There's Gonna Be a Showdown

You know those people who go to the Thursday midnight showings of new movies? I became one of them last week when I went to see Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II. There were a lot of dorks there. Many in costume. Hilarious! This also marked my first time seeing a feature film in 3D. I was not impressed.** However, the movie itself, the final chapter in the Harry Potter saga, was really good. It is the perfect conclusion to a perfect story, and it does the book justice. 

Split into two parts, the first part, which came out last fall, gets us caught up with all the background and nearly 2/3 of the book. This final part gives us all the action, the final battles and showdowns. I was entertained from start to finish in a crowd of people that were just happy to be there. It's ironic that I came from Terrence Malick's Tree of Life, in a theater with maybe three other people in it, to this movie, which I viewed in a packed house with 13 other packed houses surrounding it. I criticized Malick's film for being beautiful and thoughtful without the entertainment. For this one, I can say that it was entertaining (no doubt), beautiful (for what it is), not extremely thought-provoking but thoughtful to its characters and their story. The crew I was with all had a great time. 

I have followed these movies relentlessly since reading all the books a couple years ago. It has really been great to see these actors grow with the characters, and it is impressive that they've all been able to stay with it for so long. Like the readers of J.K. Rowling's novels, you can tell that Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) have a vested interested (besides the millions they've made) in seeing this thing to the end. 

Director David Yates, who helmed the 5th, 6th, and 7th movies in the series, has really created, in these later movie versions, a true vision of Rowling's novels. They are almost exactly as I envisioned them as I read: darker, more mature. Yates is a master of special effects, and this one is his magnum opus. It is action-packed from beginning to end. And I don't even care that he and his writer (Steve Kloves) tweaked the ending battle with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) a bit. For those of you who know the books, the epilogue did not work in the movie quite as well as it does in the novel, but I'm glad they filmed it. 

It would appear that nearly everyone in America has seen this movie. It just broke the opening night and weekend box office records. For those few of you that haven't had anything to do with it. Take it from me: Read the books, then see the movies. The Harry Potter series has been an important chapter in popular culture, world culture, and entertainment, and I'm happy to be part of that. 

Note: I have to agree with many of the critics out there who nay-say about all the 3D these days. This movie does not need it, didn't utilize it to its full-extent, and the glasses were just annoying to me after awhile. I'd like to see it again in regular 2D or IMAX. 

Wrestling Between Us

What a debate I had with Amanda about this film! She absolutely hated it. To the point where she was using foul language. Indeed Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is not for everyone but for pure film fanatics. I have no doubt that it is involved in ongoing discussions amongst artsy college students like I used to be. For them, I recommend seeing it and seeing it again. It has left an impression on me, and I plan to see it at least one more time. For everyone else, it will probably just seem a frustrating mess.

There is no plot. There is haunting voice-over from the mother telling us of two ways through life: "The way of nature and the way of grace. You have to choose which one you'll follow." Then the death of the adult son of the O'Brien family and their sadness, the grown son (Sean Penn) dealing with his past as a middle-aged business man, the creation of the universe, dinosaurs, the growth of a Small Town, Texas family in the 1950s, its function and disfunction, flowing dreamscapes. We are left, in the end, to make sense of all this for ourselves. There is almost no dialogue. There are stunningly beautiful images and music that continue to haunt me, that "wrestle inside me."

Terrence Malick has only made five films since 1971. He is reclusive, never does interviews, hates the Hollywood system. The Tree of Life just took home the Palm D'or, the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. Malick didn't bother to show up for any press conferences or Q and As. In my mind, he simply wants people to see this and have it bother them, take them over, confuse them, and be captivated by its craft and beauty. As of now, this is my least favorite of his movies. It is difficult and deliberately slow, but it is fascinating. That was the one description I could mutter when I left the theater. Malick moves his camera around with both "nature" and "grace." He strings together images that seem impossible. It is beautiful to see. Many call him a poet. But where is the entertainment?...

