Red

Deb 9 Me 6

I don’t drink anymore. And I don’t go to bars and drink near beer; I mean, what’s the point? I don’t want to be around the drinking culture or be friends with booze anymore, because I don’t drink. So I don’t go to these shoot ‘em up action movies too often either; I mean, what’s the point? I don’t really want to be on good terms with rocket launchers or comfortable around automatic weapons.

I am impressed with the actors who signed up for this movie and they all put in great performances. The story was pretty good and from a technical point of view, it is a marvel. There is clever comic relief as the actors bow to practical human qualities and it’s generally a pretty good movie.

But I’m such a worm… all the way through we see who the good guys are and who’s bad. There are some refreshing surprises here and there too. But there are police, secret service guys and the general public who are put in life and death situations at the whim of the protagonists. All the way through I keep thinking about the cops (etc.) who are putting their lives on the line, having their lives flash in front of them and worrying about their loved ones at home. Sometimes I get so consumed by these unexplored side stories that I loose track of the movie. It’s a personal problem, I know.

So as far as this type of movie goes, it’s above average. Deb really liked it, which was a surprise to me. As far as I’m concerned I wish people didn’t like these movies; that the demand for them would go away. I wish people weren’t getting jaded by the power of firearms and not being concerned for the consequences of using them. I guess I want more of a Mr. Rogers world, where filmmakers recognize their responsibility to their young audiences and make films that encourage positive things in life.

And those movies can be just as fun to watch.

Tiny Furniture

Deb 0 Me 2

This movie had promise, and then it started. Now I can’t blame the movie for this, but it was presented in the worst fashion ever. First off, it wasn’t a movie, it was a DVD projected onto the screen. To make matters worse they couldn’t get the aspect ratio correct so it was squeezed into a 4X3 format, making everyone very tall and skinny. I hate that. But it wasn’t the fault of the movie and I’m not counting that against it.

The movie seemed to be about disaffected youth, people with no goals or ambition, no direction, no skills (social or professional) who just hang around, let things happen to them and complain. The central girl in this movie did have the ability to manipulate her mother, but didn’t bother to use this skill outside the home.

If the point of the movie is to make you associate with boredom of these peoples lives, then they did a very good job. I just don’t go to the movies to get bored.

The Social Network

Deb 4 Me 2

Not the fault of the movie, but it was going for a few minutes before I realized it was the movie and not another preview of coming attractions. So the movie is running along and I notice it’s written by Aaron Sorkin; so I know two things, it will be well researched and it it’ll have a ton of dialog. It did not disappoint in this regard. A lot of verbiage, and I assume it was all correct in the context of computerese, which is a language I know little about. It made me realize how out of it I am in these times.

The text is punctuated by what I think is that new modern techno music, the worst music on the planet. I’m sure it is accurate to the time and place of the movie setting, but really obnoxious.

The people are young and bright Harvard students, but not necessarily hip. Most of the protagonists here are geeks and not really social adept. The actors were convincing, I really responded to most of them. There’s a lot of talking, and a lot of it is incomprehensible, and it goes by real fast, so it’s easy to miss some basic plot points. I assume the MTV paced minds this might be targeted to will pick up on everything, but my Howdy Doody paced mind missed a lot. Enough that at the end of the film I was puzzled by a lot of things that seemed unresolved.

Basically it is a docudrama about the guy who invented Facebook and the people surrounding him. Not a real charming guy. I was thinking about movies I had seen recently that might loan their titles to this movie. Waste Land would apply, so would Despicable Me. A bunch of intelligent totally repugnant kids who made huge changes in our society; for better or worse It is not really power they earned or deserved, they just did things because they could. Actually their motivation is much sicker than that, but I don’t want to spoil anything for you.

As the movie evolves and the characters are firmly established, the soundtrack settles down and the story telling progresses. I haven’t a clue about the high tech logarithms, but I do know about the base emotions that these children succumb to. These kids never even try to resolve their emotional issues but take refuge by using their intellect as a tool of revenge, damn the consequences.

I guess my real beef with the movie is that I felt left out, it was big on the loud and fast razzle-dazzle and low on the explanation of major plot points. I think everything may have been included in the movie, but they weren’t accessible to me.

Waste Land

Deb 9 Me 9

So we were going to see “Waiting for Superman” but missed the beginning so we dropped in on the next movie in chronological order, “Waste Land”. …never saw it coming. On the computer the analysis said it was a 1997 movie about Romania, there in the theater it said this was a new documentary about a contemporary artist who makes art from the world’s largest landfill. The difference seems to be Wasteland v. Waste Land (two words). You think they’d figure it out.

