REVIEW: Moneyball

Most sports actively disinterest me. Baseball is one of the few exceptions.

But that's not why I loved Moneyball.

Director Bennett Miller has said that he hasn't really made a baseball movie, and he's right. Oh sure, the movie has some  baseball in it, but that doesn't make it a "baseball movie." A baseball movie is either about someone whose main occupation it is to play the game, or a movie in which the field action of baseball is central to the plot. Moneyball doesn't quite fit either description.

The story centers around a former player, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), but in the movie he's the general manager of the Oakland As. The story involves a lot of baseball mechanics but there's not a whole lot of on-field action. And in fact, those mechanics should be another strike against the movie for me. Mechanics in this case means statistics, and statistics mean math, to which I have a lifelong aversion. But the movie's not about math, either, thank goodness.

What makes Moneyball so ingenious is that the filmmakers have taken what was mostly a technical, mathematical book and have found the emotional through-line they needed to make it into a story - Billy Beane's story.

Beane in his youth was a promising player who chose playing baseball over a college scholarship. That decision came to haunt him. Once he got into the major leagues, Beane's potential vanished into a cloud of frustration. Not able to cut it as a player, he took a managing job with the A's instead. And it was there that he was faced with the seemingly impossible task of rebuilding his team in 2002 after his star players left for greener pastures and greener bank accounts.

The subtitle of the Moneyball book was "The Art of Winning an Unfair Game." Payroll-wise, the A's were more like the Z's. They simply didn't have the money to buy power players. After meeting economics major Peter Brand (Jonah Hill, playing a composite character), Beane comes to believe Brand's motto: "Your goal shouldn't be to buy players, your goal should be to buy wins." Brand's mathematical system values a player's ability to get on base above all else.

Of course, the system doesn't work at first, and the team's seasoned scouts scoff at Beane usurping years of tradition and intuition. Yet Beane scoffs at their antiquated system, in which the scouts actually consider the good looks of a player's girlfriend an important factor. But for Beane, the system means much more. It becomes a referendum on his own status. If he fails, he knows he's unemployable. And even more haunted to boot.

Two of our best screenwriters, Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) and Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network), deserve a lot of credit for cruching the numbers even while finding the story's heart. So, too, does Brad Pitt. who delivers one of his most engaging, self-effacing turns. But Miller deserves even more credit than he's been getting.

His film Capote struck me as a tad dry. but here, Miller finds his visual and aural footing, cleverly using wide shots and silences to bring home Beane's feelings of isolation and alienation. It certainly helps that he picked a fine cinematographer, Wally Pfister, who is Christopher Nolan's regular cameraman.

In the end, Moneyball isn't as much about money or baseball as it is about redemption and validation. One can argue just how much of either Beane finally has, but this excellent film pitches a great story - even if it's not really a baseball movie.

GRADE: A

Netflix redux

Since I opined about the Netflix split in my last post, I have run across a number of well-written commentaries about this dunderheaded Qwikster move. My favorite was a smart and pointed editorial by Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits, who wrote:

My personal opinion is that it's ill advised. There's still a lot of life in physical media yet - especially on the rental side. There's no shortage of DVD rental subscribers. I also strongly suspect the streaming/downloading future is nowhere near as simple and rosy as adherents wish to believe. Broadband infrastructure upgrades are still way behind here in the States, and Net metering alone could prove a show-stopper to this model. As more and more businesses push cloud services and streaming content, Internet access providers are going to start asking SOMEONE - either those offering the content or those consuming it or both - to pay for the true cost of the bandwidth they're using. That means added and fees for consumers and a LOT of them. Streaming movies might not be so appealing to cash-strapped consumes as the costs to enjoy it continue to rise. The other problem with streaming is that sooner or later, the content providers (read: the Hollywood studios) are going to realize that they don't need Netflix and other content delivery middle men anymore - they can simply create their own streaming services and maximize their own profits.

