a tow truck, he knows all about the various models of cars, and that comes in very handy here. I especially loved how the bad guys of this movie were autos with horrible reputations, like Gremlins, Pacers and Yugos.

Those who know me know that when I love something, I really love it. And since this movie combines Pixar and Bond, I probably was bound to enjoy it more than most. While I sometimes wear rose-colored glasses, I am not willfully blind.

I will admit that sometimes Cars 2 does get a little too frenzied for its own good. I wish it had taken the advice of the original film and slowed down a little. I will also concede that Cars 2 is not particularly ambitious. It skews young, and there's less here for adults than usual with Pixar. If you're not into cars or Bond, you may be more at sea than I was. Emotionally, it's a little thin. Most Pixar movies make me tear up. Cars 2 only made my lower lip stick out a bit.

Some may say that since Pixar sets the bar so high for itself, Cars 2 inevitably comes up short. I prefer to take a glass half-full approach. After nearly 20 years of making the best animated features, Pixar is allowed - perhaps even entitled - to make a movie that's merely a heck of a lot of fun.

GRADE: A-

PS - Wow, I made it through the review without making ONE lame automobile pun!

REVIEW: Super 8

Those who gripe that Steven Spielberg dumbed down American movies really need to see Super 8.

The common party line against Spielberg is that American movies were hip and edgy and personal in the early 1970s, then Spielberg, George Lucas, et al came along and ruined everything with their mass-marketed entertainments like Jaws, Star Wars and Close Encounters. Overnight, studios went from making the great American movie to the great American hit.

Super 8 proves these naysayers wrong, even though Spielberg himself didn't direct the movie.

Granted, Spielberg was a hands-on producer of the film, and writer-director J.J. Abrams is very obviously paying homage to his boss/mentor. But in so doing, Abrams reminds us of a time when movies were pure, joyous entertainments and not labored, busy marketing machines.

Even something as decent as Thor or as accomplished as Cars never quite escapes the fact that it's trying to sell comics, toys, sequels, soundtracks, etc. Super 8 is never concerned with selling anything other than itself. And it sold me so much I bought it twice so far.

Of course, a large part of it was a nostalgia blast for me, not only for the late 70s (fictional) Southwest Ohio setting, but for its technique. The picture heavily evokes the wide-eyed wonder of early Spielberg movies, with the most obvious inspiration being Close Encounters. Both movies are filled with wide compositions such as a large object dominating one side of the screen while a smaller object provides contrast. Both films are replete with lens flare, swooping overhead crane shots, and push-ins on actors with their hair blowing in the wind (machine).

The visual effects, created partly by master Dennis Muren, never once feel fake, nor do they look too modern. In particular, a train crash scene takes its place in cinema history as the most spectacular one ever shot. It's at once horrifying and thrilling, which is a very tricky balance to master.

But Super 8 is much more than just excellent technique. It's also wonderfully human, particularly in the unforced, guileless performances of the young actors. Joel Courtney is a real find as the lead, Joe, a makeup specialist who is coping with the death of his mom in an industrial accident. Riley Griffiths is funny and touching as Charles, the self-appointed boss of a group of friends and the writer-director of the home movie that drives the story.

But besting even them is the remarkable Elle Fanning, who gives a wonderful  performance as Alice, the girl who seems remarkably talented, yet also vulnerable - the kind of girl I once fell for. Fanning's ability to modulate emotions so quickly and convincingly makes her a marvel to watch, perhaps even more than her accomplished sister Dakota. Elle deserves consideration for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. She's that good.

Does Super 8 measure up to those early Spielberg classics? Not quite. The sci-fi part of the story doesn't gel as well as the dramatic side, and the ending struck me as a bit too pat and abrupt, with symbolism that was a little too on the nose.

