James Piper - Entries from February 2009

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Hairspray. Feature film. (2007, 117 mins) IMDB

...When your hair is that big, you probably do need hairspray....

airspray is a musical set in the early 1960s in Baltimore, USA when racial segregation existed (thankfully it was finally destroyed). It's a time when music was evolving and TV was growing and popular. A time of B&W TV and only a handful of stations to choose from.

Since it's a musical, there are lots and lots of song and dance numbers. That's a given and this film is loaded with them, but unlike the hay-day of musicals with Astaire, Kelly, Minnelli, there are no grand dance numbers. The emphasis is on the songs. There's a campy, in the period style, not big theatrical numbers.

The film starts when our hero wakes up at seven in the morning to go to school and she sings and dances through the entire process.

Since it's a musical, the chance there is a love story in it is good, and there is, but it's not the central plot of the film, but part of it.

I was surprised to see John Travolta in drag as the mother to our hero. He wears not just women's clothes and makeup and wig, but a fat suit. Even with the alterations, we know it's him.

Christopher Walken plays the husband and father to our hero. I'm sure Ebert will say warm things about him. The best scene I thought was a number with Travolta and Walken.

I've seen better movies, seen better musicals. It has moments of charms, moment of laughs and indignation, but I never got into the story and rally wasn't taken in by the songs. Maybe I expected more.

Posted 2009/02/28 at 17h44ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Red Eye. Feature film. (2005, 85 mins) IMDB

...Women as the hero in thrillers seems much more common these days....

nother thriller. This one unique and interesting, for the most part, but a small film and short.

Lisa is a hotel manager for a swank establishment in Miami. Rich and important people stay there and she knows them and they love her. Whatever crisis may arise, she knows how to deal with it. Her father lives in a swank house in town and loves her. So, we have our hero.

An important US government official is coming to stay at the hotel. A group of bad guys, we never get to know them except for the leader, wants to kill this person. Enter the leader to blackmail our hero and aid in the assassination.

This thriller happens on a commercial airplane. Reminders of FLIGHT PLAN and AIR FORCE ONE. Our hero is flying from Dallas to return home in Miami. It's a red-eye flight, hence the title. This fact means her father needs a reason to be up during the night instead of asleep in bed. He's watching some TV marathon.

While she's away, the government official is arriving.

Until the first nasty confrontation with the villain, it's all setup and that means there needs to be someway to create interest. The film follows a familiar story line. Our hero is in a rush to get on the plane which is delayed and there are lots of anxious phone calls from her father and the assistant manger back at the hotel. For the most part it works, but it drags on and on because there isn't a lot to this movie. Few characters. It could have been written as a play.

Act I is the setup and getting our characters onto the plane. They spend too much time introducing minor characters before the plane takes off. That's why I say it drags, but since there's not a lot of meat to this film, they needed something to film and even then it's short at 85 minutes including all the credits.

Once on the plane where into Act II. Off the plane we're into Act III.

Bad weather is used to heighten the plane ride as scary and dangerous. That seems very typical. Rain and storms are common in a thriller.

It's on the plane when our hero and villain sit side-by-side. Call it movie magic that two strangers would be seated side-by-side.

He wants her to call the hotel and move the assassination target from one room to another. It's never really explained why they want it, other than to get the target. Given what we know later it doesn't make a lot of sense. The bad guys fire a shoulder launched missile from a boat at the hotel room. They almost get the target. But if that's the killing method, you don't need to worry about what room the person is in. Just change the angle to aim for the room.

Once the plane lands in Miami, our hero stabs the villain in the throat with a pen and makes a run for it. While he's injured, he's able to run after her and a chase ensues. She frantically gets in touch with the hotel to save the target and rushes to be with her father who was threatened with death if she didn't co-operate.

The climatic scene has the villain arriving at the her father's house. Fights and chases and shots and so on until she shoots him and we're done with the story.

Everything that happens in the film is setup. Too much setup.

While this film is not as predictable as many so-called thrillers, it's not completely satisfying because the threat and menace isn't fully developed. I expected something more elaborate for the assassination attempt.

And, for the second night in a row, another Canadian starring in a Hollywood film. The list of such is long.

Posted 2009/02/28 at 17h44ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 27, 2009

Lars and his Real Girl. Feature film. (2007, 106 mins) IMDB

...So glad I watched this film....

just finished watching this movie. I'm trying to collect my thoughts and they are all over the place. Too many.

If you haven't watched the film, stop reading this entry and watch it right now. Don't wait. Even if it's two in the morning and you have to smash the window of a store to steal a copy of the DVD, do it. At your trial, your defence will be simple: watch this film.

I don't often watch previews for films but I remember watching one for this film and it stuck. That doesn't happen often. I clearly remembered the premise of the movie but I thought the lead actor was the goof-ball Arquette and the film was a silly romp. It was neither. That tells you how misleading previews can be.

Ryan Gosling plays Lars. Yes. Another Canadian, among many, who has a leading role in a Hollywood movie, although this film surely must be classified as an independent film.

We first see him on a cold, quiet day staring out the window of a simple building. The look of the film is rural, small town, of a simpler time. I thought perhaps it was set in the 70s based on the look and feel but that's not possible when later a character manipulates a colour-screen computer to browse a web site. The set design, locations, characters, costumes and weather all reminded me of growing up in Ontario, and in fact that's where the film was shot.

Lars stares out the window and watches as a young woman, Emily Mortimer, runs from her house to his door. He backs away from the window as not to be noticed but she knows he's there. He opens the door to her. She wants him to come to breakfast. It's Sunday. Have some food. Get out and enjoy life. Reluctantly he agrees but first he must go to church.

At church we see how painfully shy and reticent he is, socially awkward, but we don't know why. We learn he has no girlfriend, people like him but he doesn't want anything to do with them. Keep it simple and short. It's also where we meet Margo. She clearly likes him and wants him to like her, but he can't even say hello or enquire about how she's doing.

When he returns home after church, instead of going into the house as promised to have breakfast, he runs into the garage away to be alone. It's where he lives even though he owns half the house with his brother. We learn later his parents are dead.

What I've written so far covers the first few minutes of the film. From the start of the film I was intrigued about what would happen since I knew the bulk of the film would deal with a new girlfriend--a real size, anatomically correct doll. The doll being a woman for sexual pleasure. When would she appear and how and what would be the consequences? Nothing that followed was predictable and I was intrigued even more. So many predictable angles about a sex doll never happen in this film and it was refreshing.

Suffice it to say Lars has issues and once that's established, his new friend enters the pictures. A lifeless doll whom he calls Bianca. She has dark, long hair. Lush ruby lips. Melons for breasts. To him she's Bianca. Part Brazilian. A missionary. A church going person. All of it the creation of Lars and all of it seeming real.

His brother and sister-in-law are dumbfounded. They don't know what to do except to see a physician played by the adorable Patricia Clarkson.

What follows has to be viewed and enjoyed.

There were moments where I laughed, moments when I cried. Moments when I did both and wasn't sure what was the right response.

The doctor suggest they play along with his delusion and they do. (An attempt to do otherwise by his brother doesn't work.) What's surprising is the whole town plays along and the result is far reaching than you'd expect. Bianca takes on her own life as she volunteers at the hospital, goes to church, attends parties. It's quite remarkable what happens in this film.

Act III arrives when Lars discovers or decides that Bianca is terminally ill. Once you understand what happens to get to that point, this switch and turning point is completely natural. At some point there would have to be a change and this was it.

We never see Lars taken away to the looney bin. Never see him ridiculed or heckled or harassed and all of that is refreshing. Those types of responses represent cheap drama, melodrama, and we are spared it.

In part, what builds our interest is questions on why is he like this and can he be cured? Can he be healed? That is his arc and since this is a film, the answer is yes. And since it's primarily a comedy, the answer is definitively yes, even if life doesn't work that way.

In the third act, he buries Bianca in a full funeral that is entirely believable. A minister speaks of how Bianca touched everyone in front of a packed church. Nothing the minister says from his pulpit isn't anything but the truth.

Our hero finally grows closer to Margo and the film ends with the notion they will get married and live happily even after.

It's a feel-good movie with laughs but also thought provoking and hopeful. I'd like to live in that movie with those people.

I almost groaned early in the film when he said he had to go to church. Another bible thumper, or so I thought, but it's exactly the opposite. During the sermon we hear about the main force of Christianity: to love one another. It's something I find lacking from the bible-thumpers who spout off on TV and the internet. In this film the Church plays a small, but positive role in the film.

The whole notion of reality and delusion is one subject of this film. As it relates to an individual and the people around him and even the church.

I'm glad I watched it, in fact I loved it, and hope others do.

As you watch the film, pay attention to the weather. At the start of the film there is chilly late fall days with no snow on the ground. As we move forward, winter has arrived. Snow is everywhere, but late in the film, spring arrives, it's still early, but the snow is almost gone, water flows and it's no coincidence.

Posted 2009/02/27 at 19h14ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Firewall. Feature film. (2006, 105 mins) IMDB

...It's hard to find a good thriller these days, so much has been done....

irewall is a thriller wherein robbers use computers to rob a bank of $100 million. Physically it's the only way to rob a bank of that amount of money. Remember GOLDFINGER?

Firewall is also a computer term used in computer security. It's a commonplace word yet not fully understood and never explained or used in the movie. Odd given that's the name of the film.

Harrison Ford plays the VP of Security at a bank based in Seattle. They didn't do a very good job of setting the location. At the beginning I thought we were in NYC. Later it's obvious it's the west coast and more specifically British Columbia. Constant rain plays a large roll in this movie.

That reminds me of an early scene in the movie. It's pizza night. Our hero calls his wife to say he'll be home a bit late. He calls around five in the evening yet it's pitch black outside. If it's that dark out then it's winter and there is no sign it's winter. Just something that struck me as I watched.

Firewall is also a term used in fighting forest fires which is relevant when living in BC. Lots of forest fires. A firewall creates a patch of land devoid of burnable material. It's set deliberately to stop the advance of a fire. Sometime it works and sometimes it doesn't. I have no idea why I just wrote that but there it is.

The film is classically structured. Set-up. Inciting incident. Act I ends. Act II. Act III with climax and resolution.

In the setup we learn our hero is a whiz when it comes to computers. How? People come to him for answers and in seconds, with a few keystrokes, the problem is solved. You have to love movies where anything is possible. We also learn that his job is risk management. It's to stop hackers and others from trying to gain access to the banks computers.

He's also the dutiful father with kids he loves and a wife he loves and blah-blah-blah. Quite a typical setup, yet it's important because his wife and two children are held hostage.

It's always a challenge to write these set-ups because nothing is happening. The filmmakers want the audience to see a caring, loving husband and his beautiful family. Someone worthy of respect and caring otherwise the rest of the movie is meaningless. So, we get an overdose of sugar and it's not interesting. The solution? Have it in the morning when everybody is rushed to get somewhere. That is, it's chaotic. Second. The teenaged daughter is insolent to everyone around her and the younger brother is rambunctious. That's fine, there's a level of conflict, but we've seen it so many times as to be boring. Literally boring and predictable.

The solution is a different story based on the same premise, but more on that later.

So. We've set up a family. Now we need a bad guy. He's played by Paul Bettany. If you watched THE DA VINCI CODE, you'll remember this actor. He plays the leader of the group involved in robbing the bank. The first step is to kidnap the wife and children. They are held hostage in their own home.

There was an interesting moment when the criminals begin to setup shop. An image includes shoving boxes of frozen TV dinners in the freezer. That's planning. They did their homework. It got me thinking about some of the tactics hostage negotiators use to wear down their adversaries. Cut off the electricity. Bring a gas-powered generator. No water. Bring lots. No food. Bring a freezer filled with frozen food. And a microwave oven. All of it powered by your own generator. Just a thought.

The bad guys have set-up shop in the home where the family is captive with no where to go. Enter our hero and the realization about what is happening. He spends the rest of Act I asking what the bad guys want, but we already know. They want to use his security access and knowledge to rob the bank of $100 million. Take the money in $10,000 chunks from 10,000 different accounts. You do that and we'll leave.

There are all sorts of issues to overcome. Security cameras a the bank. A computer system that has changed because a convenient bank merger taking place. A co-worker who is on our hero's ass.

What follows from that point is predictable. I wasn't surprised by any of it.

I was interested in the fact they used clearly recognizable images on the computer. There are two aspects of this. First, so many movies use Apple computers. So many Apple computers you'd think they were the number one seller, but of course that's not the case. Most people, like me, use computers with Intel processors and Microsoft operating systems. It's just the way. That's especially true in businesses such as the setting for this movie. Second, the programs and images shown on movie computers are stylized and created for that movie and don't exist elsewhere. In this movie, what we see does exist. I can use it. You can use it. That adds a level of realism and believability. It may seem like a small thing, but in this type of movie where the essence of the robbery is that it could really happen, it's important. And yes, this robbery could happen.

Now for the rewrite. The film as it exists is entirely predictable and therefore devoid of tension, devoid of suspense. Suspense isn't just anticipation of what will come, but what might come. Despite the fact the writer et al have brought new ideas, based on technology, to create a story, the formula is the same. Even if we know what will happen in the end, and we do, the how is then the question, but even here the how isn't spectacular.

How to make it better? The wrongly-accused story. Same hero with less emphasis on the family although it's exists. He has the same job and function. The villains want and do steal $100 million dollars but our VP Security is the one blamed for it all. How does he prove his innocence? He does he catch and trap the villains?

Same premise, but different story. It's more interesting because the solution is less clear. It's more interesting because the obstacles he has to overcome are more challenging. He'd be taken to worlds he's not used to. That's a movie I'd like to write and watch.

A couple of more thoughts.

Virginia Madsen. Yummy.

Set-ups. If you're going to use "the gadget" to solve a problem later in the film then it's got to be setup or so the thinking goes. Hence, the interference with the boy's remote control device on video screens and the reference to the dog's collar. Both were set-up early in the film and used later. I don't agree or disagree with this logic except to say it depends. Most of the time it has to be setup because "the gadget" used to save a character in a scene is new to the audience, but if it's something we'd expect in a given situation that no set-up is required.

Posted 2009/02/26 at 17h53ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Feature film. (2007, 166 mins) IMDB

...Why do directors these days they have to make long movies?...

essie James, an historical figure, is a name I recognize as a Wild West outlaw type, but know nothing beyond that. I imagine many people can relate. How is it he's so famous?

I'm sure in my youth I've watched films where he was portrayed but I can't recall. I certainly never read anything about him that would bring about the fame. It has to be films. His name repeated in awe or in fear or both in the way other historical figures are immortalized. Cleopatra. Napoleon. Caesar.

In looking briefly at a bio of Jessie James there is nothing to admire. He killed at least seventeen men. Robbed banks and trains. He was a thug, a criminal. He died, as it should be, young--thirty-four years old--yet the name persists.

For whatever reason he's famous, but the second name in the title of this film, Robert Ford, is a nobody, that is until this film--a film that focuses on the decline of Jessie and his gang and his ultimate death by gun shot. Ford pulled the trigger.

I could use the word legend in describing James but I'm torn. On the one hand, he's mythical and mystery in the way legendary figures are, but he's scum and to my mind legend connotes admirable qualities. Criminals like him shouldn't be admired, but that's too naive. Politicians lie and cheat, and after they've died, we name parks and schools after them, Shakespeare writes plays about them and Hollywood makes movies.

That James should be killed, a wanted man, in his home, with his wife in the other room, and live on in stories, while his assassin is ridiculed and eventually murdered, even sentenced to hang for the shooting, is the ironic aspect of this true life story. It's the reason, I suspect, this film was made because it reflects on today's society.