...Which brings me back to the argument with Amanda. Movies are supposed to be entertaining escapism. To me, movies are at their best when they are not just thoughtful and beautiful but also providing a sense of entertainment. Amanda's problem, and most people's I would say, is that, in the end, Malick doesn't leave us with much to grasp onto. Nothing is resolved in an understandable way. The heart of the film (and the best part) is the story of Mr. and Mrs. O'Brien (Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain) raising their three sons from birth to adolescence. In the beginning, we find out that one of the sons dies as a young adult, but it is never made truly clear how it all turned out. This is where the frustration comes in, even for me. In the end, I was entertained only by Malick's ability to evoke beauty and nature and grace and confusion. Maybe that's enough. Amanda found no entertainment value. Neither she nor I were satisfied with its attempt to tell a story. Maybe that's the way it was meant to be.

Three Men and a Little Work Trouble

At some point earlier in the summer, I saw the trailer for Horrible Bosses. Amanda and I laughed through the entire thing. Amanda has a way about her when she laughs. I don't know what it is, but (when I hear it) I know that I can't live without her. (Yes. That was Billy Joel.) Anyway, I love to hear her laugh. And laughter is most certainly contagious. When she laughs, I laugh (usually), and when a movie makes both of us laugh to the point where our cheeks hurt, I know it's good. Horrible Bosses is one of those movies.

Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) are three best friends who love their jobs but hate their bosses. I guess that's just the nature of the beast. I've had bad bosses before, and it pretty much sucks. But I've never had a boss as bad as Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey), Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston), or Bobby Pellitt (Colin Farrell). While the three leading men work great together and are all some of the funniest actors around, it is the three bosses that make this movie a great summer comedy. They all play characters unlike any they've played before, and it is amazing to see. The first act of the movie gives all the setup with Harken the psycho bully, Pellitt the incompetent asshole who wants to "trim the fat," and Dr. Harris the sex-addict nutcase dentist who looks an awful lot like that chick from "Friends." Trust me, you will not believe what comes out of that pretty mouth.

These bosses are so awful to their employees that Nick, Dale, and Kurt conspire to have them killed. If only they were as good at this as they were at their jobs. But that is another movie entirely. This movie is relentless in its hilarity as the three dudes plot and fail and keep plotting. There are a lot of unexpected twists and turns. One of them involves an excellent cameo by Jamie Foxx as a "hit man" whose name is worth the price of a ticket.

If you're down for a good hour-and-a-half of no-holds-barred, delightfully profane, fast-paced comedy, this is the movie you'll want to see. Like the original Hangover, it is unexpected and refreshing, which is more than I can say for The Hangover, Part II. Bateman, Day, and Sudeikis share a comedic timing that (dare I say it?) is better than the Cooper, Helms, Galifianakis trio. Jason Bateman is always great and is one of my favorite comedic actors. Jason Sudeikis is on the rise, has some great one-liners, and I can't wait to see him in the final season of HBO's "Eastbound and Down." And Charlie Day (from "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia") is especially great, and I'm glad he's getting some play on the big screen. As for the bosses, you've seen them do all that Oscar-winning, romantic comedy it-girl, and epic drama stuff, now see them all doing something completely different astounding you with antics you have to see (and hear) to believe.

Pigs on the Wing

There's a shot in Alfonso Cuaron's 2006 film Children of Men that looks just like the album cover of Pink Floyd's 1977 album Animals. I'm quite sure this was no accident. As a director, Cuaron is just that good. The Floyd album is said to be based on George Orwell's Animal Farm, a critique of the decay of Britain's society. In hard times, humans resort to their most basic instincts and become, in many ways, animals. This is certainly true for the futuristic Britain in Children of Men, the most Orwellian of any movie ever made.

Set in 2027, it stars Clive Owen as Theo, a former activist who has given up fighting for peace and justice and lives a drunken life in a torn world. We are from the very first shocking scene immersed in a Great Britain of complete chaos. Furthermore, the world's major cities are being destroyed, people are revolting, the governments have finally made it from bad to worst possible, illegal immigration is more serious than any other crime, and, the kicker, no woman has given birth to a child in over 18 years. Theo is saddened, alone, and often scared. He seeks solace in the home of an old friend Jasper, an aged pot-smoking hippie played by the brilliant Sir Michael Caine. They talk about how things have deteriorated since the early 2000s, how war and hate have finally got the best of peace, and how it could be that women cannot get pregnant anymore. Then, Theo is "recruited" by his ex-wife, Julian (Julianne Moore), a leader of a "terrorist" organization bent on leading an uprising against the British government. He is tasked with the job of escorting a young woman named Kee to the coast...I can reveal no more plot.