So the synopsis made it sound like its right up our alley. Neither of us had heard of the artist, Vik Muniz, and they did an admirable job of introductions. They established his credibility, his vision and his collaborators very nicely. Vik is a likeable guy who has a positive but difficult mission and apparently a man of credibility and means. The producers were willing to bet a camera crew and three years to follow his lead. I’m glad they did because I came out liking the guy, his art and his team.

As with many artistic visions, they morph as progress is made. Some aspects become clearer and some diffused as work progresses. This cat was no different and his assured ease and confidence in his vision carried him to success.

Briefly, the guy returns to his native Brazil, home of the world’s largest landfill, to create art using recyclable materials and the people of the island dump, referred to as pickers. These folks rummage through the tons of debris to find whatever can be salvaged. It is an amazing undertaking. There are thousands of these people attacking mountains of waste, smelly dangerous hideous city waste; 24 hours a day.

What Vik comes up with is astonishing, beautiful and a benefit to all those involved.

It is a terrific story and I recommend you see it, whoever you are.

Welcome to the Riley's

Deb 7 Me 7

Here’s another one that’ll go under the radar. It’s pretty slow but character development is good. I liked that all the people, and there’s really only three you need to follow, are doing the best they can given the cards they’re dealt. They’re all pretty sincere. For all its language and the central theme involving the ragged edge of New Orleans life, it’s a very tender little movie. I didn’t recognize any of the players from anything, which always helps me believe them. It seems most big actors have a formula or a pigeonhole they’re either in or trying to wiggle out of… these folks were fresh and very good.

My only gripe is there were a few instances where there were some big changes that happened in record time that pushed credibility, but the things in the plus column far outweigh the time compression. A great relief was that, like “the Visitor”, it didn’t have the Hollywood feel to the story, which was filled out well. I liked seeing it more than talking about it later. While watching the movie I could ride with any uneven waves of the story, and talking about them later just made them seem bigger than they were.

Nora’s Will

Deb 4 Me 6

This is a rare movie from Mexico and it was good for me to see it. Usually when I think of Mexico I picture the northern border states, the ones that are desert and rely heavily on tourist trade to support their meager economy. But in the south Mexico is a fertile and hearty land with big cities and farms abounding. I remember being there in 1980 and thinking this is a great, quick way to get a European experience that is only hours away and much cheaper. So seeing this Mexican movie set in an upscale apartment and centered around an affluent Jewish family, I was pleasantly surprised.

The whole movie is built on the back of a Hemingway-esque guy named Jose (no surprise there) played by Fernando Lujan. He was great. Someone else could have been cast in this role, but this cat carried the weight of the film with quiet assuredness.

And it is a very quiet film. Slow and quiet. No big movements here. When it was over we both had criticisms and wondered about a dozen issues that were presented but not resolved. Normally that pisses me off. But this movie was like going to someone’s house for dinner. It was a nice way to spend the evening, but I don’t need to go back and I don’t really wonder how their issues get resolved. They were good people, we had a nice time and went home. Did I mention this is a Jewish family in a heavily Catholic land? This presents several cultural clashes that never occurred to me and I liked that. I liked the kids in the movie, normally I consider them a pain in the ass.

The movie kept me engaged through each snail-paced scene and I enjoyed it. I figure an average movie is a 5, and this was just a hint above average. For Deb it was a bit below. It’s nothing I’m going to tell you to go see, but if you have a free evening, looking for some harmless entertainment, this might fit the bill.

I just remembered, most of you are renters. I liked it for an evening out, but I don’t think I’d like it at home on a TV.

Nowhere Boy

Deb 8 Me 7

First off, there was a huge line at the theater. I was sure all these young people were here to see this tribute to John Lennon’s youth. We got in the theater, there were two other couples and one guy dragged in after the movie started. That was it, a total of seven people there on opening Friday night. The mob was there to see Jackass 3D ..enough commentary on the times we live in.

I think a lot of people my age have a general awareness of the lives of the fab four, certainly a grasp on their lives as Beatles and after. This is a pretty solid look at the care and feeding of John Lennon in the early days, from conception all the way up to going to Hamburg. It’s a well told story, slow, but forever interesting. It’s an English flick, the accents are authentic and the acting is great. They actually shot it in Liverpool and it is apparently endorsed by Yoko. If you accept the story as true, it is quite informative (and knowing what lies ahead), quite engaging.