People want fame and riches. That's what Ford sought in killing James, amongst retribution for his humiliation, and he had it for a moment, but instead of peace and happiness, it led to misery. That's the film in a nutshell but it takes two hours and forty minutes to tell it. Too long.

The director was in love with long panoramic shots of the sky filled with clouds. One is enough. Two, three, well...self-indulgent comes to mind.

Beyond the few scenes with horses and revolvers (six-shooters), there isn't much about the film that fits into the typical Hollywood Western. It's not an action film and we know a part of the ending based on the title. It's a film about James's decline and the arc of Ford.

Ford and James are the one-two, two-one characters of this story, yet Casey Affleck was nominated in the supporting category for the Oscars. The last twenty minutes of the film focuses on his life after he shot James. The film ends with his murder. That's a supporting role? Go figure.

One final note. The film includes a voice-over narrative that reminded me of a PBS documentary or the narrator from the television series THE WALTONS. I say again, it's not an action film. Think. It's cerebral.

Okay, it wasn't a final word. I should mention the editing and filming. Part of the reason the film is long is a choice of the director to have long takes. In one scene a group of local police ride in on horse to surround a farmhouse where one of the gang members is living. The camera sits by the house watching as they appear in the horizon and proceed down a snow-covered field. No cuts. It's the kind of style David Lean is known for and from another era. Today films don't hold the camera for very long. The mantra is cut, cut, cut. In the climax of BAD BOYS, the cuts happen every second! The rhythm is like a swaying metronome.

Posted 2009/02/25 at 19h04ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Untraceable. Feature film. (2008, 101 mins) IMDB

...How do you stop a serial killer when you can't trace him?...

iane Lane plays an FBI agent working as a cyber-crime specialist in the Portland field office. At the start of the film, she's settled into her cubicle with an array of computer technology in front of her and she tracks down everyday hackers. She's a whiz and makes it look easy. We get to met her team of cyber-sleuths which includes Tom Hanks' son.

I was fascinated by the technology and suspect what happens in the movie world happens must faster than in real life and may not be within the capabilities of law enforcement. Call it the Hollywood licence to add sex appeal.

With the initial introductions done, the inciting incident arrives in the form of a new web site streaming video of a cat being tortured and killed. When she tries to shut down the offender's site, tries to trace the offender, she can't do it. Her superior isn't too concerned about a cat dying and not much is done. That changes when, instead of a cat, the next live video is a man captured, tortured and killed. We're into Act II.

Act II is about the inability of the FBI and Portland police to find this murderer. He brazenly flaunts his web site for all to see and people watch. Millions watch. To add a wicked twist, as the viewer count increases, the speed of death increases. This creates a dilemma for the police. They want the publics help in finding the killer, but in making their plea, they are promoting the site. Ouch.

One victim after another is tortured and killed for the world to see. Each method different from the previous one. The death of the men is show in great detail, yet, the most disturbing images for me was the cat even though we don't see the details. Call it theatre of the mind. I did not like the fact they would kill a cat in a movie, but they did.

The last person to die is one of the FBI agents. He is placed in a tank filled with water. As more people watch, more acid drips into the tank and drop by drop the man is dissolved. Before he dies, he blinks out Morse code to give our hero a clue about who the killer is. The clue leads to a revelation about why he was killing these people--they were all connected to his father's suicide.

His father walked out to a bridge with a handgun. A TV helicopter captures the images and broadcasts them where it's eventually made available to everyone who wants to watch online.

In Act III, the police know who they are looking for and go after him. There is the dead-end searches of his house etc and to add a final twist, the killer captures Lane and ties her up for the next killing. It looks like she's done for because, again as the Task Force watches the live feed, they don't know where it's coming from. They don't know where she is or he is, that is, until her colleague from the Portland police recognizes the basement as Lane's own basement. They rush to her house. Call that a convenience, but it doesn't matter. Lane is able to get free of her bonds, grab her pistol and shot the killer. And a quick fade out. No denouement when there should have been.

The getting free part is an even bigger convenience because all the previous victims were securely bound and couldn't get free.

I want to say I enjoyed this movie, but that's not the right word because there are some disturbing images--images I don't like to think about or see. The right word might be entertained, interested, intrigued, satisfied with the ending. For the most part.

While there are many similarities to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, and this film brings a new spin on a serial killer, UNTRACEABLE shouldn't be put on the same shelf.

In the features, some of the producers and screenwriters give some interesting insight into the development of the screenplay. Here's the gist of it. Two non-writers get an idea for this screenplay and write a spec script. Somewhere along the way it's sold and a professional writer is brought in to rework it and makes some significant improvements. One being the killer's motivation and backstory. Someone also added the notion of the web site being untraceable and hence the title.

Posted 2009/02/24 at 19h27ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Trial (Le Procès). Feature film. (1962, 116 mins) IMDB

...A serious film...

aybe I haven't seen enough movies to truly appreciate this film--at least the narrative, not the film composition. As I watched the film I was frustrated by the set-up. It lacked specifics, but maybe that's the point. There are no specifics about what is accused of, but the lack of specifics made it seem more like a game than a serious threat.

Consider THE WRONG MAN--a 1956 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Peter Fonda as a family man who is wrongly accused of a series of robberies. In that film we clearly emphasize with the plight of Fonda's character because it's specific and real. We see him in jail, we see his accusers, we see the biased jurors. In short, we see a man in an impossible situation. In THE TRIAL, Perkins is arrested, but never taken to a jail or police station. He's free to wander around the city.

I never once related to his quest to free himself of these accusations--unknown to him and us. Perhaps that's the point. The absurdity of the system. I don't know.

The film is shot in what looks like Eastern Europe and perhaps the system in the film is a totalitarian government. Just a guess.

I suppose readers of Kafka's book, upon which the film is based, would bring a better appreciation of the narrative.

There were moments that in the film that reminded me of CITIZEN CANE. In the bedroom scene at the start of the film, characters are in foreground and background and both in focus. That's the famous deep focus of CANE.

I didn't like the fact the dialogue of the characters, other than Perkins, was at time mumbled and hard to hear. The audio could have been improved, or at least add English subtitles, that way we can read what was said.

Another film it reminded me of was THE THIRD MAN. Orson Welles starred in it, but didn't direct. Vienna of THE THIRD MAN was filled with bombed out buildings, rubble pilled around. While we don't see pilled rubble in this film, the buildings (factories, apartments) look as if they had been bombed at one point. There is a brief chase through an underground tunnel. There are the shadows of a man running down a street at night. I would guess Welles stole those ideas from THE THIRD MAN.

The film has many interesting visualizes. The set design and production design are unique and could studied at length. The lighting and cameras shots are equally provocative and different, but all these important elements don't matter if you're not interested in the story.

It was a much different film than I had imagined.

Posted 2009/02/23 at 20h11ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 23, 2009

Made of Honor. Feature film. (2008, 111 mins) IMDB

...Filmmakers keep searching for the new romantic comedy formula....

ADE OF HONOR fits the bill of a romantic comedy. The twist? Our hero is the maid of honour to the woman he loves. Yes, a man is a maid of honour. He wants to marry her but before he can propose, she returns from a trip to Scotland to announce her engagement to a Scot.

At the start of the film, he's a rich womanizer with a series of rules about dating women like: never see the same woman twice in a week. Okay, except, he's not terribly likeable as a result and he doesn't deserve the love interest. That's a fatal flaw in a romantic comedy. The filmmakers try to spin it by saying he realizes the error of his ways, but I never bought it. And it's never adequately explained why after 10 years of being friends with this man, our love interest would suddenly be in love with him especially when he knows his reputation of sleeping with every woman he can. The love between them doesn't seem strong and so when they do end up together at the end, we don't feel it. We're not routing for it and not happy to see it.

There are some funny moments, but not many. The Scottish angle I'm sure is there to create opportunities for humour, but it's a peach tree in November--nothing left on the tree.

And yes, it's predictable. For example, there is a Highland Games sequence. When it comes time to toss the telephone pole (caber tossing), the director telegraphs what's coming by showing parked cars in the background.

Posted 2009/02/23 at 20h11ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 22, 2009

The Hawk Is Dying. Feature film. (2006, 106 mins) IMDB

...The film is dying...

hen I saw Paul Giamatti starred in this film, I had to watch it, which meant I wanted to like it, but couldn't. I've been trying to figure out why and don't have any concrete reasons.

Was the narrative arc too weak? Maybe.

Whatever it is, something was missing or wrong.

I know I didn't like the handheld camera shooting--the sort where the camera shakes in all sorts of directions, even when a character isn't moving. I don't like that style and wish directors would stop using it. But that's not the reason I didn't enjoy the movie.

For whatever reason I didn't get into to it.

It's possible that our main character played by Giamatti isn't developed enough. We don't get to know enough about him. We learn more about training hawks than we do the character. I didn't mind the heavy-handed exposition on training and caring for hawks, although it could have been done differently. Very few know much about falconry so it had to be explained.

The film is about Giamatti character who is obsessed with training a wild hawk.

We first meet him at an auto mechanic type shop where he deals in the front office with customers. Later we learn he owns the shop. He's not married, no children and is generally pissed off at life. The entire setup for the film is weak as to who is who and what they are doing. It isn't entirely clear.

Middle-aged men who are pissed off at life, the world, their careers, their family seems to be a common angle in films these day. Willy Loman lives.

Yes, the setup of this film doesn't work. After the start of the film, we learn he previously had a hawk who died. He died because he wouldn't eat. Apparently hawks who don't want to be kept, would rather starve to death and do. But perhaps our hero didn't know what he was doing and killed the hawk. I'm not sure.

The biggest problem, however, is the fact we never learn why he is so obsessed with this hawk. Nothing stops him from being with the hawk--not even the death of his nephew. The film seems to be more about hawks and falconry with a weak narrative thrown over it to make it seem like a movie.

By the end of the movie, he has the hawk eating. He has triumphed, but it's such a weak triumph. He's done something predictable and not terribly challenging. And what did he gain in the process? Pride? Self-satisfaction? The chance to tell everybody who doubted him: See, I told you. What can we take from that?

As for the hawk, we see him with our hero being cranky--flying at him, clawing and pecking. This happens over and over and over and we don't need to see it that many times. The arc of the relationship between the two should have been longer. The feeding coming earlier, other successes.

Finally, our hero isn't very likeable. He yells and screams at his sister. He's anti-social. Selfish. We just don't care if he succeeds or not and that's important.

Posted 2009/02/22 at 18h35ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Ying Xiong. Feature film. (2002, 93 mins) IMDB

...Visually stunning, but still a movie to hold a series of fight sequences....

ERO or YING XIONG is a Chinese martial arts film where instead of hands and feet and whatever gadgets or weapons marital arts experts use, the combatants use swords, fly in the air, slow time and otherwise defy the known laws of physics.

It's a movie filled with a simple narrative designed to hold a series of fight sequences. It's filled with epic battle scenes and wondrous shots filled with colour and majesty. While the film uses CGI, there are scenes with hundreds of real men in ancient Chinese battle gear with swords, bow & arrow, shields, and the images are spectacular, but it's still a film about a bunch of fight sequences. No ordinary fight sequences, but still lots and lots and lots of fighting.

I say a simple narrative because it is. An assassin arrives at what looks like the Forbidden City in Beijing to meet with the current emperor or king or warlord--take your pick. The assassin tells the leader how he killed this assassin and that assassin and so on. With each recounting of what happening, we flashback to the fight. But there's a twist. The assassin is lying and the king tells him so which means we get another version of fights with the other main characters. Why do this? So five characters (three men--Nameless (Jet Li), Broken Sword, Sky and two women--Moon and Flying Snow) can have fights over and over. Fights where one kills the other, but since it didn't happen that way, they can live to fight in the next sequence and the next. A small cast instead of many, many characters who are killed off one by one. Do you see how that works?

A common ploy to create twists in the film is to use deception or misinformation. At the start of the film, the Jet Li character is portrayed as a hero to the king, he killed three assassins, but as the film progresses, we learn it was a ploy. Jet Li is also an assassin. He wants the king dead and concocting this plots gets him in position to do just that--something he couldn't do otherwise.

Some people love this type of movie. I liked the visuals, but I was bored with the fight sequences and bored with the simple narrative. To keep myself interested, I listened to the English overdubbed dialogue and compared it to the English subtitles. There's a big difference. The dubbed version was written to sync with the character's lips who are speaking in Chinese. It meant a lot of rewrites. Whoever was responsible for the dubbing version deserves an award because it's not easy to do. It's a bit like doing a NY Times Sunday crossword a hundred and fifty times.

Posted 2009/02/22 at 18h35ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Steel City. Feature film. (2006, 95 mins) IMDB

...Another film set in a rust-bucket town where young uneducated, adults have few choices....

he first ten minutes of this film is so confusing I almost turned it off. Why? It was disorientating. We see a series of cuts (forward and back) with a great number of characters, none of whom we recognize except for John Heard. It was impossible to make sense of anything that was happening. I know what they were trying to do. They tried to evoke interest by setting out a calamitous event, to raise our curiosity and interest, but instead of doing that, they created confusion.

Fortunately, the confusion stops as the narrative straightens out and we can begin to recognize all the various characters.

The film takes place in any of numerous rust-bucket towns in Ohio or thereabouts. A working class town with few employment options. People aren't educated enough to get very far.

There's a father and two sons. The father neglected his family when the sons were growing up. The wife left and remarried to a black police officer.

The father is in jail, but for the longest time, the story never tells us all the details. We have to assume or guess.

The film focuses on the consequence to the younger son since he's father was arrested. They lived together in a small, dirty house. The son washes dishes in a restaurant to make a living but obviously hates it and gets fired.

With no income or money to keep the house, the water and electricity are turned off and he is evicted. With only a truck filled with personal belongings, he has no where to go. His mother won't or can't take him in. His uncle does him a favour and lets him stay, but he wears out his welcome.

He has fights with his older brother who is an irresponsible, lying, womanizing drunk. We see him lose his wife and child, about to lose his job in a steel plant.

John Heard as the father is completely not right for the role. He plays characters with education, with money, with status. I never once believed him in the role.

The son shows an interest in becoming a cop. The only reason, I suspect, is it's a job. By the end of the movie, he's gone through academy and a posting, yet we never see any of this.

The film's big secret is the event that resulted in the father being arrested. We never learn all the details about what happened other than there was a car accident and some woman died. Then, in a scene in the jail cell where the father and son talk, the big reveal: the son was driving, not the father and therefore the son should be in jail, but if the son was convicted, he wouldn't be able to become a cop. This aspect of the story was hinted at during the confusing first ten minutes of the story and by this point it loses any power it has.

The way the story is shown is definitely how it might happen in real life, but stories aren't real life. The writer/director of this story made bad choices. Perhaps he saw CRASH (the Paul Haggis film) and wanted to follow that line, but there's a difference. In CRASH each scene stands on its own. There's something compelling and different in each scene. Further, we know what is happening in the scenes, but later when they come together at a different level, we are impressed and taken away with the power of the story.

In this film, we are confused and bored and yawn and under whelmed. The story would have been better told with a straight narrative where the son is looking to be a cop, then we see the accident, then the conspiracy and cover-up and so on until we reach a conclusion. That would have been a much better film to watch because there would have been something at stake. Instead we see a son who takes action not by choice, but by necessity.

The writer perhaps thought the big reveal, the sacrifice of the father at the end, was poignant and significant and a twist to jolt the viewer, but it doesn't work.