Still, where Spielberg and Abrams differ, at least in terms of Spielberg's early films, is that Spielberg excelled at telling stories of individuals, or small groups of people, like the trio on the boat in Jaws or Roy Neary in Close Encounters. Abrams is a bit more adept at ensembles, which is why Mission; Impossible 3 was the film that best captured the team spirit of the TV show. It's also a large part of why his Star Trek reboot worked so well.

I'm sure there won't be a sequel to Super 8, even though I wouldn't at all mind seeing a follow-up called Betamax.

No, scratch that. Not as romantic. Best to leave very well enough alone.

GRADE: A

Oeuvres: Steven Spielberg

I'm not quite ready to review Super 8 just yet - I want to get another look at the film first. In the meantime, however, it's more than appropriate to look back on the career of the man to whom Super 8 is a loving homage. He's my second favorite director, after Martin Scorsese. They have very different styles, but both share a great passion for the power of film - and Spielberg is perhaps the most intuitive of them all. He's a born entertainer - and more importantly, a born storyteller.

This roundup considers only Spielberg's feature-length projects as a director, and not his work as a producer. Cos then I'd have to talk about the Transformers movies. Ew.

Duel: To this day, I think this film is the reason that trucks make me nervous when they pass me on the highway. GRADE: A

The Sugarland Express: Spielberg's feature debut is an underseen gem. Even at this early stage, his command of composition and logistics was truly impressive. GRADE: A

Jaws: Still the only movie that has ever made me scream out lout. Not even The Exorcist pulled that off. GRADE: A+

Close Encounters of the Third Kind: Spielberg once said the shot of the little boy opening the door with all that light flooding in was his shot that best represented him. I wonder if he still thinks so. GRADE: A+

1941: Not nearly as bad as its reputation suggests. In fact, it's not really bad at all. Sure, it's noisy and cluttered, and it's several rungs down from his previous work. But darn it, it has a lot of laughs in it, particularly the great opening scene. GRADE: B

Raiders of the Lost Ark: My favorite of Spielberg's "popcorn" movies and the best action film of all time. One of the greatest moviegoing experiences of my life was when Indy shot the swordsman and that huge ROAR went up in the theater. GRADE: A+

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial: "I'll be right here." *sniff sniff* BAWL!!!!!! GRADE: A+

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: Great beginning. Great ending. WEAK middle section. And awfully mean-spirited too. GRADE: B

The Color Purple: Some consider this film the problematic beginning of the director's "grown up" work. Even though the slick technique sometimes feels at odds with the material, emotionally, it packs a wallop. GRADE: A

Empire of the Sun: Here's the real problem child of the "adult" period. Individual sequences are brilliantly staged, but the screenplay loses focuses and ultimately the movie feels a bit hollow. GRADE: B

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The series rebounds, with the brilliant casting of Sean Connery. GRADE: A

Always: Spielberg takes what was a merely decent programmer from the 40s (A Guy Named Joe) and turns it into a confection so gloppy it sticks in all the wrong ways. The one movie in the director's filmography I can't recommend. GRADE: C

Hook: Not nearly the misfire people said it was, but not nearly the classic it ought to have been either. Still, it has enough good moments to carry it through, especially in the first half. GRADE: B

Jurassic Park: A return to popcorn form. Enormous fun, and as is no longer the case with a lot of films from the same period, the effects are still spectacular. GRADE: A

Schindler's List: Oh, only one of the 10 best movies ever made. GRADE: A+

The Lost World: Jurassic Park: Some outstanding action sequences redeem a rather lazy screenplay, and the ending sequence in San Diego is uncharacteristically clunky. GRADE: B-

Amistad: Sometimes strains too hard for effect, but when it works, its extremely affecting, thanks largely to great performances by Djimon Hounsou and Anthony Hopkins. GRADE: A-

Saving Private Ryan: Some revisionists have said this film is only worth it for the D-Day sequence. Hogwash. It's the best modern-day film about World War II, pure and simple. GRADE: A+