The movie left us with several unanswered questions. Some of the ancillary players were confusing, his college days were indicated by no more than two sentences; there is some room for criticism. We both felt the “toughness” of Lennon was underplayed and I wondered where his famous humor was. Something I would like to see developed in a film (about someone) is an examination of creativity. You know, how its developed or discovered, how the artist controls it or succumbs to it, its role in basic life, does it come into play only while generating art or does it pop up while brushing your teeth. I'm sure everyone has a different story and it's really the foundation for success; but neglected in every bio-pic I've ever seen.

Overall this was an enjoyable and informative feature.

HOWL

Deb 9 Me 7

I was very excited about seeing this movie. We have stumbled across a string of really good movies lately and my hopes were high. Yet, I am always skeptical about these movies. Too often movies about artists are made by people who don’t understand the art, or resent the art and make a hatchet job portrait. Rob Epstein and Jefferey Friedman created a sympathetic and effective way to pay tribute to this epic poem.

It is made in four parts, like the poem itself, and they are blended in an easy to follow way. There are actors who portray the central characters, and I know them all too well, Kerouac, Cassady, Burroughs, Ferlinghetti, Huncke and of course, the author of HOWL, Alan Ginsberg. Over time I have developed a paternal need to protect them from their detractors but for some reason I didn’t feel like this film was going to be a problem, and it wasn’t. The actors were certainly capable, and with the exception of Ginsberg, they didn’t try to cast ringers (which I would have liked, since there wasn’t a lot of depth to any of the supporting beats).

The film’s text was made from tapes and notes and transcripts and divided into four parts. One sequence was an interview, presented in a realistic manner, with Ginsberg expounding on his work in an honest and straightforward monologue, supported with an effective visual atmosphere.

Another segment was Alan reading his work to his peers in a compact coffee house that has become the icon of the period. I was happy they didn’t use the brick wall of the Hungry Eye that every club across America has appropriated.

The third element was the trial that Lawrence Ferlinghetti went through for publishing the work. This was skillfully adapted and I’m sure compiled from transcripts. I wanted more meat here; it seemed like the prosecution only presented a superficial attempt at banning the book. I was impressed with the casting choices too. It seemed that actors were excited about being involved with the film.

The last segment was the weirdest one for me. There was animation woven in as a sort of illustration of the text of HOWL. This took me by surprise, and I probably shouldn’t have told you (sorry) and redeemed itself pretty quickly. It was done by a guy named Eric Drooker. Ginsberg was a big fan of Eric, collected his work and initiated a collaboration with Drooker to do HOWL in its entirety. This was told to us in graphics at the beginning of the movie and I’m happy about that, it gave credibility to something that otherwise seemed strange. After the initial shock of seeing animation I quickly acclimated and really enjoyed the imagery that was created to support the words.

Everything about the movie is just what I wanted it to be, with one exception (which could be me). I was never involved. I was just watching. It had a clinical feel to it. This is a very emotional, passionate, piece of art that we are focusing on and yet the movie felt like an analytical exercise. But it was a positive movie and one that might encourage others to use their tools for honest expression.

Jack Goes Boating

Deb 7 Me 4

This is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s movie. He produced, directed and stars in this slice ‘o life movie. This is a total character driven movie. Not a lot going on in my opinion. It’s beautifully shot, which is sort of like saying your date has a good personality. In reality, it really has a lot going for it. Everything is there and in place, good acting, great looking environments, credible dialogs and of course it’s good looking. But for me it wasn’t engaging. I wanna be engaged. The actors pass in and out of what might be a great script, but I never really cared what they said or did. And they said and did a lot of things, albeit at a very slow pace.

Most of Redford’s movies were smaller independent kinds of projects, a lot of them turned into big movies, probably because he is good looking. For this kind of small movie, Hoffman is probably the new king of the screen. He’s impressed me in most of his choices since Capote. But in this movie there were a bunch of scenes, maybe too many, where there is a set up, a close up, where the actor can really exercise some subtleties, Sean Penn moments. But Hoffman didn’t come through in most of them. Maybe it was his choice, a further development of the character, but they let me down.

At the end of the movie, perusing the credits for names I know, I felt like I was in some sort of vacuum, just emotionless. Watching this movie wasn’t the best use of my time. But it was pretty good use of Deb’s time. She gets more into the personalities and motivations. She wonders about things and gets involved. I just take what I’m given and hope they give me everything I need to understand why they made the movie. It didn’t have a lot of personality.