Posted 2009/02/21 at 16h22ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Rushmore. Feature film. (1998, 93 mins) IMDB

...Not your typical high school with teenagers movie....

saw this movie ages ago when it first came out and I didn't remember anything about it. Nothing. Not one scene. Not one line of dialogue--although I read that the line "Yeah, I was in the shit." was ranked in a Top 100 list of movie lines. The shit in this instance was Bill Murray's character confirming he was in Vietnam, in battle, in the shit.

The title of the film comes from the name of a high school. Rushmore Academy. It's a private school with wood-panelled rooms, carved stone walls, uniforms, all male. It seemed right to me because that's the sort of school I went to. St. Jerome's Private High School. All boys, wore uniforms, almost all the teachers were male. However, my high school was rundown and would close in 1990. The public high school they show, the type often seen in movies and TV seemed alien to me because it's not what I experienced.

The story focuses on Max Fischer. He is unlike his fellow students in many ways. He wears a full uniform with blazer and tie--the only one to do so. He's active in every extra-curricular club possible, but not much of an athlete. He writes plays. His father is a widower and poor--a lifetime barber content with his space in life. The only reason Max can afford to attend the school is a scholarship based on his playwriting and that scholarship is in jeopardy early in the story because he has neglected his school work in favour of other activities. He's flunking out and it isn't long before he's expelled and forced to attend the dreary public school.

Thankfully the film doesn't take the obvious route of him being bullied or humiliated at the public school. The focus is on Rushmore.

Bill Murray is a father and business owner. He runs some type of steel fabrication operation. He has two sons attending the school. They are both jocks--vulgar and stupid. He's wife cheats on him. He's completely disinterested in life--just going through the motions. It's an early version of the role he played in LOST IN TRANSLATION.

Early in the film he gives a speech at the school. Nobody could care what he says except for Max who jumps to his feet at the end to applaud and clap. The two hit it off. They become friends.

Olivia Williams plays the lovely young school teacher just arrived from somewhere else. By coincidence, Max meets her and falls in love. He spends a lot of time trying to win her over even though he's 15 and she's 25 plus. He does stupid things in his attempt to win her over like faking an injury to garner sympathy. And, since she's into aquatic life (a tic of Wes Anderson), he plans to build a giant aquarium on the baseball field. He proceeds as if a construction manager and gets into more trouble with the school.

To complicate matters, Mr. Blume (Murray) meets and falls in love with Miss Cross. The love triangle is set and it break-ups the friendship.

Max gets around on a bicycle. Blume drives a Bentley. There's a scene, during which they are at war, were Blume cuts the lock on Max's bike, sets it on the road and drives over it.

In Act III, Blume begins the process of divorcing his wife, but the relationship with Miss Cross doesn't last. Max realizes he can't have a relationship with Cross. He turns to an Asian classmate who liked him and whom he ignored.

The film ends with the opening night production of one of his plays. It's a gritty, action piece set in Vietnam complete with miniature helicopters and planes flying past in the background. Explosions. Gun fire. Quite a set design and production for a high school performance.

As far as high school, teenager movies, this film is far better than most, but I can't say I laughed a great. No, but I was interested in what this goof ball would do next.

Posted 2009/02/21 at 16h22ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 20, 2009

Day 14 of 14

...Putting back weight exercises for the back....

weights only day. I probably should do some cardio. Maybe in the future I'll do 15 mins on the StepMill machine. That deceptive looking machine is quite a workout.

In the past I did vertical and lateral back exercises. Instead of free-weights, I use the machine. I figured I should get them back into my routine and started today. I kept to a light weight--you never want to start hard on a new exercise. It's a good way to get injured and take steps back instead of forward. I can increase the weight later when I've gotten used to it.

And the second time I did squats. I'm getting used to it. Don't feel it in my butt at the moment.

Lateral Back 20 kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Vertical Back 20 kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Stomach Crunches: 25 reps x 6 sets

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right.

Squats: 10 reps x 6 sets.

Long-term average is now 5.9853. 16 more days to go. I've done two weeks in a row so far.

Posted 2009/02/20 at 17h49ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, February 20, 2009

War, Inc. Feature film. (2008, 107 mins) IMDB

...Where do you draw the line when writing a satire?...

ar, Inc. is a satire of Dick Cheney, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the private companies earning billions in the process.

Dan Ackroyd plays the Dick Cheney-type character--former US vice-president, runs a private company making billions on the war. He hires Cusack to kill Omar Sharif (Yes, they used that name), a political leader in a fictional country that has a green zone like Baghdad but people like Afghanis. The leader dresses like the president of Afghanistan. Cusack plays an efficient, but troubled assassin. He used to work with the CIA, but is in the private sector now.

Unlike a lone wolf assassin, Cusack goes to the country under a cover. He will run a trade conference that promotes American businesses. There's humour in that setup because the conference makes no sense given the bombings and shootings happening all around. That's a sample of the satire.

His sister, Joan, plays in the scheme as his secretary. He has an office where at the end of each meeting he hands out gift bags. Everybody has to get a gift bag.

When he arrives in this country, he meets Marisa Tomei who plays a high-brow print journalist. She is completely against the war, while Cusack is ambivalent because he likes the money he's making, but in meeting her, he loses focus. He's infatuated with her while she's interested in getting a story which leads to a great deal of onscreen time between the two.

In another example of humour, he explains he knows such-and-such because he's trying to be culturally sensitive to the locals. When he finishes his speech, the camera focuses on an American labourer constructing something for the conference. On his back is a large tattoo that reads: Fuck Haji! So much for cultural sensitivity. (If you're not aware, Haji is often a name given to a Muslim man who made the pilgrimage to Mecca.)

While he's trying to get somewhere with the reporter, he's also tracking the movements of Omar Sharif. He has many chances to kill the guy but doesn't. It seems he's growing a conscious and by the end of the movie, he abandons the assassination and warns his target. His focus is on the man played by Ben Kingsley who is running the whole show. It seems they worked together at the CIA which includes a ridiculous subplot where Cusack's wife was killed and his daughter taken away.

Cusack isn't just an assassin with a rifle or gun, he's also hand-to-hand combat fighter. There's a seen where the posse attack him in a bathroom. It was fun to watch Cusack fight off five guys and leave them behind. Reminded me of a similar scene in TRUE LIES. Why does it work? We want to see these cretins get the shit kicked out of them.

There's another subplot to complicate matters. Hillary Duff plays a teen pop-star, but instead of being American she's Arab or Muslim or both with dark hair instead of blonde. The lyrics to her songs are dreadful and maybe they were meant to be. (I want to blow you...up.) The double entendre.

The Duff character is surrounded by white rap wannabes who are abusive and boorish and well they all seemed alike that it was impossible know who was who.

This entire pop culture subplot was dreadful and clichéd. It ties back in the end with Cusack when it's revealed she's his lost daughter. Well, there were lots of funny moments in the early part of the film, but I guess if you're a Cheney type, you probably weren't laughing.

There's another aspect of the war played out here: foreigners who are kidnapped and beheaded, the event recorded on video. Our reporter who wants a story travels to a bombed out city where she is captured and Cusack comes to save her. Here's an example of satire that doesn't work. It's not the least bit plausible and it's too raw to be funny. It's one of the challenges of writing satire--how far do you go? In this film, they went far and further and it doesn't seem they left anything out.

While it's not a great movie, it is worth watching particularly if you like the idea of ridiculing Bush and Cheney.

Posted 2009/02/20 at 17h49ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Wah-Wah. Feature film. (2005, 97 mins) IMDB

...What the wah-wah?...

nother British film loaded with character actors. You've seen them all before even if you can't put a name to them or even remember what movie you saw them in. It's just the way it is.

It's 1969 in Swaziland--way down in the southern end of Africa. It's still controlled by Britain, but by the end of the movie Princess Margaret will have arrived to preside over its independence. Unlike say A DRY WHITE SEASON, this film doesn't focus on blacks. It's about the English living in this foreign country. How they bring their pretensions and funny language (e.g., toodaloo). Wah-wah is a general mimicry in a derogatory of this pretentious language and the class ranks in which it exists.

There is a father (Byrne) who is a respected British gentleman and a drunk. A drunk who can't remember his violent and outrageous behaviour from the night before. In the morning he begs for forgiveness and will mend his ways. Over and over.

He has a beautiful wife who is cheating on him at the start of the film. Leaves him and her son shortly thereafter and tries to return when her lovers departs to Peru.

Then there is the son. Abandoned by his mother, ignored by his father. Shipped off to boarding school. Even though he spends a great deal of time on screen and has lots of lines, we don't really get to know him. He seems to be coping and responding to what is happening around him. The best we see is he makes a stage and puppets and acts them out. And later has a role in an amateur production of CAMELOT. Maybe they want us to think he's gay, but there's a girl he kisses and yet there's no plot between the two. He spots her one day, than another, and finally they kiss during the open night performance. No drama there.

Neither father or son cope well with the loss of mum. It seems worse on the father, because it's after the break-up that we see him as a drunk. The worst sort. But I ask you, do we really need to see this? It's been done, and done. What is the point? It's ugly. It's not something I'm interested in watching.

The exact same father was shown in "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" as played by Woody Harrelson. I suppose this aspect of the film was a big turn off for me. I know I started to tune out.

Further. What's new and interesting about a bunch of snobs fucking around with other people's husbands or wives all the while saying wah-wah? Nothing new there.

While the movie is set in Swaziland. It doesn't become part of the story to the extent we feel we're there. There are the moments at the end, but by that point it's too late. Since it's not based on real events, the story is entirely made up, I don't know why they chose that location? There doesn't seem to be any reason for being there. It could have easily happened in any number of locations. Did the producers get a deal if they produced the film in South Africa? I wouldn't be surprised.

In Act III, there's an attempt at a reconciliation of the mother and father, but the father finds out he has terminal brain cancer. Not long to live.

And the film doesn't know where to end because it doesn't know what it's about. There's a triumph with a stage production of CAMELOT in which the son performs. That's a good way to end. But no. We have to show the independence ceremony when the country was never part of the story. Finally, the father is buried and people mourn. Make up your mind.

While I know I'm being harsh, it's because the film was muddled and trite. The acting was fine and believable--even the dialogue, but give us more. Give us some real drama and humour. I suppose you could say it was melodramatic. That's probably a good word for it.

Yet, I'll probably use wah-wah. I like that concept.

Posted 2009/02/19 at 17h17ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

It's A Free World. Feature film. (2007, 97 mins) IMDB

...Add another anti-hero to the list of anti-heroes, but unlike Newman or Nicholson or Brandon, we don't like her one bit....

ngela is no angel. At the start of the movie she works for a temp agency that goes to Eastern Europe to find people who want to work in England. The recruits pay money, get terrible transportation and roach-infested rooming, crappy jobs and eventually go back home the worse for the ordeal. Meanwhile the recruiters have pocketed substantial income. It's a modern day slave trade.

Angela worked at this agency until shortly into this film she is fired. The inciting incident. Since she's good at this job, she realizes she can start her own agency and with the help of roommate she does just that. Over night The Angie and Rose Agency is created.

She talks with immigrant workers about working. She talks with businesses about hiring them and before you know it, the business is a success. They even come up with a way to make even more money. Rent a house for 250 pounds a month and rent out four rooms for 50 pounds a week. The math is staggering.

But it can't all go well.

The first bump in the road is her son. She's a single mother. Her son is 11 years old and lives with her parents. He's also violent--broke a fellow student's jaw. While she says she cares about her son, she never spends any time with him except when meeting with school officials over disciplinary matters.

In the first half of the film, while she's a leech and manipulative, she carries on her business within the law--that is she only deals with legal workers. Workers from EU countries with the right paperwork, but an Iranian man changes that.

He comes to her for work, but she flatly refuses because he's an illegal immigrant. In that lowbrow accent she has, she tells him to bugger off, but when she sees where he lives with his wife and two daughters, she decides to help. The next thing you know she's arranging for illegal passports and work for these men. They want the job and she wants the money she gets for each worker.

Now there's even more money coming in.

Her roommate was with her when the workers were legal, but the next step is too much and they split. Angie is on her own.

Time for more trouble. A construction site where she placed a number of workers isn't paying her which means she can't pay the workers. The workers are upset. There is no resolution from her point of view except to say: I'm sorry. That isn't good enough for these Polish workers.

One night while she's watching a movie with her son, he goes to answer the door for a pizza delivery and doesn't return. (The son is only there for plot purposes otherwise he's out of the picture). She can't find him. After a quick search of the neighbourhood, she is greeted by three masked men. Men who weren't paid. They beat her up, steal her stash of money and demand future payments to clear the debt. They also threaten harm to her son.

Because she has gotten herself into illegal activities, she feels she can't go to the police. She has to make the money somehow and travels to Kiev in the Ukraine to sign up recruits who will work in England. It's were the film started in terms of what she was doing with her previous employer. What's interesting is that in this final scene, we see a middle-aged and desperate woman meet with Angie. The woman has high hopes of a great new life in England. We know what she doesn't know. It's a scam. Angie listens and smiles and takes the wad of money from the woman.

There was a moment of hesitation as if Angie was touched by the woman's story and would make an excuse that she's not appropriate, keep your money, but no. Angie is ruthless and we really hate her. The movie ends on that note. I thought there might be a change, but it didn't come. Under the circumstances, a change of character, of heart, wouldn't be realistic.

While Angie is the protagonist of this story, she is an anti-hero. There isn't much we like about her. She lies. She cheats. She's selfish. She has no qualms with taking money from people who have no money. And if she wasn't threatened, she never would have made good on the pay the workers didn't get.

She is probably a sociopath--someone to stay clear of except it's not always easy to tell when you meet one.

Posted 2009/02/18 at 18h01ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

...What is the ACB of a life insurance policy?...

ost people consider permanent life insurance a tax-free investment vehicle with a death benefit. In many cases that is true; however, there are instances where a taxpayer receives, or is deemed to have received, proceeds of disposition (POD). The result is a capital gain if the proceeds exceeds the adjusted cost base (ACB) and any selling expenses.

The ACB of a life insurance policy is defined in subsection 148(9) of the Income Tax Act.

While there are a number of factors that go into determining the ACB of a life insurance policy, the two main factors are: premiums paid and something known as the Net Cost of Pure Insurance (NCPI).

The premiums paid under the policy increase the ACB and over the life of the policy this amount grows. Where the policyholder receives a dividend from the policy and apply it as a premium, that premium is not added to the ACB.

The NCPI is the amount at risk for the insurer times a mortality factor. The calculated amount reduces the ACB. As the insured person ages, the mortality factor increases and so does the NCPI.

Early in the life of the policy, the ACB is usually positive since the premiums exceeds the NCPI. As the insured person ages, the NCPI grows faster than the premiums and the ACB approaches zero.

The ACB cannot become negative.

The good news is the insurance company will provide with the ACB amount.

The bad news is that depending on what that amount is, proceeds on the policy may give rise to income taxes.

Posted 2009/02/18 at 18h01ET in Estate Planning. [View single entry]

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Trouble in Paradise. Feature film. (1932, 83 mins) IMDB

...There certainly is trouble in paradise...

must see film.

If the same film was made today, shot for shot, you would enjoy it and not know it was from 1932. It stands up even if the film stock could use a restoration.

It's the dialogue. The romance. The acting. The compositions. The film is a tour de force. And did I mention it was made in 1932? It's hard to image how it could have been improved.

There is a three-act structure to the story which is crisp and lean. The film shows how images can set a scene quickly and completely. It is an example of what film can do.