This movie should be seen with all its surprises by ALL people. It works as a sci-fi action movie, a study of the Clive Owen character, and, most importantly, an indictment of the society we all live in now. A society that is beginning to crumble economically, that is torn by war and terrorism across the globe, and that is fearful of "illegal" immigration. Added to this, the movie is expertly made by its director, Alfonso Cuaron, a Mexican filmmaker who has literally done everything right. It is said that he made the third Harry Potter movie to be able to get financing for this one. This movie is mightily paced. It glides along, and we are captivated, oftentimes without the camera cutting. There are two action sequences composed of literally one single 4 or 5 minute shot. No fancy, fast, choppy editing. No cuts from here to there. You are literally right there in the middle of it. And it is so cool.

Perhaps the greatest thing about Children of Men is that it can appeal to anybody. There is humor, action, violence, social commentary, tragedy, hope, and love. It is a labor of love and joy for its filmmakers, despite its harsh themes. I have seen it at least half-a-dozen times and can't wait to make it a dozen and so on. It is simply one of the best movies I've seen.

What About Breakfast at Tiffany's?

Blake Edwards's 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany's is one of those that has eluded me for many years. Mom tried to get me to watch it years ago, and, at the time, just couldn't hold my attention. It still can't. I sat down to watch it earlier this week and really just found it boring. There are some really funny, classic Blake Edwards scenes, but I just found myself frustrated with it for the most part.

The beautiful Audrey Hepburn plays the classic Manic Pixie Dream Girl (see footnote*), Holly Golightly (great character name, by the way...Thanks Truman Capote!), a Southern girl turned New York socialite, who makes her bones as a sort-of escort to older wealthy men. She is, to me, a classic gold digger. A handsome young writer named Paul/Fred (George Peppard) moves into her building, and they instantly strike up a friendship. He is a sort-of gold digger himself humoring an older woman (Patricia Neal), who claims to be his decorator. There are some really great scenes between the two leads, including a date filled with things neither have done before. However, I never could get over how fickle and flighty Holly is and how Paul/Fred kept chasing after her. Having been under the spell of a Manic Pixie myself, I just ended up feeling sorry for poor Paul/Fred.

This is the iconic role for Audrey Hepburn, who, as Holly Golightly, dresses the walls of many-a girl's college dorm room. She and New York City look great in this film. And I really enjoy the presence of Audrey Hepburn. She is cute and funny and beautiful, but, in the end, I just didn't like her. All these men gush over her, but never seem to take the time to really know her. Only Paul/Fred ever really does, and he just misses getting burned. Blake Edwards's style shines in one great party scene at Holly's apartment where things escalate in the way only a great 1960s farce can do. It reminded me of the much better Edwards film The Party, starring his greatest collaborator, the late great Peter Sellers. This scene brings the most laughs the movie has to offer.

At one point, Amanda turned to ask me, "Do you think this is weird some?" I answered, "Yes." It's weird in a not good way. The subplot with her "ex-husband?" Doc Golightly (Buddy Ebsen) and her brother Fred doesn't work at all for me and comes off as strange. Audrey Hepburn is beautiful and George Peppard is handsome. They are young and like each other. Why do the unrelenting complications have to get in the way of this so much?


*Manic Pixie Dream Girl (MPDG) is a stock character in films. Film critic Nathan Rabin, who coined the term after seeing Kirsten Dunst in Elizabethtown, describes the MPDG as "that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures." MPDGs are said to help their men without pursuing their own happiness, and such characters never grow up, thus their men never grow up.