But Netflix's decision reflects the uncertainty all of the entertainment industry is feeling. As the world of entertainment content continues to go digital and online, and as physical media eventually takes a back seat over the next decade, nobody really knows exactly how much people are willing to pay for such content and how profitable it will be. Yes, people might pay $15 a month for downloading, but no one is going to pay $35.99 for a single movie download. Likewise, while CDs and hardback books once sold for $20 each, most music fans are eschewing albums for $.99 song downloads and most ebooks are $9.99 or less. Plus, Netflix can't exactly be reassured by the fact that the Post Office seems to be having ever growing difficulties and some politicians are actually calling for it to be abolished entirely. Mailing and distributing physical discs requires a LOT of costly infrastructure - tracking software, sorting machines, distribution centers. Yes, streaming requires infrastructure too, but a lot less of it. Which means lower costs. The bottom line is that from a purely business standpoint, Netflix's decision probably makes sense to them - especially in the long run. But in the meantime, a company that's already pissed off its customers en masse multiple times, is apparently happy to piss them off some more and is betting that it won't matter in the long run because they're the biggest player in the streaming/rental business. This is classic corporate arrogance, plain and simple. Maximize profits at all costs - even at the cost of consumer service and convenience.

The bottom line is that while downloading is awesome in many ways, it's not so awesome in others. Quality suffers, content can suffer, and LOTS of jobs are going to be lost. Physical media needs to be authored, manufactured, packaged, shipped and sold in real, physical places by real, physical people. Digital downloads are stored on a server and are sent by computer to your playback device at the click of a button - all by computer with just a very tiny fraction of the human involvement physical products require. If you're a corporate shareholder, that's awesome - pure profit. If you're someone whose job is no longer required, well... maybe not so much. This is the trade off we're making as a society and it seems we're just all going to have to get used to it because it's here to stay. Welcome to the 21st Century, folks!

So the question becomes, what do we do now? I wasn't mad at Netflix so much for the price increase. Handled badly though it was, the cold hard cash always comes streaming out of our pockets when times are tough, whether we like it or not. Netflix could and maybe should have softened the blow by increasing the price gradually, rather than dumping it on everyone all at once. But it's also worth noting that Netflix's long-standing low price enabled a lot of laziness in the customer base.

Stories abound of people keeping discs for weeks or months on end because a lot of people figured "Ah, it's only $10, $15 a month. What the hey." Believe me, I know. I was guilty of this a few times myself. But all I and others were doing was devaluing that incredible bargain we had. As long as I kept a few of those titles, I might as well have BOUGHT the damn things or stuffed a few extra dollars in those red envelopes. If a price increase actually prompts people to turn the discs around faster, everybody gets more value for their money. That's one of the few - and maybe the only benefit of the sticker shock.

All that said, Netflix has enough egg on its face to keep the Easter Bunny hopping for decades. And I rather agree with this EW writer that Netflix is essentially treating its disc-renting customers as second-class citizens. I'm considering dropping Qwikster/Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs/whatever and sticking with the streaming, especially since I just bought a Roku box. Might even drop cable since I hardly watch anything except TCM.

Still, I would like to have physical discs to fill the gaps in the streaming catalog - especially TCM fare. Forget Blockbuster - I still consider them an evil empire that rightly and justly had its head handed to it on a silver platter in a red envelope. Redbox can help with new releases, but what about that older catalog material I like? I may take EW's suggestion and go with GreenCine, which caters to cinephiles like me. The disadvantage there, I suppose is that GreenCIne doesn't have nearly as many distribution centers as Netflix does, so the turnaround won't be so Qwik - er, fast. Still, I do have a number of titles in my own collection I've not managed to watch yet - not to mention a load of DVD extras I've never checked out.

And speaking of checking out, there's always the good ol' public library, which usually has a pretty good selection of classic fare. After all, the library was my first job. Sometimes it's good to get back to where you once belonged, as a certain fab foursome said.

Netflix - Red for danger

Earlier this year, when Netflix hiked its prices and everybody complained, I rolled my eyes skyward at how spoiled people were acting. For years and years, customers had gotten quite a lot for next to nothing, so when they were asked to pay a bit more than next to nothing, they cried foul in droves.

I thought, and still think now, that people had lost all sense of perspective. If they were only paying $10 a month for unlimited movies, and then the price become something like $16 a month for unlimited movies, the bargain was STILL amazing. People used to pay a lot more than that per month at the ol' Blockbuster.