A.I. Artificial Intelligence: This adventurous melding of the incongruous styles of Spielberg and Kubrick doesn't always take - and yet, even in that way its absolutely fascinating. Haley Joel Osment's spellbinding performance gives it a strong heart. GRADE: A+

Minority Report: A supremely exciting and thought-provoking sci-fi thriller, with some truly imaginative action sequences on the level of Raiders. GRADE: A+

Catch Me If You Can: Marred only by an overlong third act, this film is a wonderfully entertaining breeze, not least because it's the film where people first noticed one Amy Adams. GRADE: A

War of the Worlds: One of Spielberg's most underrated films, it transmuted H.G. Wells' classic into a terrifying treatise on a post 9-11 world. GRADE: A+

Munich: An emotionally overpowering look at how killing eats away at the soul, even when you can argue that it's justified. In an interesting way, like its predecessor, this is also a 9-11 statement. GRADE: A+

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: No, it's not as good as it should have been. But screw you naysayers, I liked the fridge gag - because we all know we love the Indiana Jones movies for their gritty realism. (scoff). Even though the climax is disappointingly inert, on balance it's still a better film than Temple of Doom. So there. :P   GRADE: B+

REVIEW: The Tree of Life

Reviewing The Tree of Life feels like walking out on a limb. It's exciting and scary.

If you praise it effusively, some moviegoers will declare you an artsy fart who doesn't like anything fun. On the other hand, if you criticize it, you run the risk of being called a troglodyte who simply didn't "get it."

However, I pride myself on being able to balance the scales of an argument (I am a Libra, after all.) I freely admit I didn't "get" much of The Tree of Life. And I didn't expect to. To be able to "get it" after only one viewing would only diminish the impact of this often overwhelming  film. At the same time, I believe a film should be judged not so much on what it tries to achieve, but on what it actually accomplishes. And on that score, writer-director Terrence Malick's reach exceeds his grasp.

Malick, whose short filmography includes Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line and The New World, has never been big on plot. Some may claim that "nothing happens" in his stories, but Malick has always emphasized mood over narrative. To him, what's important is not so much what happens but what his characters feel. And that feeling is often intensely powerful.

More than anything else, The Tree of Life is a memory album, an evocation of a time of lost innocence. The film recalls 1950s Texas in glowing visuals, most often  seen from the point of view of a child. Malick keeps his camera low to the ground as it gazes in wonder, or sometimes confusion. The movie's eye darts about restlessly with our protagonist (Hunter McCracken), whose soul is torn between a loving but stern father (Brad Pitt) and his free-spirited mother (Jessica Chastain, who has a lovely ethereal presence).

Because the emotions of those scenes are so stirring, I wanted the entire film to leave me breathless of wonder. But it often falls unnervingly short. A framing device featuring Sean Penn as the grown son never connects emotionally at all, and a climactic scene on a beach seems more ripped from the frames of Fellini than something truly otherwordly.

I also felt torn about the "creation of life" scenes, which struck me as an overly elliptical melding of the "Rite of Spring" sequence from Fantasia (which, like The Tree of Life, features dinosaurs), and the "Dawn of Man" scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think Malick is trying to say something akin to what Casablanca called the problems of a few little people not amounting to a hill of beans in this crazy world.  But I'm not sure that having sections of the movie look like an elaborate National Geographic documentary is the best way to put that idea across.

At the same time, whether the screen is showing an exploding star or a child on a swing, the imagery is never less than breathtaking. Lensed by Emmanuel Lubezki, The Tree of Life is one of the most gorgeous films ever shot. Not just by Malick or in this decade, but in all the history of film. It's worth seeing for the visuals alone. And I will be seeing it again.

Perhaps I will take something different away from it on repeat viewings. For now, I would stop short of calling The Tree of Life a great film, but it is a great experience. When the film misses it frustrates. But when it succeeds, it soars.