Kids with a Movie Camera

When I was about 13, I fell in love with the movies of Steven Spielberg. It was about that time that I watched Jaws for the first time and Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Those movies evoke in the viewer the joy of making movies. They play with light and shadows and create suspense and wonder. J.J. Abrams was probably a kid just like me, and like so many others, who found and were inspired by the magic of the earliest works of Spielberg.

In his third major film as a director, Super 8, J.J. Abrams (TV's "Lost", Mission Impossible III, Star Trek) brings us into a town and a time when kids still ride their bikes across town and get into trouble and make movies for fun instead of sitting there, stuck in front of a mindless TV show or video game. They are the kids who will one day be a Steven Spielberg or a J.J. Abrams. This movie, just as the trailer suggested, oozes early Spielberg. You can see it in the streaks of blue across the screen from the small town street lights, you can hear it in the realistic way the young characters (all around 12/13) talk to each other,  and you can feel it in the way the suspense builds to the finale, when we finally get a look at this other-worldly creature.

Let me go back a bit: Super 8 is centered around a kid named Joe Lamb (brilliant young actor Joel Courtney) and his father Deputy Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler of TV's "Friday Night Lights"). Joe's mother has recently died in a tragic accident at the local steel mill leaving the two guys in a difficult situation. At the beginning of the film, Joe and his buddies, recently out of school for the summer, are making a zombie movie on an old Super 8 MM movie camera. Joe's best friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) has recruited Alice (Elle Fanning), the object of their desire, to be the female lead in their movie. Late one night, while filming a scene outside a train station, they witness a horrible train wreck and then very strange things begin happening around town. Joe must come to terms with his mother's death, his strained relationship with his workaholic dad, his first big crush, the strange goings-on, and the secrets he and his friends must keep. Young Joel Courtney does an incredible job with a huge range of emotions throughout the film.

Super 8 is carried by a very young cast and very well, I might add. Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning are great young actors. I actually think Elle may surpass Dakota in acting chops. All of the young supporting characters are great as well. The young human characters are so good, in fact, that it's almost disappointing when the movie turns into a full-fledged science fiction story. The special effects are as good as they get and work well with the plot, but I, as my friend Joshua and I discussed, would've been just as happy with a story about these young characters making a zombie movie in late 1970s middle-America. My only other real criticism is that the adult characters are just not given much to do. Kyle Chandler is a fine actor, and I really would've liked more of the relationship with his son and the story behind the struggle between he and Alice's father, Louis (Ron Eldard). No matter though. Super 8 is a very entertaining movie that is paced perfectly and is filled with bits of humor and wonder and light. Just as it should be. I'm sure Mr. Spielberg, as the film's producer, was proud.

Let the Golden Age Begin

Paris is a magical city. I've never been there, but, in his new film Midnight in Paris, Woody Allen sure made me think so. It is indeed a magical film. Many have said recently that it's his best in years. It's certainly my favorite since Match Point in 2005. His movies are never really bad, but when you've made at least one movie per year since 1977 it's hard for them all to be masterpieces. This one is close. It's like Field of Dreams for English majors.

Midnight in Paris stars Owen Wilson as Gil, a self-admitted "Hollywood hack" of a screenwriter, who is on vacation in Paris with his fiance, Inez (Rachel McAdams), and her wealthy family. Gil is tired of writing crap movies and has decided to work on more serious works like the novel he is currently writing. He's a bit of a dreamer and longs for the past. He wishes he could've been around Paris in the '20s, when the finest American writers were doing their best (and worst). He wants to be impulsive and entertains the fancy of maybe even staying abroad. Inez and her family see all this as simple pipe dreams and put no faith in his idealism. Then, one night, as Gil sits, sort of drunk, on a side street in Paris, the clock strikes midnight...

I won't even begin to go into what he sees and experiences. I can only say that what ensues is one of the most delightful times I've had at the movies in a long time. The casting of Owen Wilson is perfect. He plays Gil with just the right notes of humor and boyishness and longing for a more artful life. Paris becomes his muse and his audience and his past in some very inventive and funny and magical ways, and it is a complete joy to watch. He finds the enlightenment of his late night walks immensely satisfying and, in the end, he understands how his life could be and should be. He learns how to truly love when he befriends, over the course of several of his late-night strolls, the beautiful Adriana (Marion Cotillard), and he learns how to truly be a good writer in encounters with many other assorted characters (a whole slue of great surprises).