Lovely, Still

Deb 5 Me 7

This didn’t look very good in the previews, but I’d rather take a chance on it than go see a big hit. The trailer made it look slow and sappy. It stars Martin Landau, and I’ve never been much of fan. He always seemed too caricaturish for my taste. Also stars Ellen Burstyn; she’s fine. So you get the picture this is about old people. Landau in particular looks to be very old. And even though she’s only four years younger, there were scenes where you could have believed Ellen to be his daughter. The fear of old people in movies is that there’s going to be some smart ass director who wants to show us old people naked. This was directed by someone I’ve never heard of and he did a good job. There’s a couple young supporting actors, the girl I recognized. The guy; not familiar.

Sure enough, it started out slow. Some of the supporting characters seemed to be out of The Office TV show and it was in jeopardy of fizzling out all together. It was getting sappy. But the female lead was peculiarly aggressive and we were getting hints of a mystery behind the boredom. Eventually you acclimate to the pace and settle in on following the story. You start to notice the scenes are looking more like a Kubrick movie and the pace picks up. Not that it gets much passed a crawl mind you, but once you’re settled into the mellow tempo, any variation in activity stands out.

I liked the movie. It’s no big deal flick that you’re going to tell all your friends to go see, but for sitting in a dark room for an hour and a half, it’s a pretty good way to be entertained.

Mao’s Last Dancer

Deb 8 Me 8

We both had some trepidation about this one. Deb because she thought it would be like Dancing Across Borders and me ‘cause I thought it sounded like Le Concert. It turns out to be its own movie and it’s pretty darn good.

The dancing in Dancer is ballet dancing. Something I know very little about and therefore have little appreciation for. That’s over. I’m blown away by what these cats can do with their bodies, and not in a clean and jerk motion, but smooth like flying. And the movie explores what it takes to get to that point, I really dug it.

Another thing I know little about and therefore have little appreciation for is China, where the movie has its origins. I know they make crappy products, own our debt and have no parallels to our view of civil rights, but the movie is sort of a sales pitch overtone that says things are a lot better now than under Mao’s influence. Still, no place I want to visit.

But the movie was terrific. It’s based on a real life guy, I have no idea how accurate it is, but it’s interesting as hell. The things this cat goes through in life, some of his own volition, some totally beyond his control, it makes for a good story.

It’s a very good looking movie. There were a few shots that were a bit digital looking, but they were very minor. Great music too. But I really was sold on the beauty of ballet.

When we left the theater I was happy about the movie, in subsequent conversations I found I had misunderstood one of the scenes and it changed the whole end of the film (in my misguided eyes). When I found out what really happened, I liked the movie even better. So if you run across a stumbling block, you’re not alone. But either way you see the movie, see the movie.

The Concert

Deb 9 Me 9

I love that the title is subtitled “Le Concert”, never would’ve figured that one out on my own. There’s not a lot of press on this one, apparently a Russian film that takes place in Russia and Paris (though I think it was shot in Austria). It is subtitled and the Russian language is very pretty to listen to. I like when I don’t know the actors, (at least most of them; two I’ve seen before) don’t know where the story is going and can sit back and enjoy the ride. This ride takes you through some fabulous scenery, political dynamics, great personal stories and some killer music.

I really liked it. The movie takes place in today’s times and reflects on times about thirty years ago when Brezhnev was in power in Russia. It follows a historical thread that I was unaware of and was fascinating.

There wasn’t a bad point to find. Out of 120 minutes there was less than one minute of confusion or distracting weirdness. Name the category, acting, set design, location, story, this was solid. It was great.

Flipped

Deb 8 Me 9

My motivation to see this was simply that it was a Rob Reiner film and rated PG. He usually makes terrific movies so it seemed like a safe bet. I was a little surprised to see all the people in the theater, most of the movies we see we are among an esoteric few who are willing to bet their two hours on little movie. But this is Rob Reiner, a lot of people showed up.

The movie is set in the late fifties, early sixties, the main people are about my brother’s age, so I have no trouble dialing in to the references presented here. It’s got a lot of narrative, sometimes that works and sometimes not, here it seemed a pretty essential part of telling the story.

This is not an action movie. It’s a story movie and with the narrative, it moves along at the pace of reading a story, not a lot of propulsion. This was fine with me, it was a good story, tight and well paced, and it didn’t need any more than what it gave you. The casting was good, they picked capable players who aren’t over used, in fact I haven’t seen some of them in decades. A lot of times big stars have signature moments, and you wait for the time when they become the actor instead of the charachter, and it distracts from the story. These are good performances. There were a couple goofs, and I think they were actual decisions to help make the movie more accessible to modern audiences, and not too big ‘o deal. The trailer plays Good Lovin’ by the Rascals, it was recorded years after the film’s setting and totally in appropriate because of its timing, but was fortunately not used in the movie. The soundtrack they did use was pretty great.