But no one remembered that. People cried like babies who'd just had their pacifiers snatched from their mouths. They reminded me of Louis CK's routine "Everything is amazing and nobody's happy." It sounded like people who moaned about the Wi-Fi on an airplane going out, and they forget they're in a chair in the sky. The world doesn't owe you a living, folks.



Now don't get me wrong. I know the economy's tough, and in times such as these, every penny counts. And I understand the principle that hiking your prices during a recession may not be the wisest business  decision in the world.

But remember what I said before about people losing perspective? I think readers should understand mine. You see, I'm not your average Netflix user. I don't flock to the New Release section for 99 percent of my viewing like most people do. I see most new movies I want to see in the theaters. If I had to guess, I'd say that 70 percent of my Netflix is catalog titles and 30 percent is new releases. And even that may be generous.

I go to Netflix to get the titles you can't get at Redbox or at the few brick and mortar places still in business. So for me,  me, paying $23 a month for a virtually unlimited selection of movies, many of which I can watch instantly, is a HELL of a deal. And that's true even if I was paying only $15 before. I'll eat the cost because I love movies.

But it's because I love movies that I find Netflix's response absolutely baffling. Basically, they've split into two companies. Netflix will now be the streaming-only service, and the classic disc by mail business will be spun off into an operation called Qwikster.

 Qwikster? What the hell is that? That name doesn't suggest movies and TV to me. That sounds like a name for someone who dumps flavored powder into milk.

But even more important than the name change is the operations change. Each customer who gets both services will now pay two bills. OK, annoying but not the end of the world. The bigger problem is that the sites will no longer be integrated.

So for example, if I go on Netflix, I see they have Steven Spielberg's first theatrical feature, The Sugarland Express. Oh, no, wait a minute. Like too many movies in the annoying Starz Play category, it's in the wrong aspect ratio. It's cutting off Spielberg's beautifully crafted images. Before I could always say, "No problem, I'll just dunk it in my disc queue." Oh, wait, not anymore. Now I have to jump through another hoop and find it on Qwikster.  Annoying.

Or let's take the flip of that example. Let's say I want to watch  Charge of the Light Brigade, with Errol Flynn and Olivia de Haviland. That was available on Instant. Oh, wait, it's not there anymore. Let's go to Qwikster. Damn, they don't have it anymore either. Now I've gone onto two sites and struck out, doubling my frustration. Guess I'll try my luck with TCM. Oh wait - I was considering dumping cable because I now have a Roku streaming box. THEN what do I do?

Now, I realize that my own argument could still make Louis CK scoff at me, just as I scoffed at others. Fair enough. But it's one thing to pass on the prices of streaming to customers. Regrettable as that is, that's expected. But it's a big mistake to compound that buy making your sites more difficult to use. AND dilute your brand at the same time.

So what's the next step? Since I have that streaming box now, I might keep Netflix and ditch Quixster for Redbox. But then Redbox won't have all those classic titles I like to watch. Gah!

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings is damn lucky I love movies, because that love will probably compel me to keep both of his companies. Other customers haven't been, and won't be so loyal. I may stick around, but I'm disgruntled. I agree with columnist David Poland, who writes that Hasting's email to customers ought to have said this:

“Dear Netflix Customer… we loved being in the DVD business, but it is no longer financially viable… for anyone. We’re as sorry as you are. It is where we have lived all these years and built a great relationship with you, our subscribers. But the simple truth is, we cannot move forward if we live in the financial structure of the past. Shipping and distribution centers and competition from new delivery systems, including our own streaming build-out, have made the great deal we have offered you all these years impossible. And the streaming business can expand to the entire planet… all we have to do is to pay for content rights for each country, which is still remarkably cheap in most places (at least until we raise that bar).

We believe we can sustain a DVD shipping business for a couple of more years and we are going to keep offering that option to you for as long as we can. It will cost you a little more, but there is no bargain like it.

We know the future is streaming. But this is also a very expensive proposition. We are working hard to deliver as much high quality streaming content as possible. If you choose to stream only with us, there will be a lot less product available than you are used to from the DVD-to-you business. But it’s still a better value proposition than any other streaming company in the world. It is our commitment to remain the biggest, best, most easily accessed streaming media company on the planet at an incredibly affordable price of less than $10 month.