The story is straightforward. A suave and charming crook is in Venice. He robs a fellow of his wallet and cash right in the man's hotel room. He pretends to be a baron and is in love with a woman who pretends to be a countess, but like him, she's a crook. In a hotel scene where they are to have a romantic dinner, we and they realize they are both crooked and thieves and madly in love.

Flash forward to Paris where we met the second woman and the third leg of this love triangle. She's Madame Colet. She's fabulously rich, owns a prominent perfume company. She spends money as if it were sand to brush off your body after a day on the beach.

Enter our two crooks who want to rob her blind and who come into her employ as secretaries.

They wait for the big score but before that arrives, the man from Venice recognizes our thief and he must leave or be thrown in jail. He and his lover will escape to Berlin with whatever they can take, but not so fast. He's in love with the beautiful and rich Madame Colet.

There are scenes in this film that last no more than one second. That's what I mean by lean. There are no cheats. A one second scene tells us so much.

TROUBLE IN PARADISE is a students of filmmaking should watch over and over because there is so much to learn from it.

My few words here have only gave an overview.

There is, for example, a scene where Gascon and Colet embrace and kiss. We see different shots of the moment, but most of what we see isn't direct shots of them especially not even a close-up. Instead, we see a reflection of their embrace on a bed. That's filmmaking.

Posted 2009/02/17 at 17h58ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 16, 2009

Day 10 of 10.

...Another weights day...

oday was Family Day in Ontario. A holiday. Many people didn't have to go to school or work and hundreds of them came to the gym today.

I like going in the middle of the afternoon because that's when the place is the least busy. It's busy in the morning as people do their workout before going off to work. Many mothers and non-working women come in the morning. There's usually lots of mothers and their toddlers. Then there's the lunch crowd. And the big load is just after work starting around 16h30. Nope. The best time is between 14h and 16h. Except today.

I went at 13h. As I drove up I saw the parking lot was jammed full of cars--not a good sign. Then when I stepped into the lobby, I thought I was entering an airport terminal on the busy day of the year. Then when I got to the exercise room, the long row of elliptical machines were in use--except one. It was a different model than the one I use and when I punched the buttons to set the time etc. it seemed to work but then crapped out. It kept asking me to re-enter data. The machine was broken. There was another available. The same model. I entered the same data and this time it worked. The other one was definitely broken.

30 mins on the elliptical machine and it said I burnt 475 calories. I believe it. RPM was 70 to 75. Lots of sweat. A cardio workout.

Then the weights.

Bench Press: 9kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Inclined Bench Press: 9kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

I've been doing these chest exercises enough over the last while that I'm going to increase the weight level the next time round. The weight is too easy. That would be on Friday.

Stomach Crunches: 25 reps x 6 sets

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right

Doing six sets instead of three.

Lots of stretching.

One of the support staff says there's three things you can do for exercise: push ups, leg lunges and squats. It's old school, but effective. No special equipment required except good shoes. Good shoes area a must. Don't skimp.

I did one squat as she suggested just to see what it's like. I could feel it in my butt. That would see to be a good exercise to do with my leg lunges. Because you're working the large muscles with the squats and lunges, it's also a cardio activity. It will get your heart pumping.

She also thinks six or seven days a week is too much. I'm in a rut where it's hard not to do as much as I have been doing. I don't want to stop my trend because I want to get to 6.00. Another 20 days. I know I can do it and will. After that I'm not sure. Maybe rest on Sundays. Maybe.

Posted 2009/02/16 at 19h10ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Monday, February 16, 2009

His Kind Of Woman. Feature film. (1951, 120 mins) IMDB

...A lighter film noir (if that's possible)...

n Italian gangster, Nick (Raymond Burr), is kicked out of the US and returned to Sicily. None to happy to lose a substantial source of income, he concocts a plan to return to the US as Dan Milner played by Mitchum. The two have similar builds and looks. All Nick has to do is lure Milner to a Mexican resort where after some plastic surgery, he'll assume Milner's identity and return to the US. That's the plan.

Milner is a small time gambler who is dead broke. Nick's associates in the US make him an offer. They give him $5K and transportation to Mexico. Once there, he'll get more money and further instructions. Since there'd be no movie if he didn't go, Milner packs up and flies south. Along the way, he meets Jane Russell. He's definitely interested in her and we're not entirely sure if she isn't either.

The rest of the movie takes place in an exclusive, expensive resort in Baja. I loved the look of the place. It was clearly all done on a sound stage, not on location, but the design was well ahead of its time.

We meet a boat load of characters. A German writer who turns out to be a plastic surgeon. An investment banker who cheats at cards. Milner is able to help out a young couple who was cheated. There's the staff and others. And Jane Russell who is the sexpod for a Hollywood movie star played by Vincent Price. Price is an Errol Flynn type actor. He's there to be with his lover, Russell, and while he works out a divorce, he spends his days going out hunting deer and duck. This set-up is required because Price plays a part of the shootout that ends the movie.

There is also an FBI agent hot on the trail, but he is easily killed and removed from the picture.

Russell and Mitchum spend a lot of time together and they do end up together at the end. She's definitely not hard to look at and while this has elements of a film noir, it really isn't. Hell, there are three scenes where she sings. I didn't know she was a singer.

Act III is about Nick's boat arriving from Europe. With its arrival, Milner is taken aboard to be drugged or killed or they aren't quite sure. There are lots of fights and escapes. Milner is captured and held. Nick decides since Milner is of no further use, he's going to kill him. Just shot him. But there's ten minutes to go in the film and the good guy can't die and there's no escape for him. Enter the-bad-guy-speech except in this instance there's a variation. Milner is brought to Nick where he will kill Milner. He has the handgun ready to shot, but, wait, he won't kill him until Milner wakes up. He was to be conscious to see what's going to happen to him. Of course, this delay gives Price and his recruits time to board a launch and attack the boat.

Our hero lives long enough to fight. And yes he kills Nick and saves Price. Although Price gets his share of kills and shows a reckless bravery.

While this film is a drama, it's a light drama with lots of quiet moments, slow moments, even farcical moments, but it's not dull or uninteresting. And if you ever get the notion of drifting off, just focus on Jane Russell.

Posted 2009/02/16 at 19h10ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 15, 2009

How To Rob A Bank. Feature film. (2007, 81 mins) IMDB

...How To Make A Bad Movie...

he film should be called: How To Make A Bad Movie. Take a tired genre and do nothing unique or different or interesting. I don't know who thought this might make an interesting movie, but whomever they were, they were wrong.

I don't want to write too much, because I don't want to think about this film.

There is the barest of plots (a young, poor slacker is locked in a vault during a robbery at a bank). Since we don't know the guy, we don't care what happens to him. We don't care he's bitching about ATM service charges. He's a typical guy and therefore boring. Further, nothing happens to him and we know nothing will. There is no suspense. No interest. Add in terrible dialogue. Exposition galore. Tired threats and on and on.

Why the characters have to go on repeating, "Can you hear me now?" as they talk on their cell phone. I suppose someone thought it would be funny. Instead it's lame and tedious. Annoying. Not to forget the fact cell phones would not likely work inside a massive, closed bank vault.

There isn't a positive thing to say about this film. Recently I watched THE BANK JOB. There is a much better movie. I should watch it again.

I think I know what the producers were thinking. Keep the budget low and there's a chance it could be a money machine. There's really only three sets or locations. No stars. A short film and a short shooting schedule. It couldn't have cost that much to make.

Also the director liked using these fast-speed cuts to show a flashback as if someone technique will overcome a terrible story. It doesn't.

Posted 2009/02/15 at 14h40ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Squid and the Whale. Feature film. (2005, 81 mins) IMDB

...An American film that isn't an American film....

he Squid and the Whale is not an American movie even though it was written and directed by an American. The principal actors are American. It was filmed in the US and it centres on an American family. Of course it's American, but it isn't. It's the most European American film I've ever watched. It's not a Hollywood film. Not even close. It's therefore an independent film, yes, but most independent American films (see Sundance) want to be Hollywood films. They just don't have the budget to pull it off.

So why is it not an American film? There's a whisper of a narrative with an ending that is abrupt and odd. It doesn't have the feel of a classically structured story. And when it's over, we have more questions than answers. That's neither good or bad. It's just not what we expect when we watch an American, especially a Hollywood movie.

The film is about a novelist, writer, who can't sell his works so he pretends to write and works as a professor. He's pretentious and high-brow. He sees himself as a literary genius and the market ignores them. I guess he's not familiar with Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

He's married with two teenaged boys. It's been a long marriage, but she's been cheating on him. But has he been cheating on her? We're never quite sure, but I say yes.

They separate. She keeps the existing home. He moves into a dump. The two boys go back and forth between the two homes.

Maybe they'll get back together. Maybe they won't. Maybe he'll find a new agent and sell another novel, but maybe not.

Maybe his screwed-up sons will turn out fine or maybe they won't.

There are no answers in this film. Just observations of this family as they live their lives.

The film is interesting as we get to know each of the characters, but once we do, we realize we don't want to spend time with them. Their lives are too pedestrian.

As for the title, perhaps there is a link to some other cultural body besides the museum, but I don't know what it is and therefore I not sure what it means. The one son has nightmares about a museum display where a giant squid wraps its limps around a whale, lunch is served, and therefore. it could simply mean he's terrified because life is tough. Maybe you can tell me.

Posted 2009/02/14 at 19h34ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Day 8 of 8

...Felt sleepy after a long day, but went to the gym for a workout and it woke me up....

was up early today, extremely active and busy. By the late afternoon I was a bit drowsy and sleepy. I had thoughts of not going to the gym. Brief thoughts. But not going would mean adding more weeks to get back to my long-term average of 6.00 so I went and I'm glad I did. After a lap or two I was awake again. The exercise snapped me out of it.

Since it's Saturday, it's a swim day. The pool for lap swims doesn't open until 17h30--that's a late time in the day for my workout, but so be it.

Normally I might do 20 to 25 laps. Today I did 30 laps and was in the water for 30 mins. I think that's a record. I'm not a fast swimmer, but not terrible either, and I think because I've been swimming once a week since the end of May 2008, my body has adjusted to swimming and it's gotten easier. Easier to hold my breath. Easier to do lap after lap.

Since it's Valentine's Day, there weren't many people in the pool. That's good. No getting banged from other people as they swim by in the same lane.

One woman came in as I did. She's single, late thirties, fit, attractive, blonde. I've seen her many times in the fitness room using the cardio machines, lifting weights, but I had never seen her in the pool. After one lap I realized why. She's not a good swimmer. Have you ever seen a three-toed sloth in water? Just like that. She strapped a floatation belt around her waist. She paddled with a flutter board. Her legs swished and banged and created a big torrent of water, yet she barely advanced. I finished two laps while she barely finished one. At one point she said to me, "I can run marathons, but I can't swim." Very odd. Also very self-conscious of her. So what if she can't swim. I should have asked her how often she swims and assure her she'll get better with practice.

I've been swimming all my life, in all sorts of bodies of waters and conditions. I'm like a seal when it comes to water. And I love it. I'm surprised I don't swim more often. I guess I don't because I feel it's a good enough workout but it is. 30 mins of swimming. Heart rate around 120 bpm. That's a cardio workout.

So that's eight days in a row. My long-term average is now 5.9797--so close to 5.98 and only 22 days away from 6.00.

Since Jan 1 I have missed 5 days out of 45 for an average of 6.2222 days per week. It would have been higher had I not been sick for three days.

Posted 2009/02/14 at 19h33ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Numb. Feature film. (2007, 93 mins) IMDB

...You wouldn't believe it was Matthew Perry...

atthew Perry plays a Hollywood screenwriter who suffers from a mental illness called depersonification. In other words, he doesn't feel himself. He lives as if he's watching himself. It's hard to truly understand what it's like, but it drives him batty. He spends his time inside watching the Golf Channel. He doesn't socialize. He doesn't engage in life.

I suspect it's a condition common to writers. The question is do writers become that way because they write or is someone with the illness likely to become a writer. I'm not sure, but I think it's an interesting question.

I was a bit reluctant to watch the film because I expected to see the same Matthew Perry playing for yukes and a bit of a goof-ball, but I was pleasantly surprised. We don't see the Perry we've seen in other movies. There is no sarcasm for example. Instead we see a range of emotions and most of it not played for laughs. No pratfalls. No sight gags.

The film has bookends. We see his late arrival for a very important meeting then flashback a ways until we return to that moment--a moment where our hero has transformed himself. More or less.

There are two arcs to this story. The first arc deals with his mental health and his desire to get help. Help from therapists and medications and variations of them. Nothing seems to work.

If we met him at a social function or during business, we might think he's a bit detached, but not crazy or unstable. In this way it reminds us of something fundamental about human nature. Everything about myself is important. Everything. But to you it is probably mundane and irrelevant. We are our own gods in our life.

The second arc of this story is about love. While our hero is falling apart, he meets a woman who loves him and is everything he isn't. She's sociable and friendly and smiling and positive. When she entered the picture, I expected this film would therefore be a classic romantic comedy, but it isn't. The focus is on his mental health and trying to find some relief.

Kevin Pollack plays his writing partner. Pollack has the perspective and acerbic wit. He tries to help his friend, and in a way he does, but obviously it rests with Husdon.

Steenburgen plays an attractive UCLA therapist focused on applying cognitive behaviour techniques on Hudson. To some extent they work. To some extent. They meet because Hudson just broke up with Sara. He's having sessions with her because he's hot for her, but there can't be a relationship outside of the office. He's a patient of hers. That barrier doesn't last long because she has the hots for him and soon it becomes an obsession. Such an obsession that he is frightened away from her. Of course, what's not to like about Steenburgen. Physically she's my kind of woman.

The writer and director of this film wrote it based on his own experiences as a Hollywood screenwriter. It seems brave to do because mental illness has such a stigma attached to it.

While I enjoyed this film and related to it completely (there are certainly aspect of my life in it) I didn't enjoy it as much as another film about a writer: SIDEWAYS. I think I know why. First it's the comedy level. NUMB doesn't play for comedy even though there are comedic moments. Second, I think it's incredibly difficult to relate to this protagonist's illness. For some reason it doesn't seem real. We never fully appreciate what it's like to be him and therefore can't understand or emphasize with what he's dealing with. That makes his struggle less relevant. Finally, I think the love interest arcs could have been handled better. It competed with the other arc and seemed sandwiched in. I'm thinking of AS GOOD AS IT GETS. The arc in that film is the love relationship not Marvin trying to overcome his illness and people can relate to love stories much better than they can obscure mental illnesses. But I could be completely wrong.

Posted 2009/02/14 at 19h33ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 13, 2009

How About You. Feature film. (2007, 100 mins) IMDB

...Since the films is about English characters, there is lots of eccentricity...

quiet film with a small cast of eccentric characters. Although it's an Irish film, it's set in England and stars British actors including the famous and unstoppable Venessa Redgrave. Has she ever given a bad performance? And, how many actresses envy her career? I suspect there are a number of actresses who would love to have her longevity. In 1995 at the age of 58, she starred in the feature film A MONTH BY THE LAKE where she plays a love interest. How many actresses can say that? Not many.

But I should comment on this film.

The film opens with Bobby Darin singing HOW ABOUT YOU and it sets the tone. I know many classic songs whether sung by Armstrong, Fitzgerald, Cole, Sinatra, Crosby, Bennett, Krall and, unfortunately, a small canon by Darin, but this isn't one of them and it's completely different from Sinatra's version from the 1940s. This upbeat song invites you into this comedy and I loved it. Later we hear Fitzgerald sing HAVE YOURSELF A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and we want to listen to that voice. So clear. So strong. The third song has Nat King Cole sing LET THERE BE LOVE.