GRADE: B+

REVIEW: X-Men First Class

X-Men First Class injects a very welcome shot of energy into an ailing franchise that, for awhile, seemed stuck in coach. The prequel truly lives up to its name.

After a strong first two films, the series slipped somewhat with a third movie that actually wasn't bad as many people claim it is, but was a marked step down from the Bryan Singer-directed pictures. Then, the series slipped even further with the mess that was Wolverine. You know your franchise is in trouble when not even Hugh Jackman's charisma can save it.

So it's understandable that the viewer might approach X-Men First Class with trepidation. But this is no Saved by the Bell with a big FX budget. This is terrific entertainment that  puts the series back on track by breathing new life in into it while still honoring what made  the classic series work, just like J.J. Abrams' Star Trek did.

At the heart of the franchise is the fascinating push/pull relationship between Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr (Magneto), and X-Men First Class Knows this, focusing on the days when the men were allies, albeit uneasy ones. Both of them want the mutant clan to be accepted, but they each have very different philosophies behind attaining that goal, and the prequel smartly shows how each man formed his thinking.

It helps that two top-flight actors play the leads. Many reviewers have remarked that when Daniel Craig retires as James Bond, Michael Fassbender can take his place, and I wholeheartedly agree. The man has charisma and talent to spare. He holds the screen. filling in the lines that Ian McKellan had so skillfully drawn.  James McAvoy is just as good as the more empathetic Professor X. For that matter, McAvoy would make a pretty good Bond himself.

One of the best things about X-Men First Class is that the supporting cast is uniformly solid too. Befitting a movie about a team, the prequel  plays very well as an ensemble piece; everyone is good. But the best of the supporting players is Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone), whose talent matches her beauty. She makes the plight of the shape-shifter Mystique not just fascinating, but moving as well. Previously, Mystique was an intriguing bad-ass, now she's a fully realized character.

If I have any quibble with the movie, it's that some of the supporting players tend to blend into the background and become indistinct. I never quite got, for instance, why one girl decided she had to turn bad other than that she sneered a lot. But that flaw is endemic to almost any movie that juggles so many characters. January Jones excels at playing ice queens, making Emma Frost a great villain. And the happily ubiquitous Rose Bryne turns in yet another appealing performance as Moria MacTaggert, a CIA agent on the mutants' side. Between Insidious, Bridesmaids and now this, Byrne is having a hell of a year.

Just as Byrne belongs on the A-list, so does director Matthew Vaughn, whose previous movies include Layer Cake, Stardust and Kick-Ass. Each of those movies had great visual energy, but X-Men First Class is the one that proves Vaughn can be as skillful a storyteller as he is a visual stylist. Not only is his action clean and exciting, but it's rather canny too. Many scenes have playful rhythms evocative of the first half of the 60s, when this film is set. With two leads who could make a good 007, X-Men First Class feels like a James Bond movie with super powers.

But X-Men First Class makes a more important distinction than that. It's the best comic book movie since The Dark Knight - and  is very nearly its equal.

GRADE: A

In defense of the theatrical experience - I DO get it

One of my favorite movie critics, James Berardinelli, has written a column decrying the state of the theatrical moviegoing experience. It's no small wonder, he says, that people increasingly watch movies at home because the theaters have become a cesspool of talking/texting teens, lousy movies and lousier projection.

As he usually does, Berardinelli makes a lot of good points. But I'm going to stop singing his praises and start rebutting him. Because from where I sit in the movie theater, I smell a lot of BS in what he writes.

Such as:

Movie houses used to have three big factors in their favor: screen size, superior sound, and the "shared" experience of enjoying something with a couple hundred strangers. Over the years, screens have gotten smaller - fake IMAX screens, widely touted as state-of-the-art, are smaller than the "regular" screens in the old 2000-seat houses. At the same time, home theater screens have gotten much bigger. Now, it's not a question of seeing something on a 70-foot theater screen instead of an 18" TV. It's a choice between going out and seeing a movie on a 20-30 foot screen or staying home and seeing it at 5-10 feet. 