This is a sweet little coming of age tale, seen through the perspective of two evolving young people. There was a Juno-like person who was always interesting, smart and full of steam. It kept me involved all the way through. My mind wasn’t wandering around, wondering what was next or why they did this or that. In fact there are a few unanswered questions, but since it’s seen through the kid’s eyes, kids wouldn’t have known the answers.

I just really liked it. When it was done I thought, why don’t they make more movies like this? I’d go every day.

Get Low

Deb 10 Me 9

Robert Duvall and Bill Murray. From the moment I saw those names I knew this was a must see. For me, Duvall is defined by Santini, everything he has done is either a parody of Santini or an attempt to shake off the identity. Somehow he makes himself fit like a glove in just about every role he takes on. Here he manages to muster up a new persona that shows that he is a master of his craft. Bill Murray just seems to be comfortable wherever he is. I’ve always enjoyed watching him, and ever since The Razors Edge I’ve been taken with his ability as an actor. And what actress can stand among them? They picked Sissy Spacek who seemed to be a perfect match. These were supported by Bill Cobb who was just a treat, and a guy named Lucas Black as the token good looking guy who did a great job.

So the cast is in place, how about the rest of it? Set in 1930s Tennessee, it is a very pretty film. The art director looks like they had a good time, every scene is filled with subtle details. I really enjoyed the pacing of the movie; it enhanced the feeling of simpler times with out dragging.

Basically it’s a mystery. Duvall is a hermit, the subject of a million rumors, and has something to hide. Duvall seeks the help of Murray to clear things up by giving him a funeral party, which Duvall will attend. There is good story development, great characters, tension and release, a surprise or two and some laughs.

It’s a strong character driven movie. The story suffers in places. Toward the end I got a feeling a scene was cut and some sloppy splicing tried to cover the wound. This is why I dropped it to a 9. But the acting was so strong it over-rode any glitches or inconsistencies that occurred. And there were several. In the post-movie conversation a dozen problems came up, but none of them dampened the overall pleasure of watching the movie. It was a treat and it was the actors, director, art director and cinematographer that carried the weight.

Despicable Me

Deb 3 Me 7

This is flat out a kid’s movie. I don’t have much call to see movies for the younger set, and I don’t see that much animation for some reason, but there was an opportunity and I took it. The movie is rated PG for rude humor and mild action. I’m not sure what mild action is, the characters are supposed to move around in a movie, there has to be some kid of action or they might as well fade stills in and out. Anyway, there’s a guy who shoots people with a gun that turns them to ice. I suppose you tell the kids they defrost in about an hour and everything is okay. I just don’t like letting kids think pointing any kind of a gun at people and shooting them with anything is acceptable. Just not a good road to go down.

The thing that kept me going, astonished at times, were the surfaces of things. Metal, hair concrete, everything you looked at was beautifully rendered and it was a very pretty movie to watch. I didn’t recognize the actors voices, which I liked.

The story was complete, more so than many big budget adult movies. There was the overly cute stuff that adults seem to think kids need to see and there was a tender and moral side to it. I don’t know, it was just a nice little movie to see. I didn’t feel ripped off for spending one and a half valuable hours watching it.

Coco and Igor

Deb 7 Me 7

We saw the 2008 TV movie "Coco Chanel" and we liked 2009's "Coco Before Chanel" and so how could we miss the 2010 installation, "Coco and Igor". This seemed like a pretty specialized topic with limited appeal but was really a good flick. The main figures are Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky. Some big names. Diaghilev and Nijinski from the Ballet Russe were featured as they depicted the great classical music riot. I love the idea of a classical music riot.

I imagine that art directors live for this kind of project. All the details, the drapes, furniture, clothes, cars, buildings were all superbly detailed. And this is such an important element to understanding her position. She was a major contributor to style, fashion and the change of what was acceptable socially. Between the wars, from 1917ish to the early 1940s she rocked Europe. Then again after the big war in the 1950s she kicked America's fashionable ass with styles that are still contemporary. And that was a neat thing in this film, there was a scene showing her shop in Paris, with the now-familiar Chanel logo out front. The stone streets and worn buildings were so primitive looking, and here's this "look". It defines what we call contemporary.

So as a movie it was pretty neat. It was a great interpretation of the changes that were going on in the early 20th century. But the premise of the movie, an affair between Coco and Igor, is just based on rumor, there's no evidence they ever hooked up romantically. someone just made up how they thought it could have happened. So it's sort of a Oliver Stone thing. Really well done and based on lies. But somehow this wasn't offensive like Stone's films, it was entertaining. It kept me going all the way through, although at a snails pace, Coco's breakaway dress perked me up after a dry spell.