I mention these songs, not just because I like them, but because it's unusual for any film from Ireland or the UK to feature well-known American standards. It's partially a cultural issue, but it's also a money issue. I'm sure the producers had to pay some large dollars to get the rights to use these songs in the film.

Anyway, how about I mention the story. There is a narrative. Ellie is a wandering young woman who returns to her sister's home seeking support and shelter and reluctantly it's given, but since this isn't a typical home, the older sister runs a retirement home in a large old house, Ellie is given a uniform and vacuum cleaner and put to work. She reluctantly gives in. She cleans and cleans some more and gets to know some of the residents. All old. All a bit miserable and demanding and nearly impossible to deal with.

Act II is about an improbably scenario. It's Christmas and most of the staff and residents have gone away to be with family. This includes the older sister. Ellie is left behind to care for four residents who are a pain the in the butt. The arc of the story is how she gets them to lighten up, be less miserable etc. By the stories end, these five have come together as a new family. They cook a giant Christmas meal.

It's all a bit trite, and sentimental, too feel good for some, but it works for the most part. We do get to know them and want to watch them. There are even secrets revealed, regrets voiced and we wonder what other secrets, what other regrets there might be.

Posted 2009/02/13 at 16h54ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 13, 2009

Day 7 of 7

...Day 7. Weights Only...

he seventh day in a row. My average is now 5.9788--almost 5.98. 23 days until I reach 6.00. One week down, just over three more to go. I have no doubts I can do it.

Today was a weights day and I decided to forgo any cardio. In the last three years my weights days always included cardio to warm-up, but in the last month there have been a handful of days when I haven't followed that routine. Not sure what is the best workout. One day a week without cardio doesn't sound like a bad thing.

Bicep Curls: 7kg x 25 reps x 3 sets

Tricep Presses: 14kg x 25 reps x 3 sets. Up from 9kg. I hadn't done the exercise in a few weeks so I went with a lower weight to avoid injury.

Stomach Crunches: 25 reps x 6 sets

Leg Lunges: 10 reps x 6 sets - Left/Right. I increased the number of sets. Until my injury in July I was doing lots and lots of leg lunges, but stopped because I had to let my feet heal. In the last couple of weeks I have slowly worked leg lunges back into my routine. Just a few reps the first time and bit by bit adding more reps and more sets. My legs and feet feel find.

Plus lots of stretching.

Tomorrow is a swim day--my day off as I like to think of it.

I've done weights three times this week. I think that's sufficient for my needs. I'm not trying to bulk up, simply tone muscles. Hopefully, a lean, toned look.

Posted 2009/02/13 at 16h05ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, February 13, 2009

Suburban Girl. Feature film. (2007, 97 mins) IMDB

...Even though it stars Alec Baldwin, avoid this film--unless you want to learn from a bad film....

hen I watch a romantic comedy, I so much want to like it, often it's easy, even with flaws, but then there are clunkers and this is one of them.

First it's not a romantic comedy. There is romance, sort of, but not in the RomCom sense of true love and happily ever after. Further, the humour attempted in this movie is unoriginal and flat. Insulting even. That's not the phrase--it's cheap put-downs. Not even close to satire and there are few moments where there are attempts at humour.

The film is filled with clichés. There is no suspense, no interest. There simply isn't much to like about this film even if Baldwin is in it.

To the extent there is a narrative in this film, it's weak and we simply don't care about the characters.

As an example of a pathetic cliché: our hero works as an associate editor for a publisher. Late Friday as she discusses fabulous weekend plans, a get-away weekend, a higher-up plops a pile of manuscripts on her desk and says read them and write book reports by Monday. Yikes! That's how bad this film is.

The film tries to make the point that a fifty-year old man and a twenty-five year old woman should not reasonably expect to fall in love and have a happy ending. Well, no shit! We knew that the minute they met.

There is an attempt at setting up a love triangle, but her existing boyfriend at the start of the film is so lame as to be completely contemptible. So unbelievable and clichéd that she actually deserves to be with this beach bum. I suspect the filmmakers wanted to ridicule such types and in the process ruined any love triangle interest.

As for our hero, she is so superficial in her career and life and pursuits, we have no respect for her.

Here's another completely annoying habit common in the film. Since the setting is the publishing world in NYC, one person will quote Byron or Shakespeare and another will correct the person and say, no, it was Hitler who said that or wrote that. Such boorish behaviour is not a sign of intelligence and this film is filled with it. The film is filled with these: wink, wink, let me show you how superior and smart I am and meanwhile we're thinking, what a boob.

Even though the film stars Alec Baldwin and he gives a believable performance, the film is a dud. It is spent waste. There is absolutely nothing original or interesting or funny or romantic in it. I'd like to create the anti-version of this film so this film and its anti-film could collide in space and annihilate each other in an instantaneous flash--a flash I suspect would be far more fascinating than this film.

Posted 2009/02/13 at 15h43ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Thursday, February 12, 2009

...Born 200 years ago today. Still unjustly maligned and often misunderstood....

wo hundred years ago today Charles Darwin was born. He is unquestionable one of the most important scientists and thinkers of all-time. His book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, was first published in 1859 and has never been out of print. It is as relevant today as it was 150 years ago. He spent over thirty years researching and writing it knowing it would create a controversy--a controversy that, unfortunately, exists to this day.

As I drove around town today, I heard talk radio host Gary Dole of 570 News make disparaging remarks about the Theory of Evolution because he was a "man of faith." I groaned and turned off the radio. (It's not the first time he's done that. He interviewed and praised the makers of a documentary on the trash science known as Intelligent Design.)

It would help if people were educated on the subject, but that would be too much to ask. It doesn't help when newspaper columnists write about it with a complete misunderstanding of evolution. (See Brian Milner's article The Natural Selector in today's Globe and Mail.)

The article is about a new fade in picking investments. Look for companies that are able "to evolve" in a changing environment. Since few people understand Darwin's work, no one questions such misuse, but here I am. I will try.

While a corporation may choose and change its strategy, a living organism cannot and does not choose to adapt or change its DNA. Changes simply happen (another discussion) at which point three things can happen. The change is positive, neutral or negative. Where a parent passes on the changes to its offspring, the survivors will in turn pass on the changes provided it survives and in this way a species evolves. A change in environment doesn't change a species. A particular specimen of a species changes and it this change is beneficial, the change persists in future generations. For this reason using Darwin to talk about evolving corporations is non-sense and disservice to his important work.

Again, mainstream media shows us you can't rely on them for knowledge and fundamental truths. They fail us over and over. Just look at how, according to them, January 1, 2000 was the start of a new millennium. That's true, if a millennium is 999 years long.

Posted 2009/02/12 at 20h45ET in Theory of Evolution. [View single entry]

Thursday, February 12, 2009

The Memory Keeper's Daughter. Feature film. (2008, 120 mins) IMDB

...The budget for a film can affect its quality...

ou can tell this was a made-for-TV movie. Each scene is filmed with only one or two set-ups. The cuts are few. The reason it's done this way is to speed up the film production which reduces the cost. Unlike a feature film released in a theatre where the revenue stream is potentially very high, a MOW has a small, limited revenue stream and that dictates the budget. Instead of a budget of tens of millions, MOWs are made on budgets with a few million. That limits the creativity of the director, restricts the size of the cast and special effects and well TV movies aren't feature films.

Mulroney plays a husband and father. Gretchen the wife and mother. Emily the nurse.

Along the way, she meets a truck driver who lends a hand. Later they marry.

When the new parents return home, the father tells a lie. There was a second child, but she died. They took her away. Not so, but the mother believes it and there's a service in a graveyard.

With the story setup, it jumps forward to different times in both families' lives. 1970. 1977. 1986.

We see each child grow up. We see the one couple struggle in their relationship. We see the nurse fighting for education rights for her daughter. The big secret remains.

The nurse moved and kept her whereabouts unknown to the father. He sends money, she sends photos and letters which he saves.

There is a coldness and distance in their marriage. They have no more children. It seems he's probably afraid to father another "sick" child. His sister died young from an inherited illness.

The marriage eventually ends with divorce. The son becomes a musician. The wife a travel agent. The father continues his practice as a family physician and amateur photographer--it's the photography that inspires the name of the book. His dark room has many photos of this hidden daughter.

In the closing scenes, the father is fixing a leaky pipe under the sink when he suffers an aneurysm and dies. In searching through his dark room, they discover the secret. There is a range of emotions for the mother who discovers a daughter she thought was dead and it includes torching the photos. I didn't find that believable.

The film ends with the brother and mother travel to Pittsburgh and meet her and the nurse. It's out in the open.

The film is limited to 90 minutes and the result is a constrained story. It's as we walk on a beach, but not the sand, but a sidewalk and never look anywhere except the concrete in front. Not at the sand or waves or water. Just the sidewalk in front.

As a result, I think the story is too rushed. It covers too far a time period and we seem to learn so little about each character. That's probably the budget constraints at work. The film can't have too many locations, too many sets because each one means more money has to be spent.

Posted 2009/02/12 at 19h57ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Becoming Jane. Feature film. (2007, 120 mins) IMDB

...A period piece with lots of costumes and horses and estates and people falling in and out of love....

e know Jane Austen from her novels and the many films based on them. In this film we catch a glimpse of the woman before she became an author, a glimpse of her family and a brief lover affair. It's this love affair that forms the arc of the story.

It's impossible to know what happened and didn't happen, what was said and what wasn't, even with her letters as a source, but this film wants us to believe we're witnessing the early adulthood of Jane Austen some two hundred years ago. Fine.

Jane lives in the country with her parents and siblings. The father is a local minister. It's a meagre existence but not uncomfortable.

Jane is of an age where young women get married. They marry because there isn't anything else for them to do. The nephew of someone who is wealthy wants to marry her, but she isn't the least bit interested in him, let alone in love with him. She won't marry him. She won't marry even if it's convenient or financially rewarding. She wants to marry for love. It seems such an idyllic dream.

I should point out the film starts not with Jane, but with her love interest--Mr. LeFroy. Despite the name, he's from Ireland. Lives in London under the surveillance of his rich uncle, a judge. The judge is training him to be a lawyer, gives him money to live on which he uses to drink and have sex with whatever woman he can find. Yes, he's a cad. Given his poor behaviour, his uncle forces him to go into the country to spend time with relatives and that's where he meets Jane.

The film isn't a happy love story because while they meet, fall in love, they can never be together. Jane's parent pressure her to marry Mr. Wimp because he has money and she doesn't. LeFroy's uncle will cut him off if he marries Jane. Our star-crossed lovers are doomed to be apart.

Act II is about them meeting and falling in love and growing further together and discovering they can't get married. It's all based on the societal norms of the times--so much different from today. For example, the only time when they can be alone together to talk is when they dance. Anything else would ruin her reputation.

I often wonder what it would be like to take someone like myself and drop him or her into that society. A comedy of errors or quick death? I'm not sure. It wouldn't be easy. And I don't mean some novel or film, I mean for real, but it can't happen, regardless of what Einstein says about time.

There's a scene where LeFroy comes back to get Jane even though they both know it can't work. He's going to take her away to Scotland, to elope, to make whatever they can from their love. She agrees and leaves. As they travel a short distance on a horse drawn carriage, it's clear it'll never work. They part.

He goes back to London to finish his studies and becomes a lawyer. She goes back to her parents house to write and write.

Flashforward a number of years. Many years. Jane never married but she wrote many popular novels. LeFroy did marry, had children including his first daughter named Jane. We learn this because they meet at a social gathering.

There's no question this film has been structured to fit the needs of a film, a narrative, a story in lieu of what may or may not have happened in her life. I'm sure many aspects of their relationship didn't make it into the film and others were embellished. That's neither good or bad, it's simply the nature of filmmaking.

The implication from the story and hence the title of the film is Jane learnt from these experiences and it's reflected in her novels. That could very well have happened. In fact, it's quite likely.

Posted 2009/02/11 at 20h37ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Diminished Capacity. Feature film. (2008, 92 mins) IMDB

...I think the filmmakers thought they were making a serious film, but I don't see it....

he film, DIMINISHED CAPACITY, tries hard to be a comedy and satire but it's brought down with a lame plot.

I can't remember the last time I watched a film that didn't follow the three-act structure and this film is no exception.

We meet Broderick in Chicago. He's working in newspaper syndication but having troubles because of some incident where his head was damaged. He had a concussion and the recovery has been slow. He can't work. He can't remember things. He takes pain killers.

Enter news his uncle living somewhere in the south where our hero grew up. He's having problems. His uncle is old and forgetful and needs help. That all seems logical, but why would a thirtysomething guy be asked to drop his life to return to his hick hometown and why would he agree. Because that's what the story calls for.

So, our hero, living in Chicago drops everything and heads south to his hometown where for reasons that defy logic, the first person he meets is his ex-flame in a grocery store. Still not sure how he ended up in his store, oh yes, because that's what the story calls for. In a flash, they catch up on old times, she's no longer married etc.

With this detour over, he continues on his journey to meet his uncle at his uncle's place. As soon as he steps from his car, someone is pointing a shotgun at him and the next thing you know he's ducking for cover as a shot goes off. I suppose they think it's funny, but it wasn't. We never really know who shot the gun or why he's at the uncle's house.

The uncle is played by Alan Alda who must be forever trying to rid his MASH persona. There are a few occasions where those mannerisms we've seen from the TV show come through, but for the most part, we hear an accent that is different and a look that is different. You can't blame the failure of this film on him or any of the actors.

At this house we get to see how far off the deep end this man has jumped. He socks are wet so he places a propane stove burner on a living room chair, turns on the gas and fiddles for minutes to light it. Meanwhile the entire room is filling with gas. There is a certain element of suspense and stupidity and comedy about it all, but I just groaned.

The best aspect of the film was his typewriter. He set his typewriter at the end of his dock. He attached fishing lines to each key such that with a nibble here or there, the keys are struck and words are composed on the page. It's gibberish of course, but to him, the fish are writing poetry. Love it. As with anything, who knows why, but I loved it.

From this point forward, the movie takes a silly course. We learn the uncle has in his possession a baseball card. Not sure what or where or who, but a card from way back when and nobody knew about it and it's worth lots and lots and lots of money. To that I say, so what, but that's where the story goes until the end. It's focused on this card and selling it and stealing it and being conned out of it and conning it back and well it's ridiculous.

Instead of focusing on something of significance as they had set up the story--two men dealing with mental illnesses, the filmmakers decide to take this jaunt down a clichéd route.

I'll fill in the rest. Once the card is revealed, it's the solution to the uncle's financial problems. Travel to Chicago, sell it and then dear uncle will have lots and lots of money to live in his house and be able to listen to his fish recite poetry. And so everyone gets in a car to travel to Chicago to sell the card--even a brother of the love interest who only wants to steal it. When you have a plot element like that, you know you're in for a...well. It's not the movie I expected. For a few moments it had me believing this could be another LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, but not even close.

What happens in Chicago is trite. A baseball card convention. Trying to selling it. One dealer who is Mr. Nice. One dealer who is Mr. Shark. Give me a break.

The second act ends when uncle sells it to Mr. Shark for a pittance. Everybody is up in arms. It shouldn't have happened because he's not legally competent to make such a deal. That's true. But in the end, the card is returned and auctioned for a big amount and the uncle gets to keep a replicate because he wants something to remember his grandfather by. It was his grandfather who gave him the card.

I suspect the filmmakers thought this last revelation would provide some great insight and a tear-jerking moment, but they miscalculated. Why didn't he say it before? If that's what the card meant, then have it out earlier. The rest was just about greed, about money, not about living and memories.