Perhaps the best thing about Woody Allen films for me is that they feature characters that are so well-read. Midnight in Paris is certainly no exception. His characters speak at an elevated level. They really talk about things that people like me care about. I've had conversations like they do in his films. The dialogue in this film is, above all, what makes it so good. You could probably just listen to it and still find it funny and charming. The great look of Woody's magical Paris is simply an added bonus. I left Midnight in Paris with two things on my mind:  That was the best movie I've seen this year, and I can't wait to see it again.

Man! That Music Creeps Me Out!

Stanley Kubrick's 1980 film The Shining is one scary movie. And it scares you without being very violent. There is really only one murder in the film, and it's only a little bit bloody. Of course, there's that whole blood pouring out of the walls shot and some quick gory images, but... Anyway, when my students talk about "scary" movies like Saw VI and Paranormal Activity and the new PG-13 jump-fest that week, I always tell them they should see a really scary movie like The Shining.

What makes this movie scary? The Shining is scary because it is NOT about blood and guts and cheap thrills. It's about isolation and alienation and basic human fears like being locked up in a creepy old haunted hotel 30 miles from the nearest town with six feet of snow on the ground outside and no phone lines. It's about alcoholism and abuse. It's about an extremely dysfunctional family that pawns off the guise of being happy and then puts itself in a situation where it doesn't need the guise anymore. It is scary because of these things and the madness that overtakes the main character, Jack Torrance (brilliant performance from Jack Nicholson).

We know the basic story of this movie: a man, Jack Torrance, gets a job as the caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, which sits high in the Rockies and has a scary past, he has a history of alcoholism and abuse, his son is sort-of psychic and has a creepy imaginary friend, his wife (Shelley Duvall) is oblivious to almost everything but tries to be a good wife and mother, they move to the hotel and, well, things don't get better for them. The plot is really pretty simple, and Kubrick, taking the Stephen King novel as his source material, simplifies it even more. He spends a lot of time building things up, creating tension in the audience. I leaned over to Amanda at one point while we were watching and said, "I think it's great how it takes so long for something to happen. And, man, that music creeps me out."

Stanley Kubrick is largely consider one of cinema's greatest directors even though his films are mostly slow and long and usually more style than substance. He was also known for being particularly hard to work for as an actor. There are stories about how during the filming of The Shining, he would do 100+ takes of some scenes, get in shouting matches with Shelley Duvall. In fact, it took almost a year to make this movie, which is much longer than originally planned. He really knew how to get into an actor's head, which is extremely effective in the case of this film. Furthermore, Kubrick's style is really incredible. His camera is constantly moving. He uses wide-angle lenses and long shot to alienate the audience from the character, to make them seem distant and alone. The camera slowly follows behind young Danny as he cruises the hallways of the Overlook in his big wheel, and we wonder what's around the next corner. What is he going to see? Is what he sees really there? Wait...what?

Yes. All of the characters see things in this film. Very scary things. Blood, dead twin girls, a 1920s bartender name Lloyd and various past patrons of the hotel, Scatman Crothers is in it as the only trustworthy character, axes, a slimy old woman in a bath tub, etc. However, we can never be sure if these things are really there or the hallucinations of a psychopath or a tired, scared woman or the psychic visions of a little boy. Thus, we are alienated once again from the characters because not one of them is put into a position where they can be totally trusted. They are either crazy, scared, or distant, or all three.

The Shining was not very well-received by critics, but initially did pretty well with the general public. It has certainly stood the test of time and is now widely-considered one of the best horror films ever made. My Mom rented it for me when I was maybe 13-years-old, and I was literally scared to walk up the stairs to my bedroom after we watched it. For me, it is the quintessential horror movie because it is not a blood fest. It gets into your head and sticks with you. It's enigmatic and makes you think. And that damn music. Man, it's creepy!