I don't know how big Berardinelli's TV is, but in my experience, even the smallest movie screen, in a theater akin to a broom closet,  is still bigger than your average flat-screen  HDTV. Luckily, broom closet theaters are not that numerous, especially not in the megaplex.

It's also true that today's IMAX doesn't measure up to yesterday's big movie house.  Even though it is 10 years gone, I still greatly miss the big Dayton Mall 1 screen that was at least 50 feet long and seated well over 1,000 people. But you know what? Theaters like that are fewer and farther between than a moment of quiet in a Michael Bay movie. I wish they were still around, but they're not. The IMAX screens in megaplexes certainly aren't as big as genuine IMAX, but they're still bigger than the other movie screens in the megaplex. You have to take what you're stuck with. And what we're stuck with isn't so bad, size-wise. As Sheryl Crow once sang, "It's not having what you want, it's wanting what you've got."

He continues:

When one considers that the brightness and color are typically better calibrated and regulated in a home setup than in a multiplex, it becomes difficult to champion the movie theater visual aspect. Likewise, home video sound systems have become so sophisticated that they typically equal, and sometimes exceed, their theatrical counterparts.

Sometimes, yes, but NOT usually. Not where I see movies. I have a 42-inch flat screen with a digital surround sound system, including a subwoofer. It looks and sounds pretty damn good.  But given the choice, if I could see the same movie at home or in a theater, and A/V quality is the only consideration, I'll still take the theater.

Berardinelli says:

So the only thing left in a theater's favor is the "shared experience." When one considers how rude and inconsiderate many patrons are, it's game, set, and match for staying home. And I haven't even discussed things like convenience and refreshment quality/price.

There is no question that moviegoers are much ruder than they used to be. They certainly have more toys with which to be rude. And the food prices make me wish there were a loan office next to the bags of popcorn and boxes of Dots. What they ask you to pay is outrageous.

So you know what? I don't pay it.

I know most people consider popcorn an essential part of the moviegoing experience. Not me. I'm there to see the movie, I ain't there to eat. That's what restaurants are for. Granted, I take movies more seriously than most people do.  But it amazes me how many people willingly fork over $10 or more for heated corn kernels with artificial butter-flavored grease. That's like saying "$10 for a $1 worth of popcorn? That's a lot, but I'll support your insane prices by forking over my hard-earned money."

Me? I forgo that whole thing. I refuse to support that kind of gouging. I see more than 100 movies a year in the theater. I can count on one hand the number of times I've gotten concessions at a major chain in the last 10 years. And I don't miss 'em one damn bit. I've been able to afford more movies that way.

As for the texters/talkers, yes, they can be awful. But I've rarely had a major problem with them, and there are two reasons for that.

First, the texters/talkers are most numerous during the evening shows. That's why I almost never go to evening shows, especially on the weekends. I typically go to early matinées, when the people who would text and talk are recovering from their hangovers.

Second, even if the texters and talkers ARE there, I can usually ignore them because of where I sit in the theater. In a theater with stadium seating, I usually sit about the fourth or fifth row back. That's a tip I picked up in film class: Sit close enough so that the screen comfortably occupies your entire frame of vision, and you can't easily see the side walls.  Not only does this make the movie more impactful, it makes it MUCH easier to ignore people who treat the theater as if it were their living room. Let the movie drown the idiots out.

Berardinelli also bemoans the prevalence of 3D, but I'm not going to argue with him there. The bloom is indeed off the rose. I'm not as anti-3D as, say, Roger Ebert, but I do lament the fact that the once special experience of 3D has become so commonplace - and so ordinary as a result. I'm curious to see how Scorsese handles it with Hugo Cabret. Other than that, I don't care. Perhaps 3D will fall off once Marty tries it, just like 3D fell off after Hitchcock tried it with Dial M for Murder.