I could rant some more, but I won't. I think I've done enough.

The best part of the film was seeing Virginia Madsen again.

Oh, yeah. Who is Ernie Banks?

Posted 2009/02/11 at 20h24ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Feature film. (2008, 113 mins) IMDB

...What do the pro-Israeli folks think of a movie like this?...

'm not a big fan of Adam Sandler and I was reluctant to watch the film, but I did and to my surprise I laughed a number of times. It's funnier than his usual outings and this film has his usual fair. Gays are always a target and this film is no exception.

As the movie started, I watched as he played an Israeli Jew and since he's Jewish, I thought, oh no, another propaganda film. It'll be one sided, but it's not. The whole issue of Jews and Arabs fighting plays a central role in the film, but for comic effect--especially once the film moves to NYC. It's a bit like Spielberg's MUNICH with it's message: stop the fighting. You guys are all crazy with your non-stop fighting and revenge.

There's a main narrative for our hero combined with a love story. The love story is easy. He's Jewish. She's Arabic. They split when she finds out he's Jewish, but of course they get back together.

At the start of the movie, we learn he's a superhero type working for the Israeli Military. He fights terrorists. We see him fighting terrorists with a touch of action, action that is comic book style. For example, he catches bullets with his hands and with his teeth. It's a bit like Bug Bunny putting his finger in the barrel of a shotgun. The gun goes off. Bugs is unharmed. The barrel has wrapped back and exploded on the shooter.

Anyway, he doesn't want to be a commando anymore, it's senseless killing with no end, what he really wants to do is be a hairstylist in NYC. When he tells people, they laugh. They think he's a fagala, but that's what he wants. Since he can't leave on his own, he fakes his death and flies off to NYC. And Act II starts.

Enter a struggle to find a place to work. Enter a Crocodile Dundee moment. Enter an Arab woman running a hair saloon where he gets a job sweeping up hair and the first time they meet we know they are meant for each other. Enter a street with Arabs on one side selling electronics and humus and Jews on the other side. No fighting going on here.

Enter both Jewish and Arab immigrants who know his real identity as the superhero for Israel fighting terrorists.

Yes, there's some sort of narrative for him plus the love story. Plus immigrant Arabs who want to get him, but they are as useful as a beached whale.

And if there wasn't enough conflict and characters, this film is loaded with characters, there's a Donald Trump type wanting to raze the building where our sweet Arab woman is running her saloon. I have no idea why they threw that in except to make fun of stuffed-shirt types.

Silly and absurd. A touch sappy. Ridiculous and absurd. Occasionally funny, even Rob Schneider. It's not the greatest or funniest comedy you'll see, but it's not the worse. And yes I did laugh and I didn't regret having watch it although some may question my sanity for making a public declaration on my web site.

Posted 2009/02/10 at 20h13ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 9, 2009

A Sound of Thunder. Feature film. (2005, 100 mins) IMDB

...Will this time machine movie be any different from the rest?...

nother time machine movie. Haven't we seen enough of them? What is supposed to be different about this one? It turns out nothing? It's the same saw. You can go back in time, but in doing so disrupting even the tiniest thing will have evolutionary repercussions on the future and that's what this film deals with.

Our team, led by Edwards, goes back in time with no problems, but when they do it again, something isn't right. The present world is changing in massive time waves. They realize they have to go back fix to their mistake but each time wave means more changes in the present which makes it nearly impossible to fix, but of course they do. And everyone lives happily ever after. Ta-dah. And boring.

As I watched this film, I wondered why Edward Burns got involved in this film. Was he becoming like Ben Affleck? Doing films for the money? Maybe.

The film is loaded with special effects especially of the CGI variety and it looks like it. I thought I was watching a cheap TV show. Some times special effects work but a great deal of the time, they look just like what they are: special effects. Maybe it's because the story is so thin the poor fx stand out, I'm not sure, but they looked cheesy even if twenty years ago they would have been state-of-the-art.

And why was Ben Kingsley in this film? See above I suppose. It seems this film was made in the UK and therefore all the UK talent except for the US lead.

This time machine story takes place in the future, around 2055 in a futuristic looking Chicago. Time Travel is the norm but expensive and government controlled. The problem starts when one of the guest travellers steps on a butterfly and kills it. It takes a while for the team to figure out exactly what went wrong, but that was it. It seems to me there's a eco-story about one butterfly dying and the ripple effect it has on the eco-system except in this tale it happens over a 65 million year time frame.

Since the changes have a ripple effect throughout, it means an impact on the evolution of humans, but that would effect the story of the movie. Can't have that. Must have same humans living to fix the problem. The solution. Time waves. The changes don't happen in once burst, but in several. The graphic is a giant wave washing over Chicago as if Lake Michigan could create a massive tsunami. With the first wave, plants grow as if it's the Amazon. In the next wave, more plant life but new, fierce creatures and so on until the entire city is living in anarchy.

None of the technology is explained. That's okay provided it makes sense, but time waves?!? Oh well.

In an early scene, Burns is sitting at a computer when his boss (Kingsley) commands him to attend a party. During the scene we hear the alert, sharp dialogue from Burns's mouth. It doesn't happen again. I suspect that scene was shot early in production when he may have had hopes for the film, but later realized it was hopeless and mailed in the rest of his performance. It wouldn't surprise me.

Watch this movie if you must, but there isn't one redeeming feature in it.

Posted 2009/02/09 at 20h00ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 9, 2009

The Ox-Bow Incident. Feature film. (1943, 75 mins) IMDB

...Justice and the wrongly accused. A story that won't go away....

he film is currently ranked 213 in the top 250 on imdb.com. It's not hard to see why.

The film centres on the issue of justice. In this instance vigilante justice in a frontier town in Nevada in 1885.

Henry Fonda made at least three films about justice that I'm aware of. This film, where three innocent men are hanged by a mob. THE WRONG MAN. A 1950s film directed by Alfred Hitchcock based on real events where a man in NYC is wrongly accused of a series of robberies. His life is turned upside down in the process. Then there is 12 ANGRY MEN where Fonda plays a juror. His fellow jurors are quick to condemn the man, but Fonda puts forward his arguments that show the accused isn't just not guilty, but innocent. In all the films, the message is simple: we want justice at an individual level, we want it quickly and in the process we make grave errors.

THE OX-BOW INCIDENT is a straightforward story told in a linear manner over the course of a day.

Henry Fonda and his sidekick played by Harry Morgan ride into a small town in Nevada. It's 1885. Cowboys, horses, six-shooters strapped to your leg, a saloon for whiskey and poker. A dirt road running up the middle of town of wooden buildings.

The two quickly learn there has been a murder. Some rustlers shot Larry Kincaid in the head. We never meet Kincaid, but we're told he's a fine gentlemen. His buddies are angry at his murder and want revenge. Immediately people talk of finding the killers and hanging them. A mob forms, the sheriff isn't around to control them. A couple of men try to talk them out of this lawless act, but to no use. A group of thirty men ride out of town searching for the killers.

It doesn't take long to find three men camped out over night. The mob surrounds them and questions them and well it's a kangaroo court. The three plead their innocents, yet there is circumstantial evidence the men are guilty. Nothing they say can convince the leaders of the mob. The dissenters can't or won't stop them.

We see an impromptu court session, but it's a joke. There is too much anger for any justice. There is an agreement to wait until dawn. Perhaps the sheriff will arrive with news, but he doesn't arrive in time. The three are hanged for murdering Kincaid and for rustling his cattle.

As the three men dangle from the nose, the mob rides off. Not long after they meet up with the sheriff who brings them news. Kincaid is still alive. He was shot, but not killed. The ones who shot him had been arrested. There were no cattle stolen.

The mob, bent on justice, were criminals.

A new round of justice is forthcoming.

You can say the film is heavy handed, that it's liberal, that it's crafted to send one message, but so be it. It may be all those things, but it works.

The film ends with the two men (Fonda and Morgan) riding their horses out of town on the same route they took to arrive at the start of the film. Bookends. There is even a bloodhound crossing the street in both instances.

I highly recommend watching this film. If anyone thinks crime and justice are easy matters, well they are part of the mob.

From a production point of view, most of the scenes take place outside, but they are filmed primarily on a backlots and sound stages. There are only a few scenes filmed on location. On a sound stage, they added dirt and shrubs and trees and even a running creek to make the Ox-Bow area look like it was outside. In another scene, a path around a cliff was done on a sound stage.

Posted 2009/02/09 at 19h50ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Message in a Bottle. Feature film. (1999, 131 mins) IMDB

...Here's where I wanted to see a Hollywood ending and was greatly disappointed....

so much wanted to enjoy this movie and there are some moments but, well, there are lots of buts.

A bit about the story. It's a romance, a dramatic one, not a romantic comedy. I don't think there's a comic moment in the film.

Costner plays a shipwright on the southern east coast of the US. He was married at one point, to his true love, in his words, his true north, but she died. He wallows in his grief and at one point he typed up love notes to her, stuffed them into bottles and tossed them into the Atlantic ocean where presumably the Gulf Stream carried them north where on a Cape Code beach our other love interest played by Robin digs the bottle out of the sand.

She's a divorced single mom. They are both in the late thirties or early forties. She's captivated by the love notes and begins a search for the mysterious lover. Since she's a researcher at the Chicago Tribune (convenience) she tracks him down, visits and falls in love all over again.

He's not so sure because he hasn't let go of his wife. That's the battle. He has to let go of the past and move on to this present situation and he does until he finds out what brought them together. They had a good thing going until he finds the bottles and messages and newspaper coverage and leaves her. They had to split and do.

His transformation is shown with a boat he started working on with his late wife, but stopped building with her death. With someone new in his life, he gets back to building it and launching it and sets sail for Chicago (it's possible), but tragedy strikes and we have a lame, "heroic" ending.

The ending is such a downer, it destroys our sense of hope. This was supposed to be a Hollywood film, but I guess they filmmakers weren't aware of Hollywood endings. I'm not for or against Hollywood endings, but the ending must fit the story and in this instance our hero dives from his sailboat during a raging storm in the Atlantic, in winter. It's a crazy thing to do and he does it for no reason. There is no reason he should dive into the water.

I also found a great of the dialogue between the two, especially early on, to be adolescent. It was as if they were bashful, thirteen-year olds at a school dance in the gym. Not what you'd expect for adult romance.

And from the hard to believe folder, it's hard to believe this film is ten years old. And more incredible that Paul Newman is gone. We knew it would come, but, well, he is one of my favourite film stars. Cary Grant ranks number one and Newman is probably number two.

Posted 2009/02/08 at 20h01ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 8, 2009

The Smallest Show On Earth. Feature film. (1957, 80 mins) IMDB

only watched this film because Peter Sellers was in it and although his image is prominent on the DVD cover, he doesn't star in this film. It was his second feature film and he was a relative nobody at this point in his career. Now that Peter Sellers is one of the giants of movie comedy, the rights holders want to capitalize on his name. So be it. He is in the film, from Act II on and he's the Peter Sellers we know from The Pink Panther and others.

Nevertheless, the film is a charming little comedy with definite laughs. I don't often laugh out loud when I watch a DVD, but I did with this film. Comedies are best seen in a theatre with a large audience. Back to the film.

There's a young couple living a comfortable, middle-class life. They receive a letter from a solicitor telling them they have inherited all of the estate of some long, lost great uncle. While they dream of wealth and a life of leisure, we know that's not going to happen. (Hitchcock did a variation of that story in 1931 with a film called RICH AND STRANGE.) In fact, his estate isn't much except a run-down cinema that isn't operating and is worth next to nothing.

A business adjacent to the property, The Grand Theatre, has in the past made offers to buy the cinema in order to create space for a parking lot, but the offers then isn't the offer now. Five thousand pounds versus five hundred. If the couple took it, there wouldn't be enough cash to settle the estate's debts. Enter a plan concocted by the lawyer. Pretend to want to get the place operating as a going concern and hope the buyer will up his price. The plan works until he learns they are bluffing and it's back to square one. With no choice, they decide to make a go of operating the place. They clean it up and open the doors to the public. The endeavour is fraught with more failures then successes. The projection machine barely operates. A train runs next to the building rocking the building. Customers pay with tins of meat or chickens. Even after all their efforts, their weekly profit is a few pennies. Their plan to extract a higher buying price has failed. Act II ends.

But this is a comedy after all and it can't end badly for our young couple and their elderly employees.

The janitor of the cinema, Old Tom, overhears the dilemma and decides to take matters into his own hands. He sets fire to the Grand Theatre and eliminates the competition. The buyer is now motivated to pay a great deal more than he ever imagine. Ten thousand pounds. Everybody goes away happy except the owner of the Grand.

It isn't a terribly original or suspenseful plot, but it doesn't have to be for a comedy. It's there to provide space for the characters and comedic moments and it does just that.

They say comedy is in the timing and usually that means the delivery of a line by a stand up comedian or the interactions between players on a stage, but in a movie, a cut can create timing that leads to laughter. There's an example in this film.

In Act II, our hero is desperate to figure out ways to increase revenue in his theatre. He visits the Grand theatre to see how the big boys do it and sees a cigarette girl wandering the aisles. He has an idea. He'll make his beautiful wife that girl and we cut to her walking inside the theatre, dressed in a skimpy costume and holding a tray full of sweets. The teenage boys stampede towards her. They buy the sweets and pinch her butt. She objects but can't stop them. It's funny but it's not the cut I'm referring to because while it's a success, she's making sales, she doesn't want to be degraded. Next comes the cut that is funny. We see Miss Marples walking down the centre aisle. She's half way down and no one is paying any attention to her, let alone buying anything. That's comedy.

Posted 2009/02/08 at 18h45ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Saturday, February 7, 2009

War of the Worlds. Feature film. (2005, 116 mins) IMDB

...Special effects alone don't make a movie....

ar of the Worlds is a based on an H.G. Wells' novel from about 100 years ago. More or less. During the height of radio in the US, another Welles, this time Orson Welles, lead his actors groupe in a radio broadcast based on this story. The fictional tale seemed real to listeners--as if the world was coming apart. If you're not familiar with the history, check it out.

But that was then and this is another rendition of a familiar story: superior intelligent beings from another planet come to take over earth.

I'm surprised Speilberg decided to take on this project and maybe he's wishing he hadn't.

You can summarize the film as follows. 1. We meet our working class hero. 2. There's something brewing in the air. It's impacting the world and as the menace grows, it gets closer to NYC until finally we see it's some type of alien machine killing people. 3. Our hero and his two children make a run from NYC/NJ. They are heading north to Boston where the ex-wife is. Any number of events happen between them and the aliens and other people until. 4. The aliens capture our hero and young daughter. Not all is lost, because as he's sucked inside to be eaten, he sets off hand grenades that kill the monster. 5. Then we learn the aliens are dying because they are infected by microbes. 6. Our hero reunites with his family in a teary-eyed moment.

That sums up the movie.

Act I is points 1 and 2. Act III is 4 onward.

Like so many Hollywood movies these days, it's not great, but it's not terrible. This one wanders down the middle filled with clichés relying on special effects to overwhelm the audience.

There is no question this is a well-made film with a gigantic budget, but so what. The story sucks.

We meet our hero. He works as a crane operator on a shipping dock in NYC/NJ. His boss loves him so much--nobody can do what you can do--he wants him to work longer but there's union rules and besides he wants to spend time with his family. It's all set-up made for us to like the guy, but so what. What's so special about any of that?

Then guess what? He arrives home to find his ex-wife waiting to drop off the kids because it's weekend with them. Yet another divorced father who has troubles with his ex, a teenaged son and a younger daughter. Talk about cliché. And the ex has married some wimpy, rich guy. Another cliché and completely not believable.