Good movie if you like fictionalized biopics about this period of time.

The Kids Are All Right

Deb 7 Me 4

First off, I have a problem with big budget movies that can’t think of anything more original than the name of a rock song to use as a title. Millions of dollars, focus groups, market research and the best they can come up with is a title that's already been used. And the name seemed to have little if anything to do with the movie. It’s a sure sign that this is a mainstream movie destined to annoy anyone regardless of their demographic.

The film centers around a lesbian couple who has raised two nice kids. You’d think their sexual preference would be a plot point, difficulties they might face socially, issues their kids might deal with, something with some meat to it. But no, it’s just someone’s idea of a new twist to an otherwise bland story. The kids are curious about their sperm donor father (even though they are three years apart each of them share the same donor) and that’s where the interest is focused. You’d think that could be made interesting, and it could, but they didn’t.

The humor comes from potty mouths. The audience is surprised when the actors use the “f” word or make some other sexual reference and that’s where the bulk of the laughs seem to come from.

The art director did a great job. There is some very interesting use of color in places and the art director probably had a good time too. The actors were fine, although the fifteen year old looked more like twenty. It was filmed in LA. It had to be in LA, NY or San Francisco, there doesn’t seem to be a lesbian population in middle America, only tomboys.

I got the feeling all throughout the movie that there was a very good screenplay at some point and it got lost in the Hollywood formula that serves the masses. This movie is the reason I try to stay away from middle of the road mainstream films. It’s just a waste of valuable time. On the redemption side, everyone here is a total basket case, but the kids are alright.

Oddly Deb gave it a 7 although she had very little good to say about it. I figure mainstream movies shoot for a 5, it’s the best they can do, and this one fell short to a 4.

Whiz Kids

Deb 3 Me 4

The blurb for the movie says this: “Five young scientists from around the United States come of age in an increasingly science-hostile world; their curiosity and excitement for scientific exploration gives hope for America's future and shows how science can be used to answer life's most difficult questions.”

Well that sounded pretty interesting to me and I was excited about seeing the movie. Sitting in the theater with one other couple we were all disappointed to discover we were watching a DVD projected onto the screen. So it’s not a film at all. Parts of it look to have been shot on someone’s phone, other parts look nice, but the audio was often a train wreck.

Basically Intel has a talent contest for high school kid’s science projects. The winner gets a serious scholarship. Thousands of young people apply; they are whittled down to forty finalists and three winners are selected from that group. We meet three hopefuls and their teachers and families and follow them through their research and presentations that get them to the finals.

The good part is the kids and after the movie that’s about all the good we could find here, good kids trying hard and making their way as best they can. But the movie we saw only followed three kids, not five, and there wasn’t much evidence of a science hostile world, although the local Dupont plant didn’t appreciate one girl’s research. I’m not really sure what life's most difficult questions are but I don’t think they were addressed here. And I questioned the science. At one point a student mentioned getting a 6 volt battery out of their dad's car. What the hell kind of pre-war monstro does her daddy drive that doesn't use a 12 volt battery?

The film wasn’t really compelling, you weren’t rooting for one kid over the others, you were just watching, often struggling to understand what they said. Even though there were only three subjects, the footage could have been edited down quite a bit, there was too much confusion at times. Not a great movie, just so-so. But the kids that we meet are alright and you can’t help but wish there are a million more out there looking out for the future.

Mother and Child

Deb 5 Me 8

A few years ago there was a delightful little movie called Juno. In it a young girl decides to give her baby up for adoption. She is a sharp gal with a great attitude, who has the support of her parents, making it a light-hearted look at the issue of adoption. Mother and Child would be the opposite of Juno. The anti-Juno. There are few healthy minded people here.

A lot of famous people signed on for this one. There are actors from TVs The Practice, two from Law and Order and two from NYPD Blue. They are joined with several big name movie stars and a few who are just recognizable; but there’s a boatload of talent here. Coming in at just over two hours, it feels like a long movie. The movie touches on a lot of topics, from workplace relations to religion, and makes no real stand on anything.

There is no joy in Mudville. Not a feel-good movie (although it eventually succumbs to typical Hollywood formulas), it did keep me watching. Acting is credible throughout. Although I didn’t really like many of the characters, the story kept me wondering what decision they’d make next. Before and after rack focus shots there is a tendency for scenes to stay out of focus longer than expected, but after I realized it was a tool, I kind of liked it.