But I think it's still far too early to dial E for the End of the movie theater. There's still a lot to be said for a good theatrical experience. Take The Hangover Part II, for instance. That movie isn't even that good,  but seeing it with a crowd of hundreds of laughing people made it a lot more fun than it would have been otherwise.

 If you can duplicate that experience at your house -  I want a house just like yours.

REVIEW: The Hangover Part II

Sometimes a tree falling on your house makes things a whole lot funnier.

That may seem like a strange thing to write, and an even stranger way to begin a movie review. But hear me out.

Last week, a storm's straight line winds blew down a huge maple tree in my front yard. The tree crashed through my living room, making it not very liveable. The limbs also poked holes in my bedroom wall, so now I can see my living room from my bedroom.Not the kind of view I wanted. What makes it all the more frightening is, I was actually IN the house at the time, but luckily I was downstairs in my movie room, of all places. Click here to view the damage, if you're so inclined.

I spent most of last week in a daze, and I needed pretty much any excuse I could find to laugh. Perhaps that's why I liked The Hangover Part II more than other critics did.

To be sure, the sequel is not a particularly good movie. My fellow reviewers are not wrong when they say The Hangover Part II is essentially the first movie transplanted to Asia. It's uninspired and not nearly as surprising as the original  - but I laughed anyway. Granted, most of the laughs were mild chuckles as opposed to the full-on guffaws I gave the first movie, but I felt better after seeing the sequel than I did before seeing the sequel.

Part of the reason for that, besides relief from my tree trauma, was the cast. Mike Clark, the former USA Today critic, used to say that some movies are not very good, but are saved by sheer star power, and The Hangover Part II is a good example of what he was talking about.  These guys have great chemistry. Even though they're kind of going through the motions, they're still funny together.

The reason they all get wasted this time is even more far-fetched than a stick your dog brought back from Timbuktu. But Bradley Cooper is still funny as the handsome straight man and supposed brains of the operation, Zach Galifianakis is still a loose-cannon, man-child loon, and Ed Helms is the square who's wilder than he thinks he is.

Case in point: at one point, Helms sings a little song, just like he did in the first Hangover. That time, it came totally out of the blue, so it was one of the biggest laughs in the film. Ths time, it comes because the fimmakers said, "We've gotta have that bit where Ed sings" - so the moment doesn't carry the same jolt of surprise. In fact, it's downright lazy. But Helms pulls it off with such panache that I still smiled.

And that is The Hangover Part II  in  microcosm. On the one hand, this cast and crew are clever enough that  they can be funnier if they aren't just repeating themselves. But on the other hand, they're funny enough that the movie works. Undoubtedly, Part II's massive opening has Warner Bros. drooling over a Part III. If that gets the green light, I hope director Todd Phillips knows he can't get away with coasting a second time. And I'm not going to be as forgiving, because if another tree falls on my house, I won't be laughing.

But if he's as clever as this trailer, he might have something.




 GRADE: B-

REVIEW: Bridesmaids/Fast Five

And so the trend continues where I review two movies that might prompt readers to sing "One of these things is not like the other."

And no, I can't really find much common ground between Bridesmaids and Fast Five - not even in the sense of finding similar faults with them, as I did for Thor/Water for Elephants.

Ah, but in this crazy world we live in, the twain shall meet with Bridesmaids and Fast Five. Because I saw them back to back. At a drive-in, no less. And I hope that doubling was intentional. Something male driven versus something female driven. (Yes, pun intended)  One for him, one for her. The chick flick versus the dick flick.  One could even argue which movie is which. But both of them delivered even better than I expected.

Bridesmaids has been sold as a raunchy movie by girls for girls - sort of an estrogen-fueled Hangover.  And indeed, Bridesmaids proves that girls can drink, screw, and have a serious case of diarrhea onscreen  with the best of any men. Hell, Bridesmaids isn't five minutes old before it earns it R-rating.

But that's not what surprised me.