What's going on here is Act I filler. Because this film doesn't immediately begin with an action sequence (remember this is primarily an action movie, why else have aliens killing people), we need something else to create interest and so they manufacture this boring father and son situation and father and ex-wife situation. The father wants to help, the son doesn't want to listen etc. Please stop it. I really wish Hollywood writers would put a stop, stop, stop this banal story writing.

I digress, back to the film.

With storm clouds brewing, the major problem is just around the corner. So much for family turmoil. There's bigger problems here. It's life and death. Something is vapourizing people on the street. The electricity and electronics have been wiped out.

Our hero gathers up his two children, hijacks the only car working and drives off, heading out of town.

There's chaos and anarchy. Highways are littered with stalled cars. This is Act II and it's about them getting closer to Boston and away from the aliens and living etc. There are a number of set pieces or sequences here and they are mostly the same. It's tough sledding, the aliens look invincible and any minute we're going to die.

In one sequence I like, a mob has gathered at a ferry dock. People are in a rush to get on the boat. The hero and family arrive in their minivan where they are swarmed. Our hero pulls a revolver but to no avail. Someone else pulls a pistol and points it at his head. The pistol man takes over the minivan and the family leaves exits to a diner. In the background the mob swarms the minivan and our pistol guy is killed. The message is clear: anti-gun.

In fact, the whole notion of a military is voided with the shields the aliens have. Nothing the military can throw at them works. The only thing that defeats the aliens is microbes. As humans, we've built up immunities over the years, but the aliens are new to earth and haven't So much for being intelligent beings.

Act III is a failure. Our hero has to save the day, but given the enemy that's ridiculous. The scene where he is sucked into and out of the machine while leaving behind grenades with their pins pulled is absurd, but that's Hollywood. Than as if by magic, and time is running out for a two hour movie, the aliens die and the machines start to fail. The microbes have taken over. That's rather convenient given what's happened, but again that's Hollywood.

Never once do we leave the POV of the hero. We have no sense of what is happening with authorities or even inside the enemy. They are simply some non-stop machine that keeps going until the story says they should stop.

I'm being a great deal harsher than I expected, but that's what I saw.

And I shouldn't forget the embrace of father and son at the end. Sappy! I felt no great joy when they were reunited, not like say the ending in ROCKY. There was a story and without billions in special effects.

Finally, watch the opening credits. You'll see logos for DreamWorks and Paramount. Why are two studios making one picture? It's not to spread the financial risk as was the case with Cameron's TITANIC. Spielberg is DreamWorks and Cruise has a deal with Paramount. For some reason Spielberg must have wanted Cruise for this role. They did work together on Minority Report which is a much better film.

And not so finally. Why is such an intelligent creature unaware of life on earth that it wouldn't adapt to the conditions?

Posted 2009/02/07 at 06h49ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 6, 2009

Day 37.

...The good news is it's nearly over, the bad news is I missed three days....

t the start of the week I felt the effects of some virus taking hold. Each day it got worse and on Wednesday it was the worst. My glands under my jaws were puffed up and tender. I gave new meaning to words: double chin. My face was rounded like a ball from jaw to jaw. Among other symptoms, I also had a soar throat such that it hurt each time I swallowed. No fun. (It was a virus, not a bacterial infection.) It meant not going to the gym. My streak of 32 straight days was over. (My longest is 238 days). Thursday I didn't feel much better and obviously didn't go.

Today, Friday, I slept in fits because I would wake up in a coughing fit and only felt marginally better until I woke up for the third time late in the day. Finally major improvement. The soar throat is mostly gone, glands going down and not as tender etc. Resting seemed to help.

Now I've missed three days in a row. My long-term average has dropped to 5.97 d/w. Ugh! I will get it back to 6.0. In about a month.

The reason I go everyday to the gym is because I want to average 6 d/w and with holidays, illness, etc. you'll miss some days that drops the average below.

I can go seven days a week because six days are cardio on the machines and 1 day is swimming. Tomorrow is a swim day, just the sort of thing I need to ease back in after three days off due to illness.

Posted 2009/02/06 at 18h21ET in Exercise. [View single entry]

Friday, February 6, 2009

World Trade Center. Feature film. (2005, 128 mins) IMDB

...Don't make films where you can't see the actor's face....

here isn't a lot we don't know about what happened in NYC on Sept. 11. It's been written about and documented and now made into a feature film based on real events. This film doesn't add anything new.

For legal reasons, the film focuses on two Port Authority police officers on the day of. We see them early on that day as they go about their job. Then the first crash and they move into action. As I say, the focus is on them because of legal reasons. The producers had rights to their story and not other people.

Cage plays a seasoned cop in charge of a bunch of PAPD officers which includes Pena. With the attack he is asked to lead a team to help with the evacuation of WTC 1. They don't know or understand 2 was hit. At random, Cage picks from the group a smaller team to travel south to the WTC. In that group is Pena. When they arrive, it's chaotic. They're not sure who is in charge or what to do. They in the process of collecting their gear when WTC 2 collapses. By luck or by design, they are between the buildings and below the street. They rush to an elevator shaft because it's safer. When the dust settles, Cage and Pena and a third officer are alive and trapped. Others aren't heard from. Then the second tower collapses. The third officer dies not long after. This represents the end of the first act and to this point, the focus has been on the cops.

In Act II, the longest stretch of this and most movies, we simply can't stay down in the hole with the two cops. There just isn't much they can do. They are trapped and pinned under concrete and debris. Fortunately Hollywood didn't invent too much stage conflict the bridge the gap, instead we shift focus outside to the wives of the officers and would be rescuer. We see how they learn of the news and how desperate they grow and, well, all the typical tears and screaming sort of moments.

Somewhere a retired Marine sergeant decides the country is now at war and he's back on duty. He takes off his suit, gets a buzz cut, puts his field uniform on and goes to ground zero where they let him pass. Once near the pile of crumbled buildings, he begins to search for survivors. It's dark. The other rescuers have stayed clear because it's not safe. He's joined by another marine and eventually they come across Cage and Pena trapped underneath. That's the end of Act II, but it doesn't fit the description because at this point in the story our heroes should be in a position where they have lost all hope and in this moment that doesn't happen.

Act III is about the challenges of rescue workers crawling down and through the rubble. Of not getting burnt. Of not getting trapped from another collapse. It's dangerous work but they manage to pull the men out.

As the rescue progresses, the wives receive premature news their husbands are alive and healthy. They get a surprise when the men eventually show up at the hospital.

In the post film titles, we learn the men lived, had many surgeries, retired. The Marine sergeant went off to Iraq.

Only 20 people were rescued from the collapsed buildings.

Since we know the outcome, the story lacks suspense. Further, we never have a reason to care for them.

The melodramatic family relationships between the two couples and the wives and their family lacks originality and therefore interest. It seems like a Hollywood concoction.

I'm not saying it's a terrible film, because it isn't, it's more a movie-of-the-week film for TV instead of a feature film with Cage and Oliver Stone.

Cage's talents are missing because he spends the bulk of the film motionless in a dark, cramped space. We don't get to see his eyes or facial expressions--two key tools for an actor.

The lack of lighting, natural to the circumstances, for the same reason makes the Act III scenes hard to appreciate because it's mostly voices and darkness.

I suspect because it was almost entirely US citizens involved in telling about an event that touches them emotional and personally, it affected their judgement. Too sentimental about it. Maybe more time between the real events and the making of the film would have improved the story, but perhaps not.

A much better film about that day is UNITED 93. What makes it a better film is not what is told, again we know the story, but how it's told.

So much for a short entry.

Posted 2009/02/06 at 11h02ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Friday, February 6, 2009

Hello, Dolly!. Feature film. (1969, 146 mins) IMDB

...One of the last big Hollywood musicals ever produced....

ello, Dolly! has to be one of the last monster musicals made in Hollywood. I don't know what the budget was, but bigger than large is probably a good starting point. The cast is enormous and since it's a period piece, the costumes were many and varied and expensive. Then the sets. Some on location, with construction to fit the times, but in addition massive sound stage sets and backlot sets. It's miracle this film was made at all and it looks good, no great, but that's probably the best you can say about this film.

Walter Mathau fits the bill as a cranky bachelor, but he can't sing or dance and, guess what, it's sort of important in a musical.

Of course Streisand can sing, we all know that, but there aren't many songs worth the effort. There really is only one memorable song in the movie, the title song and it's not associated with Streisand. That would be Louis Armstrong. They bring him in but only give him only a minute of screen time. That makes no sense.

Michael Crawford can do it all, but his voice didn't sound right in this film.

And I'm sorry, but Tommy Tune looked lanky and out of place. He looked like sticks moving. Long, long sticks.

A Hollywood musical is a love story where the plot takes us from one action sequence (i.e., song and dance) to the next. It ends with the biggest production piece that blows the top off. The biggest set-piece occurs in a restaurant before Act III. The ending seemed week and low-budget compared to what transpired before. I know they didn't shot it in sequence, but it was almost as if they ran out money when it came time to shot Act III.

There is a love story narrative to this film. Dolly is Mrs. Levi, a matchmaker and widow. She's trying to set up Mathau, a wealthy businessman with some wealthy woman, but it hasn't worked out too well. Mahtau has a niece who wants to marry Ambrose, the local artist. The uncle thinks he's a fool and bum and not worthy of his niece, but she's in love.

Mathau has two clerks working in his store. Cornelius and Barnaby. Both are young, naive etc. They take a trip to NYC from Yonkers just to kiss a girl for the first times in their lives.

Need I say they all end up marching into a church for a wedding? I didn't think so.

Posted 2009/02/06 at 10h39ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Gaslight. Feature film. (1944, 114 mins) IMDB

...It's not obvious but the title is relevant to the story....

t what point do you say to yourself, I've seen that movie. When you see the title? Yes, I've seen DIE HARD. Maybe when you recognize the stars on the poster. Maybe it isn't until you've watched a few minutes of the film and sometimes it's not until you reach a point in the film where there is something unique to the film and you remember it and finally, say, yes, I've seen this movie before.

GASLIGHT fits into the later. I wasn't sure if I had seen it before. I knew all the actors and the director. That didn't help. The title isn't immediately suggestive of what happens in the story. It wasn't until I saw a boarded-up door at the top of a set of stairs that I realized I had seen this movie before and the moment doesn't happen until the second act.

Gaslight refers to a time in London when houses and streets were lit with natural gas. A novelty in a way, but relevant to the story because as more lights are turned on there is a noticeable fluctuation in the flame. In other words, someone on the second floor can tell if someone turned on the gas on the first floor.

As are most films, this one is classically structured. Act I, II & III. Each act different from the rest.

In Act I we learn there has been a murder in a fashionable area of the city. The niece and orphan of the murder victim travels to Italy where she studies music and meets piano player Boyer. They fall in love and marry even though there is a large gap in their ages.

They decide to take up residence in London--the home where the murder took place, her late aunt's house. It's been vacant for a number of years and filled with reminders of her aunt. It haunts the niece and everything is carted up to the top of the house, the door boarded up and sealed. We're into Act II.

Charles Boyer always has this charming, friendly, easy-going demeanour and it is evident in this film. We don't suspect anything evil in him, but it's there as we discover in Act III.

In Act II, he plays on Paula's mental state. Giving her a broach which she loses it. The sound of footsteps from above, the gaslight flickering. It all seems as if she's going mad and we've not sure if she is, but when we are sure she isn't, we're not sure what Boyer is up to.

She's also held captive in the house. Too ill and disturbed to leave. Again, it's her husband's doing. He's up to something but we're not sure what.

Enter the Joseph Cotton character. He's a detective type with Scotland yard. I'm not sure how an American can play a Brit, but that's the way it goes. If there was an explanation, I missed it.

Cotton becomes a cold case officer. He's looking into the unsolved death of the aunt. It leads him to Paula and Boyer and he's disturbed by what he finds. It's through him we realize Paula is being manipulated.

Cotton helps to uncover Boyer's plan and evidence he killed the aunt. Case solved.

This movie doesn't play like a typical murder mystery. It's much more subtle. That's why a second viewing can be more satisfying.

The film earned several Oscar nominations and awards. Many believe Boyer should have won instead of Bing Crosby.

Posted 2009/02/04 at 19h09ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

We Own the Night. Feature film. (2007, 117 mins) IMDB

...Can a story about cops fighting against a drug smuggling ring in Brooklyn be interesting?...

e've seen this story before and yet we haven't. I guess that's part of trying to make an interesting story these days--so much has been done.

The movie is set in NYC or more specifically Brooklyn where cops in the late 1980s are trying to bring down a Russian mobster. Someone who is importing drugs and killing cops at will. As I say, we've seen this before.

The film focuses on Phoenix. He's the black sheep of the family. The prodigal son. Or a variation on that theme.

He's the son of a deputy police chief in the NYPD. A son who runs a large night club in Brooklyn owed by a Russian man who imports and sells furs. I say the prodigal son because he lives fast and loose. Drugs. Women. Drinking. Late nights. Yet, he's not a criminal in the sense of the big fish. He's not part of the drug smuggling.

In Act I, we meet him living fast. We meet his sexy girlfriend. Then we meet his father and brother. His brother followed in the family tradition and is a captain in the NYPD. The family takes Bobby aside to talk to him about the gangster whom he might know. The focus is on Vadim. Vadim has been to the club etc., but Bobby doesn't know him or his business. He also doesn't want to get involved, doesn't want to be a police informant. He's loving his life as it exists now.

In the next sequence, the police raid his giant nightclub. Certain of Vadim's men are arrested and so is Bobby. He's roughed up by the cops. At the police station, one of Vadim's men slits his own throat with a knife. We see the extent of violence and intimation possible with this Russian gang.

Since Bobby's brother orchestrated the raid, he's targeted by the gang. While stepping from his car in front of his house, he is shot in the face and left for dead. This moment is a turning point for Bobby. He wants in. He wants to help the police get Vadim.

To this point in the film, all seems predictable and familiar and parts of what follows is the same, but there are some great visuals.

Bobby plays the informant. He wears a wire and goes to Vadim's processing plant for heroin. It's here the police make their big raid, lots of killing, Vadim in jail, but now Vadim knows what happened and Bobby and his girlfriend are in protective custody.

That Vadim should seek revenge is a given. That his father should get involved is also a given. That Vadim should escape from prison is a convenience for the story plot and that he should kill Bobby's father, just another step in reforming the prodigal son.

But that's what happens.

We see Bobby go from fast and loose with no concern for others, especially law enforcement, to someone studying to become a police officer and finally, with special consideration, becoming a probationary member of the NYPD and we're into Act III.

The goal is the same. Find Vadim and his men.

They get a break, screenwriting talk for convenience, when they learn Vadim is pulling off a deal in some abandoned warehouse (why is it always the way?). The drug deal is going down with limos and goons with assault rifles. A swarm of police surround the place. Then all hell breaks loose. Yes, we're getting close to the end. Vadim makes an escape, but Bobby, now a completely transformed police officer, is the one to chase him down. That Bobby should track Vadim down and kill him with a shotgun is not surprising.

It turns out Vadim wasn't acting along. The owner of the nightclub also imported furs. His activities and business seemed legit to the police, but in these closing scenes we see the furs were infused with the heroin.

I mentioned two visuals.