Honestly yours,
Reed Hastings”

At least the pill would have been easier to swallow - with or without the Qwik.

Deathmatch! Zac Efron vs. Marlon Brando!

Some time back I read a very entertaining piece by a British critic named Mark Kermode, who waxed sardonic about the lamentable state of movies today. This particular passage  made me laugh out loud:

If you want kids' movies in which cameras crawl up young women's skirts while CGI robots hit each other over the head, interspersed with jokes about masturbation and borderline-racist sub-minstrelsy stereotyping, then Bay is your go-to guy. He is also, shockingly, one of the most commercially successful directors working in Hollywood today, a hit-maker who proudly describes his visual style as "fucking the frame" and whose movies appear to have been put together by people who have just snorted two tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium.

Yes, yes, I remember, I actually liked Transformers: Dark of the Moon earlier this year. But that was mainly because shooting in 3D forced Bay to edit his film like he'd snorted only one tonne of weapons-grade plutonium. He may  occasionally be able to pull a coherent action scene out of his ass, but he still has all the narrative skill of a lemming cascading over a cliff.

To hear Kermode tell it, maybe I really didn't like Transformers 3 after all. He says that to one degree or another, even educated film folk like me have become too forgiving of blockbusters. It's OK, they're supposed to be dumb.

Bollocks, says Kermode.

This has become the shrieking refrain of 21st-century film (anti)culture – the idea that critics are just too clever for their own good, have seen too many movies to know what the average punter wants, and are therefore sorely unqualified to pass judgment on the popcorn fodder that "real" cinema-goers demand from the movies.

This is baloney – and worse, it is pernicious baloney peddled by people who are only interested in money and don't give a damn about cinema. The problem with movies today is not that "real" cinema-goers love garbage while critics only like poncy foreign language arthouse fare. The problem is that we've all learned to tolerate a level of overpaid, institutionalised corporate dreadfulness that no one actually likes but everyone meekly accepts because we've all been told that blockbuster movies have to be stupid to survive. Being intelligent will cause them to become unpopular. Duh! The more money you spend, the dumb and dumberer you have to be. You know the drill: no one went broke underestimating the public intelligence. That's just how it is, OK?
Well, actually, no. You want proof? OK. Exhibit A: Inception.

He'll get no argument out of me there, said a guy who named Inception the best film of 2010.

Kermode's article was an excerpt from his new book, The Good, the Bad and the Mutiplex: What's Wrong with Modern Movies? The excerpt was so insightfully pungent, so I decided to give the book a try, downloading a sample onto my tablet. And wow. Kermode certainly has a sharp wit, but also a bit of a knack for well-read bullshit. He dares to compare Marlon Brando to Zac Efron - with Mr. Brando as the loser. Kermode writes of Efron:

He's young, he's talented he can sing, dance and act, and when I met him once (briefly), he was sweet, gracious, charming and very lovely to be around ... You can smirk all you want, but to my mind Efron is a reminder of the kind of fully rounded star appeal which was required of screen actors before Marlon Brando somehow managed to bamboozle everyone into believing that true talent meant mumbling and snorting like you've got a mouthful of cake, turning up late to work because you've been researching your role in the cafeteria, and refusing to accept Oscars because you don't like cowboys and Indians movies. For the record, Marlon Brando was a fool whose growing contempt for his audience caused them to stay away from his later pictures in droves ... rather than being the greatest actor of his generation, Brando was actually Ron Burgundy. 

Wow. That's gotta be written under the influence of a half-tonne of weapons-grade plutonium.

In fairness, there's more than a kernel of truth to what Kermode is saying. It's all too easy to snigger at Efron, but the kid is a genuine talent. He held his own in a movie called Me and Orson Welles, the title of which should tell you everything you need to know. And it is also true that Brando's latter-day antics make Tom Cruise seem rational by comparison. But any sane person, including Mr. Efron, I'm sure, knows whose legacy is more valuable.

It also must be said  that most of the movies that made Mr. Efron famous are every bit as prefabricated as anything Michael Bay ever shot. Or maybe Mark Kermode doesn't really like High School Musical. He just thinks he does.

Regardless, I'm going to read the rest of his book. Anybody this incisively insane has gotta be worth more posts.