What surprised me - and what makes Bridesmaids more than just another raunchy comedy - is just how much heart it has.

That's not to say it gets all sticky and sweet and sentimental - at least, not to excess. What it does say is that Bridesmaids really loves its characters. And perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised, considering the lead and the co-writer is Kristen Wiig.

Wiig is one of the most naturally funny women on the planet. She can take even the lamest SNL material (which is abundant) and make it funny with only body language. She's been great in supporting roles in Paul and Aventureland, but this is the first time she's had to carry a movie - and she does it with aplomb.

Wiig plays Annie, who is going through a rough time.  Her baking business went under, and she has precious little luck with men, always seeming to settle for the easy lay who takes advantage of her. So when her best friend since childhood Lillian (the always appealing Maya Rudolph) asks Annie to be her maid of honor, it seems like it's finally Annie's chance to shine - until she meets fellow bridesmaid Helen (Rose Byrne).

A game of one-upmanship ensues. It rankles Annie to no end that Helen and Lillian have only known each other a little while - yet Helen is one of those perky uber-organizers who seems to get nothing wrong - while everything Annie tries is a disaster.

As a number of Judd Apaptow-produced movies do, Bridesmaids goes on a bit too long, running more than two hours. The filmmakers could have stood to trim as much as 15 minutes from it, dropping some subplots that are repetitive, such as Annie's romance with a kindly cop.

When Bridesmaids works, though, it works very well indeed. The comic stuff is mostly dynamite, and I especially liked the work of Melissa McCarthy as bridesmaid Megan, who doesn't have to rely solely on "I'm fat" shtick to steal scenes left and right.

But while people will laugh at Wiig's breakdown on an airplane or the dress-fitting from hell (think Pepto) people will remember Bridesmaids because there's real feeling between the characters - not only between Annie and Lillian, but with Helen too, who turns out to be more of a human being than anyone expected.

And let's just say, without giving too much away, that if you were a Wilson Phillips fan back in the day, as I was, Bridesmaids will leave you with a giant smile on your face.

GRADE: A-

Fast Five left me with a smile on my face as well. And that was the biggest surprise of all to me.

I have long disavowed this franchise. When the original film came out, I wasn't all that impressed by the trailers - so I was surprised when it opened so well. I went to see it to find out what the fuss was all about. After I saw it, I still didn't know what all the fuss was about. Slackly directed by Rob Cohen, the film was neither fast nor particularly furious. Not to mention it boasted two of the most vacuous leads ever to stumble into movies, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.

I thought the sequel, 2 Fast 2 Furious, was marginally better because it had a better director in John Singleton, but marginally better in this case only meant "tolerably mediocre." So I bailed on Tokyo Drift and whatever they called the fourth one. I didn't feel like I missed anything.

So I wasn't going to bother with Fast Five at all, but then I saw the reviews were actually pretty decent. And when I saw it paired with Bridesmaids, I thought well, what the hell. And I'm glad I did. Because what the hell I got was what the first film should have been - a fast and furious B-movie.

Director Justin Lin, who has helmed the series since the third insallement, handles the action quite well. It's fast, yes, but not so fast as to be incomprehensible. There were quite a few moments when I said "Aw, bullshit" out loud - but I was smiling because Lin, unlike Cohen, doesn't take any of this terribly seriously.

Yes, Diesel and Walker are still stuck inside the proverbial paper bags, but what helps this fifth movie greatly is the presence of an actor with real charisma, Dwayne Johnson. He holds the screen as well as he usually does, which in this case means that when he and Diesel get into a fistfight, I was SO rooting for The Rock. It was actually kind of perversely fun.

The film struck me as a high-tech version of The Dukes of Hazzard, only without wry commentary by a balladeer like Waylon Jennings.  And hey, I loved the Dukes when I was a kid. This film does what any popcorn movie should. It brought out the 10-year-old kid in me.

GRADE: B