The first was a chase scene where Bobby and his girlfriend are in one car. His father in another. An escort following. It's that point in the movie where they are moving Bobby from one protective custody location to another, but Vadim has discovered the move and bang a car appears and starts shooting. It reminded me of the famous car sequence in THE FRENCH CONNECTION under an EL-train tracks in NYC, but this sequence was different. Maybe because it was soaked in rain. You don't often see car chases soaked in rain because it's difficult to do.

The other visual was in the final stalking sequence. The land around the warehouse is covered with dry, tall grass. I'm mean corn stalk tall. I've never seen grass like that but it looked real. For some reason it was effective in creating an eerie feel.

It's good to see films with unique shots that aren't entirely CGI. Tough to accomplish these days. We've seen so much.

Posted 2009/02/04 at 18h09ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Vacancy. Feature film. (2007, 85 mins) IMDB

...A horror film with cheap thrills...

orror films exist to terrify you. I guest that's the best description of them. Since I don't watch them, don't care to, I can't rate this film in its genre, but I will say there were some heart-jumping moments, but that could have just been me.

As a premise for a story, I think we've seen it or variations of it, but here goes. Act I is about meeting a couple and getting them to a run-down motel away from civilization. Act II has them in their room, trapped and terrified. Act III has them outside the room but still in the hotel as they fight off their attackers.

A married couple in their thirties are driving in the middle of nowhere at night. Since we need a movie, their car breakdowns which leads them to spending the night at the motel-in-hell. Further, since not a lot happens until the motel scenes, this married couple doesn't like each other and make snide comments to one another. We learn they had a young son who died in an accident. That sounds familiar as well, but you need something happening in Act I.

The room they stay in is not what you'd expect. Yes, there's a seventies decor in need not of cleaning, but a complete gutting. Yet, that's superficial. No, what's different is the room has several cameras, a trap door to an underground labyrinth and has seen many murders--all recorded and available for their viewing. It's set up for an unsuspecting couple to arrive, be video-taped, be terrified and eventually killed. The owner and manager isn't interested in running a motel, but in creating and selling snuff films. This is what our heroes are up against.

The intensity of the terror slowly builds until they are in a life and death struggle. As is typical of horror films, we don't see the menace at first, just sounds then glimpses until finally we see complete bodies with masks, mechanic overalls and knives.

All of the obvious things for help aren't there. No one else is staying at the motel, so they can't be witnesses or provide aid. For the same reason, it's in the middle of nowhere. A pay phone doesn't connect with 911 but with the bad guy manager. Cells phones don't work or are quickly lost or destroyed. Escaping is impossible.

I'm curious if you could make this film in, say, Manhattan. It'd certainly be a tougher challenge.

The film doesn't run at full throttle. We have an intense sequence that ends and we calm down for a bit then another sequence to repeat the process. It is very much like riding a roller coaster. It's also a pattern of narrative that is found in other genres, but in this film it is easy to see the pattern.

Further, since we want a ninety movie, our heroes can't be killed right away and that's part of the premise. The filmmakers of the snuff film want terror before the final kill. It all makes sense to me.

Just when you think there's nothing more these people can do except wait in the room for the killers to arrive with their knives, they discover a trap door in the washroom which leads them to a series of underground tunnels. With these tunnels they are able to turn the corner and fight back against the bad guys.

Eventually a policeman shows up, searches and realizes something terribly wrong has happened, but he's killed before he can call for backup.

There is a cat and mouse chase underground and between the different rooms the tunnels connect to and eventually the couple end up back in another room. Dawn is approaching and they are still alive, but the killers are still outside. The husband discovers a trap door in the ceiling (not likely, but hey this is a film after all). The wife climbs up into the rafters and waits it out. During this time, her husband is attacked, stabbed and killed. I expected him to make a phoenix like rise and come to her rescue later when she's fighting for her life with the manager. That doesn't happen, but he's still alive.

Yes. Morning comes. The killers don't know she was in the room, they think she ran away. She comes down from the rafters, makes it to their car and starts it up when she's attacked. She rams the car into one of the rooms and kills two attackers. There's just the manager left. Here she has a knock down fight with him in the office where she's able to shot him several times. He collapses to the floor dead.

And since the husband lives, the whole ordeal has brought new hope into their lives. Instead of being in the process of divorcing, they're probably going to get back together and live happily ever after.

Overall, I think it's an effective film for cheap thrills, but beyond that nothing; it's just about that cheap thrills.

Posted 2009/02/03 at 19h09ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

The Racket. Feature film. (1951, 88 mins) IMDB

...Some actors can play good guys or bad guys and some just can't....

t's a simple story in some respects. We have a large city in the US. There's a syndicate running gambling etc. There's the cops and the justice system. Both are working together which means the mob keeps right on doing its business except for one cop--a certain Captain McQuigg.

He's an honest cop surrounded by mobsters and crooked cops, crooked prosecuting attorneys and crooked judges. The odds are against him.

Nothing McQuigg does can provide the proof he needs to bring down Nick Scanlon. There's always bribery and faked testimony or the lack of it. We see any numbers of ways Scanlon escapes justice.

In the end, the cops win, but lots happens in between.

McQuigg wins because Scanlon is too hot headed. He defeats himself. The third act is about him going into the police station where he confronts one of the honest cops and shots him. There's evidence he did it and maybe he didn't, but in the end he's tempestuousness took him too far. A young, honest reporter who is a witness, won't back down from Scanlon's intimidation.

This story has been told many times and in the same sort of way, but I liked this film.

It's not strictly a film noir even though it's of that time period and has elements of it. There is even a beautiful woman playing a key role in the story, but not in the way a woman does in, say, DOUBLE INDEMINITY or THE MALTESE FALCON.

Seeing Robert Ryan and I remember THE DIRTY DOZEN. It's hard not to. Apparently he was nothing like the villains he played on screen and I wondered why someone would want those roles. The answer is probably both simple and complex. Taking the role because it's a job and therefore an income. But maybe also a belief that other, different roles will come around. Some actors break free of typecasting, most don't. Many can swing between film, TV and theatre while others are stuck in TV and commercials.

I've seen much worse films than this one and I think this one is under appreciated.

Posted 2009/02/03 at 18h50ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Monday, February 2, 2009

The Visitor. Feature film. (2007, 104 mins) IMDB

...A quiet, non-Hollywood type US movie....

ne problem I have with this film is the poster. It isn't inviting. It doesn't suggest what the movie is about until after you've seen it and obviously that's not what a movie poster should do. Based on the title and poster, I thought it was some small documentary about an American visiting West Africa or some other area of the world, but that's not it. It's not even a documentary, but a feature film based on a screenplay written by Thomas McCarthy.

That a character actor, Richard Jenkins, a face people know but couldn't put a name to, is the lead in the film is another indication that THE VISTOR is not just another film. Not a Hollywood film.

Vale appears to be a successful professor, but that's about it and maybe that's what is wrong with his life. Too focused. I should point out he's in his fifties or so. Past middle age.

So much happens without dialogue in the first ten minutes of the film that at times it's painful. Yes, we're looking for clues, but sometimes they are so hidden it's impossible to decipher. Besides, nothing is happening except voyeur moments in this man's life. But it doesn't stay that way. For reasons that don't matter, he's asked to attend a conference and he leaves. We see the car on this highway and that highway, makes it into a city, and step by agonizing step we see all these details of him arriving at a building in a large city. Excuse me if I rant, but what city and why all the detail and what is he doing? Do we really need to see him park his car, walk the street, enter a building, walk up the steps and so on and so on. Meanwhile, it's not clear at this stage he's going to his apartment in NYC. Why didn't they tell us this in some way? It's a rather crucial part of the story. After all, we've seen him living by himself in a nice house somewhere, not many people have two residences. Furthermore, he was on his way to a conference where we'd expect him to check into a resort or hotel. This section of the film is my biggest beef with the film. It's a boring and mumbled section.

But once he arrives at "his" apartment in NYC, he opens the door to his bathroom and finds a black women in the tube soaking. Next the boyfriend comes to protect her. There's a brief moment of male bravado and shouting, but everything is cool. For reasons that certainly don't matter, Tarek and his girlfriend Zainab have been living in his apartment. Now he wants them out and they leave except they have no where to go and he invites them to stay.

It's at this point the story settles in and we're into it. We learn more about each of these characters.

The professor is in a deep malaise because his wife died and his career means nothing to him. He's searching for some meaning in his life. It's the reason he started playing the piano. He takes to this couple and the drum. Tarek lets him play and teaches him. Vale is transforming before our eyes. Sort of.

Tarek is a drummer. He's from Syria. And as we learn further, an illegal immigrant with a deportation order shadowing his every move.

His girlfriend is from Senegal. She speaks French and Arabic and English, and like Tarek, is a Muslim and an illegal immigrant. While he's a musician, she's a jewellery maker. She makes various bracelets and necklaces and sells them in a flea market. In an interesting and telling moment, a buyer asks her where she's from. Senegal. The buyer, replies how she loves it there, she was in Cape Town last year. The inference is clear: I'm an ignorant American because...well you know why, but we didn't need the follow up comments to reiterate it. Okay. There's another beef.

I found myself liking this film a lot as Vale puts aside everything going on in his life to help Tarek, but in doing so helping himself, giving himself some meaning.

It got even better when Tarek's mother arrives on the scene. She hasn't heard from her son, doesn't know he's in jail, minutes away from being deported. She comes to what she thinks is her sons apartment and meets Vale. There's a slow dance as the two get to know each other and romance is in the air, but this isn't a Hollywood film so it doesn't end up as we might except even though we are routing for it.

I've seen Hiam in other films and she's memorable. Hard to imagine she hasn't had a bigger career. I was falling in love watching her on screen.

The film is so quiet at times, I wouldn't be hard to imagine it as Canadian film and it could have been. For this story, it may have worked better if it had been placed in Toronto.

The film is a character study about the lives of four people and how they interact. A quiet film for sure but still no great compositions in terms of filming. It's all adequate if at times going on too long.

Posted 2009/02/02 at 18h02ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Lions For Lambs. Feature film. (2007, 92 mins) IMDB

...Stating the obvious after the fact....

tried and true method of making a story more interesting is to have more than one plot line. Plot A, B and C. Many TV soaps and miniseries follow this pattern. The problem with the approach is still the same--you have to have an interesting plot A and interesting plot B and so on. Switching between them, in itself, doesn't heighten our interest. In fact there's the potential to confuse us with all the different characters. Fortunately, in LIONS FOR LAMBS, we are never confused about where we are in the story, who the characters and what is happening. For that the screenwriter et al deserve credit.

But that's what happens in this film. We meet three groups of people and flip back and forth between the three stories. They intertwine and partially come together near the end, but never in any satisfying way.

Cruise plays a young US Senator. Part of the Bush crowd. He probably wants to be president and is looking for ways to win the war on terrorism. He invites a seasoned Streep to his DC office to talk about new events in the war in Afghanistan. She's a long-time mainstream TV news reporter with a professional history with him.

While they talk, discussing the failures in the six-year old war, members of the US military in Afghanistan launch a new mission. We see briefings at a base followed with the soldiers inside a transport helicopter. They are cocky as all hell (foreshadowing their demise) and before you know it they are taking flack. So much for their mission. One soldier falls out of the open end of the aircraft. His buddy, in an irrational move, jumps out after him. They end up in a snow-covered mountain ridge with Taliban and others approaching and no rescue in sight.

Finally there is Robert Redford as a wise old professor somewhere in California. He teaches political science. It's early morning and he has asked one of his gifted students to come talk about his place in school and life.

In the past couple of weeks I've mentioned war propaganda films and they related to WWII. In those films, the message was about supporting the war and doing your part. We never saw any critical debate on the issue. It was one-sided. In this war propaganda film, we see more points of view. Neither approach is necessarily right.

The tendency with media is to report both sides of an issue. For the most part that makes sense because there are often many points of view on an issue, but some issues just aren't open to debate. This doesn't apply to the film per se, but it's an issue that must be discussed. Climate change is one such issue. There are many distracters to the notion our world is slowly warming and we are the cause. These people ignore the overwhelming evidence. There is no debate. Our climate is changing and we are the cause because of the extraction of carbon from the ground. Yet, some would have you believe otherwise. Further, some believe there should be a balance in reporting and coverage. Nonsense. We don't debate about whether our drinking water should be clean. We don't debate about whether the earth is round or that it rotates around the sun. There are certain things we know are true. We can ignore them but we can't change the facts.

Does this film fall into that mind frame? No. The facts aren't as clear and therefore the truth is not certain.

While the film is what some may call liberal, in that it questions authority, it does ask something that politicians in the US are afraid to do. What are you personally doing? In the case of Redford, he has students' ears to suggest and provoke. For Streep, it's not just quoting verbatim what the government says. In the case of two soldiers dying on an Afghan mountain, it was volunteering to join the military when they didn't have to.

The student with whom Redford talks with during the movie returns to his dorm where he crashes in front of the TV along with his classmates. The onscreen news report is part cliché and part satire. We see a coifed and attractive woman reading the news, but not news that is of importance, no, it's news about some celebrity in trouble with the law or other such non-sense. While this trash news is covered to the hilt, stories about Afghanistan scroll by in small text at the bottom of the screen. We don't need a movie to tell us the obvious, but some people think we did.

Posted 2009/02/01 at 17h39ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Deception. Feature film. (1946, 110 mins) IMDB

...Why was Bette Davis such a big star?...

hat is the deception in DECEPTION? It doesn't take long to figure out even though it's never explicitly stated. This is a film made in 1946. The Hollywood system still existed and so did the production code, but another code existed--the code of subtext to tell you A when you can't say A.

The film takes place in NYC. WWII is over, thankfully, and Karel is playing his cello in front of a small audience in a concert hall. In the back wings is Bette Davis, tears in her eyes, as she listens to the performance. Backstage we understand why. They were lovers during the war. She escaped from Europe to live in the US. He was left behind and she thought he had died. Two lovers reunite, plan to marry and do. It happens all so fast, but Davis has a history while living these past four years in the US and it forms part of her deception.

She's supposedly a poor, struggling piano player, but lives in a tony apartment with lots of furs, clothes and art. There is a certain dissonance between what she tells Karel and what he sees.

Enter Claude Rains as Alex Hollenius. He plays a wealthy and famous composer of classical music and, what is told but never said, the lover of Davis. She has been his kept lover. We see a side of Rains that is mercurial compared to his charming role in CASABLANCA or his diplomatic role in LAWARENCE OF ARABIA. He is one of my favourite actors.

With this setup, Act I is over and we spend the rest of the movie dealing with the tension between the three of them. Davis wants to hide her past. Alex wants her back and when he can't, wants revenge. Karel is a struggling artist trying to make something of himself. He falls into Alex's hands when Alex composes a cello concerto for him to play.

There are rehearsal and threats. Toying and more threats. It's tearing everyone apart. When will the truth be finally in the open? That's the question, but it doesn't happen. Davis murders Alex and makes it look like a suicide. Somehow she gets away with it, or at least, the film ends before we ever find out.

To date, I've watched several Bette Davis movies and the only one I find the least bit interesting is ALL ABOUT EVE. Maybe if I were a woman, I'd feel differently. Or perhaps, if I were watching her movies when they were released, I feel differently. I'm not sure what it is.

I've seen numerous Cary Grant movies of the same time period (e.g., HIS GAL FRIDAY, NOTORIOUS, THE PHILADELPHIA STORY) and love the movies. They are great movies. Movies I'd want to watch again. But I can't say the same about these Davis movies even though I know she was a big star in her day. One of the giants of all time if I want to believe the AFI listing of top stars.

Posted 2009/02/01 at 17h32ET in Movie Commentary. [View single entry]

Entries from February 2009

Categories

Favourite Links

Archives

Movies Watched