Back to the Favorites!

I freely admit, I have a bad habit of leaving projects unfinished. Alas, one of these projects has been this very blog. 


Granted, I've been through a lot of trials this year, not the least of which was a tree falling through my house and briefly giving me the unusual feature of being able to see my living room from my bedroom. More recently, at my job, I find myself having to move from the entertainment beat to the education beat. 


Neither of these was a change that I expected, but I am making the best of both. My house has mostly been repaired, and the good news is that since I'm not writing about entertainment as much at work, I will be writing more often about it here.


In so doing, I will pick up one of those unfinished projects from this very blog. Quite some time back, I asked several of you to submit lists of your favorite films to me. In turn, I would comment on the list and maybe even gain some new viewing material in the bargain. And so would you, I hope! 


My friend Martha had been so enthusiastic about the idea that she submitted no less than THREE lists. Believe me, I can relate. When you're a film nut, it's kinda hard to narrow things down. 


Nevertheless, I will start narrowing down Martha's favorites, with the first of her lists. The titles are hers, the comments are mine. 


Ride the High Country - Just watched this for the first time recently. It's great to see two old pros like Joel McCrea and Randolph Scott go at it. It's also fun to see director Sam Peckinpah start to bend the conventions of the Western genre - you can see the road to The Wild Bunch begin here.


Elizabethtown - Sad to say, this is my least favorite Cameron Crowe film. He went so far into himself in this one, he got lost - so much so that his usually reliable soundtrack choices were disappointing. "Pride (In the Name of Love)" playing during a trip to the Civil Rights Museum? That's a liiiiiitle too on the nose, Cam.Breakfast at Tiffany's - Essential viewing for anyone with even a passing interest in Audrey Hepburn - but ye gods, Mickey Rooney's Asian caricature is the nadir of this film, and his career.

Casablanca - Bogie and Bergman rule - and Claude Rains matches them.From Here to Eternity - Terrific acting from the largest role to the smallest. But I have to say I have a soft spot for Donna Reed, who can't help but be lovable, even when playing a woman of ill repute.

Suddenly, Last Summer - Another terrific acting showcase - particularly for how Liz Taylor more than holds her own with the great Kate.The Green Pastures - This film buff has to admit he had never heard of this one. But Bible stories from the perspective of blacks - in 1936, no less - certainly sounds interesting.

Driving Miss Daisy - Too many people decry this as the "nice" civil rights film that came out the same year as Do the Right Thing. There's much more to this story than that broad brush will paint.

Fried Green Tomatoes - Believe it or not, I've never seen Miss Tandy's follow-up to Driving Miss Daisy. Come to think of it, I've never even tried a fried green tomato either.

The Green Mile - Hmmm. More green. I like the film a pretty good deal, but I thought the sequences with the "old" Tom Hanks were a bit much.

It Happened One Night: You know those cliches you saw in the last Hollywood rom-com? Most of them came from this movie.Moulin Rouge (1952) - This is the John Huston picture, not the hyperactive Baz Luhrmann musical. But I've always wanted to see it, particularly because of the way it drains the color palette, which was daring for a film of that time.  

My Favorite Wife - I prefer The Awful Truth, but this is delightful too.
Paper Moon - Tatum O Neal didn't get her Oscar just because she was cute. She got it because she jolly well deserved it. And I was rather delighted to see they still make Nehi.
Sullivan's Travels: "There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan."

O Brother Where Art Thou?: Hmmm. I wonder HOW Martha got from the last film to this film ...


Do the Right Thing: 

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence.- Malcolm X

The truth of this film lies in the distance between those two quotes.

Peggy Sue Got Married: This film, from one of Francis Ford Coppola's "I'll direct anything as long as they pay me" phases, gets a lot of juice from Kathleen Turner's wonderful performance. But it also hits a lot of sour notes thanks to Nicolas Cage's truly annoying performance. 




The Shawshank Redemption: I remember when I saw this film once in the theater, two of the reels were transposed. How did I know this?  Because Raquel Welch came before Marilyn Monroe on the wall.

More from Martha later. In the meantime, if you'd still like to submit a favorites list, feel free to do so in the comments. 

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!