Most stories seem to be based on dysfunctional people struggling through life’s perils making questionable decisions and getting happy endings. A typical post-Disney Disney formula. Biopics are usually the same formula except they are about famous people and have tragic endings. This movie shows us that even the mundane people on the street have the ability to make the same dreadful mistakes as celebrities.

The movie presents activities that are to be resolved after the movie ends. We don’t see the consequences of some of the actions, we can only speculate about them. Usually this pisses me off, but in this case it adds an air of real life credibility to the movie. I like adoption, and this film took an odd stance of presenting the perils of adoption, how it can ill-affect so many people's lives. But I really got the feeling these people are just goners and if it weren't this issue it would be something else. I gave it a lot of points, not because it was light or happy or even interesting. It was just a new type of train wreck that I couldn’t turn away from. Deb gave it a five, a much more realistic rating for the story.

Please Give

Deb 6 Me 6

Back in 1990 there was a HBO special featuring an unknown Tim Allen doing an act titled “Men are Pigs”. I cracked up. Then the guy got a TV show based on the material and I didn’t pay much attention. Each TV episode was based on a single bit or line from the stand-up show. The TV version was stretched and watered down to the point it became inane and I didn’t watch it, although I liked the material it was based on.

So it is with mainstream movies. Usually they are based on a premise from a classic movie, sometimes a single plot line or even a phrase from an ageless film. Then it is stretched and diluted and disguised and presented as a new idea.

This flick has a respectable cast, we both like Catherine Keener, at least since she played Harper Lee in Capote. Oliver Platt is steady as a rock, and the gal that played Millie on the Dick Van Dyke Show had a big role and she was a treat.

The movie had a neat premise, people buy furniture from estates of the deceased and resell it for profit. Most everyone in the film is dysfunctional and has issues the others must deal with. There is guilt, there are laughs, they get old, blah blah. It seems to want to deal with big issues, but it’s just kind of a flat movie watered down to be palatable by the biggest number of moviegoers possible.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

Deb 8 Me 9

First off, I like biographies and documentaries and this one appeared to cover a subject I know little about, street art. Street art in this movie is well done graffiti. The movie we went to see was about these guys who paint images in public spaces in the dark of the night (or, guys who vandalize other peoples buildings under the cover of darkness). But the movie was so much more.

There are three or four central players and a lot of cats in the periphery. There’s a guy called Space Invader who makes these neat little mosaics and glues them to surfaces all over London. He has a quirky cousin Thierry who is a maniac behind the video camera, can’t shut it off, videos everything he sees. Thierry tapes Space Invader posting his art and starts taping other people doing it too. Thierry returns to L.A. and continues recording these nefarious exhibits. Soon we are introduced to Shepard Fairy, best known for his Obama portrait that was plastered everywhere in 2008. We get an unusual insight to these accomplished artists and their criminal expressions.

Chief among them is a guy called Banksy, a gutsy graffitist who really has it all. Talent, vision and balls as big as they come. I say that because they show him painting the silhouette of a child being lifted by balloons over the barrier wall on Israel’s West Bank. I mean he’s making a great western statement with loaded mid-eastern machine guns watching. You can tell from his work, this guy is truly phenomenal. And he is the only cat Thierry hasn’t captured on tape.

Here’s the blurb on the movie: Eccentric French shop owner Thierry Guetta attempts to capture the world of graffiti art by following many of the best known vandals at work. In doing so, Thierry tries to locate and befriend Banksy only to have the artist turn the camera back on him.

The movie takes this big 180 turn. It's two movies in one, more for your movie going dollar. Now we are watching Banksy’s movie about Theirry as he tries to create his own art based on what he has witnessed. It was kind of disturbing. The street artists are breaking the law and wrecking people’s property, but I think (at least some of them) are trying to make a statement about law and property by making their mark. This isn’t gang territorial stuff. But this Thierry guy has no artistic statement, skills or sensibilities, just the gifts of P.T. Barnum and a big bankroll. He now calls himself Mr. Brainwash and appears to be what most people think contemporary artists are; sham artists.

Now the film has these two factions, illegal art with integrity and art that is inane but profitable. It’s so great, this is stuff we (as artists) face everyday. People on the street think Picasso is a bad joke but think Kincaid is great; after all, look at how much money he makes. McDonald’s has sold more burgers than anyone, they must be the best burgers.

Now there are two distinct movies going on with some common threads running through them. It ends. You react to it, you think about it and if you’re lucky, you have someone to talk to about it. Soon another picture evolves from the footage and you realize you might not have been watching the movie you thought you were. There was a third movie enveloping the screen that doesn’t get developed until you are out of the theater, out in the dark of night. Give this movie some time and I think you’ll learn a thing or two and have a good time in the process.

Secret of Kells

Deb 2 Me 2

Whatever the Secret of Kells is remains a secret. The movie starts with a whispering voice that may have explained what the movie was about, but it was totally unintelligible. Then the cells unfurl that seemed to be based on Rocky and Bullwinkle artwork. Eventually a Willie Nelson looking character appears along with a ringer for Mr. Magoo. Matt Stroud, who had seen an interesting panel discussion featuring the makers of the Academy Award nominated animated features, touted us onto the movie. The guy that did this flick, Tomm Moore, was particularly animated himself and the clips shown were interesting. And there were some very interesting clips within the movie. There were some cool multi-plane camera effects, some scenes appeared to be backlit with a net mask, and lots of attractive tricks were employed. Their version of fire was really cool. I liked the sponge effect on most of the backgrounds. It was pretty. Scene transitions were often entertaining. I liked the music, not the songs, but the music was good.

But like many fantasy films the story wasn’t cohesive. I always think of Walt, who focused so much energy on the story, I mean why draw a single cell if it isn’t going to support a solid story? These days there is just too much razzle-dazzle that doesn’t support much of a tale. Deb was able to come up with some possible morals to the story. The only moral I could find was: don’t go to all this work until you know what you’re going to say with it. As always, we stayed for the complete credits, and as they flashed by came a voiceover, again, totally unitelligible. This time I could tell it seemed to be a different language, like old Gaelic or something, and wondered just who the hell was this thing aimed at?

Deb 2 Me 2

Dancing Across Borders

Deb 5 Me 4

This is a straightforward documentary about a lady who is captivated by a young dancer she sees while on vacation in Cambodia. She goes hoe to New York and decides she wants to bring him home and set him up in ballet school. The kid has never been out of his village and seizes the opportunity.

It turns out that he is tutored by ballet’s leading teacher, giving him one-on-one attention for many years. In this time he learns English remarkably well, gets his high school diploma and makes friends. He continues to dance and enters domestic and international competitions, even does a performance in his native Cambodia.

He is an engaging kid, and he is surrounded with articulate people who speak highly but realistically about his gifts. It’s interesting.

But it’s not great. There are a lot of issues that are introduced but not resolved. First off, who is this lady that “finds” him in the jungles and bankrolls his way to competency? Where’d she get the gall and the bucks? How does she convince the leading ballet teacher to take him on in such an exclusive basis? He gets serious cramps throughout the beginning of the movie and they’re never mentioned again, what happened with them? There are a lot of things that should be answered or not brought up.

It was neat to see the quality of documenting him improved as his talents were recognized. In the beginning when he was dancing native street theater stuff he was recorded on some lousy format like VHS or something. In NY they record him on a better format and by the time he’s dancing in big shows the picture clarity is really quite good. The interviews and staged shots are all excellent quality.

The overall feeling I got was that this was done too soon. It was neat to see him taken from living with rats to being in the rat race, but he hadn’t arrived anywhere as a dancer yet. Another unresolved issue for me. In the beginning of the movie he was full of potential, at the end of the movie he was full of potential. I’d like the moviemaker to have waited until he got a good job or won a big competition or gave up or something, to complete the story, or at least make more of a complete cycle.

Alice in Wonderland in 3-D

Deb 8.5 Me 3

Our second fantasy film of the year. Deb had read both Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and appreciated the way the two books were consolidated (no one I’ve talked to has read the third installment, What Alice Found There). She loved the way the imagined world came to life and the tremendous attention to detail. And the world they created was brilliant, vibrant and full with zany characters. This type of movie requires the viewer to surrender their view of things and accept the world as they present it. And that’s sort of the point of Alice, as she challenges the rationale of her world after her experiences down the rabbit hole. Deb was able to see the movie the way it was meant to be seen, I wasn’t.

I’m already geared toward challenging things and so I have a hard time accepting the world that they presented. Why was caterpillar smoking, what was it smoking, why is it blue? I was wandering, twitching, comparing the images with and without the special glasses, wondering what significance each crazy critter may have had, if they were symbols for other things, or just being wacky. Unresolved questions distract me. Despite the vivid qualities of each scene, the film never caught my attention. I was constantly looking for historical references that may have inspired this or that, and the similarities between this story and the Wizard of Oz (written 35 years after the Alice books). Oddly, neither one of us had any comment about the 3-D element.