The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters

Directed by Thor Freudenthal.

2013. Rated PG, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Logan Lerman

Alexandra Daddario

Brandon T. Jackson

Stanley Tucci

Nathan Fillion

Douglas Smith

Leven Rambin

Jake Abel

Anthony Head

Paloma Kwiatkowski

Derek Mears

Things seem to be all hunky dory at Camp Half-Blood when there are a couple of odd occurrences. Our hero, Percy Jackson (Lermer) finds out he has a half-brother who is a cyclops. Next, the mystical barrier that keeps intruders out of the camp is broken, leading to an epic battle with an angry magical (and mechanical) bull that ends with the return of a certain bad guy. Lastly, the bumbling idiots who run the place inform Percy of the prophecy that says he will either save Mount Olympus or destroy it in the attempt. The Golden Fleece seems to be the cure for all their ails. This means going on a quest to find and retrieve it, and of course, saving or destroying...yeah, that.

Once again, Percy has his trusty cohorts Grover (Jackson) and Annabeth (Daddario) in tow. The three share an easy chemistry that serves the movie well. To that mix, Tyson (Smith) the half-brother is added. The four of them provide a pleasant enough quartet. there's a little more than a hint of sexual tension between Percy and Annabeth which drives their scenes together. She also has a raging hatred of Tyson that plays into the moral of the story. There is also Grover in full Magical Negro/comic relief mode, ever ready with some silliness to keep things from getting too heavy. None of this is exceptionally good or bad. It just sort of is and helps us roll along innocuously.

The rest of the cast is a slightly better. Not surprisingly, Stanley Tucci fares best in his role as the weary Dionysus (Mr. D), an instructor at the camp. All the man wants is a drink of wine. However, his verbal taunting of the gods has cost him this small pleasure. It's not uproariously funny, but his scenes are consistently humorous. another bright spot is Derek Mears as a big, evil cyclops. He's not going into the villain hall of fame or anything, but he provides a decent counterpoint to our heroes.

Similarly to the blandness of most of the characters, the plot unfolds in not-so-thrilling fashion. It just hits all the spots it's supposed to when it's supposed to. Nothing unexpected takes place. This makes tension the biggest casualty of all the story-telling devices. We just never feel like the good guys are in any real danger. True, going into a kid-friendly adventure like this we know the good guys are going to win. However, this movie fails to ever approach making us doubt the fact. Instead of hanging on to the edge of our seats, we're more likely to be comfortably slouched against the back of them and checking our watches.

Lots of movies of this caliber, narratively, manage to save themselves with plenty of action. This one tries, it just fails miserably. The main culprit is shoddy cgi. When the mayem breaks loose, things start looking cartoonish, but not like this was done on purpose. It further adds to the sense that we have nothing to worry about in regards to the hero's well being. We're snatched from being involved in the movie, to being reminded we're watching one. No matter how many I've seen, good films draw me into the world on the screen, regardless of how far-fetched it might be. I become invested in the events playing out before me. This is more like a stranger stooping in front of your window to tie his shoe. It might be sort of interesting, but not a compelling event. Whatever fascination it may hold passes when they stand up and continue on their way. Shortly, you may forget it ever happened. Percy Jackson stoops in front of your window to tie his shoe.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Directed by Francis Lawrence.

2013. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Woody Harrelson

Donald Sutherland

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Elizabeth Banks

Jeffrey Wright

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Liam Hemsworth

Jena Malone

Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are the darlings of the twelve districts after winning the most recent Hunger Games in rather unconventional fashion. President Snow (Sutherland) is quite pissed about it. After all, it was their suddenly blooming love that forced the games to end in such an unorthodox fashion, leaving him and the Capitol looking a bit foolish. This wouldn't be quite so bad if his instincts didn't tell him, correctly, that their relationship is a fraud. He tells Katniss they better play nice for the cameras for the rest of their lives or heads will most definitely, and literally, roll. Those heads belong to her family and friends, of course. Since even that doesn't squash her defiant personality, and the people have made her a symbol of hope, President Snow changes the rules, putting her and Peeta into the next year's games. Their competition this time is made up of prior winners.

One of the things this movie does better than its predecessor is get to the point. That first flick took forever to actually get to the Hunger Games. I understand that in the first movie of a franchise, the setup typically does take longer than it does in sequels. However, in that first flick, it feels unnecessarily long. Like a dog dragging a broken leg, it limped along slowly while we watched Katniss is wardrobe, practicing, and being a talk show guest. Repeatedly. Thankfully, we spend much less time in talk show mode. Generally speaking, I love watching Stanley Tucci perform. In this series, as the host of said talk show, he's just an annoyance. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with this character. It's just not working for me.

Tucci aside, another plus for Catching Fire is the acting of its supporting cast. This more mature group gives us more interesting characters and better portrayals of them. The two standouts being Jeffrey Wright and Jena Malone. Malone gives us someone we're not sure how to take. Wright does what he normally does and disappears into his character. Another newcomer, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is his usual excellent self as the Game Master. Among the returnees, Woody Harrelson and Donald Suther land are again very fun to watch. Surprisingy, so is Elizabeth Banks, once more in full drag-queen regalia.

Unfortunately, once we get to the games, it's the stretches between action where this movie, and the series as a whole, continues to fail. These are the times when Katniss and her allies plot the next move and get to know each other a little better. It should also be the time during which the tension is building until that next burst of excitement releases it. Instead, that tension dissipates as the scenes drag on, trying and failing, to establish emotional bonds between the characters. Part of this is due to Katniss herself. We know she cares about her friends and family. However, she comes across so coldly to everyone else that no one else's plight seems to resonate with her until it becomes an imminent part of her own survival. In other words, if she doesn't really care about them until the very moment her life depends on their ability, why should we?

Finally, where the first movie positions itself as social commentary, Catching Fire seems to lack any such aspirations. This is partly due to it being the second movie of what we know will be a quadrilogy. What it is trying to say may become more transparent after subsequent installments are released. No, I didn't read the books and please, do not explain it to me. Another reason is this movie's focus on being a "bigger" movie than its predecessor. It does more, but says less. Still, it is the doing more that makes this a more enjoyable movie than its predecessor. By breezing through the setup quicker, we get a more concise effort, even though it's actually a few minutes longer than the first film. We still hit some snags, but fans of the first should be pleased.

Jack the Giant Slayer

Directed by Bryan Singer.

2013. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.

Cast:

Nicholas Hoult

Eleanor Tomlinson

Ewan McGregor

Stanley Tucci

Eddie Marsan

Ewen Bremner

Ian McShane

Christopher Fairbank

Bill Nighy

Mingus Johnston

Ralph Brown

By now, you've probably heard the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack (Hoult) is a poor farm boy and things aren't going so well. He is sent out to sell his horse so his family can buy some food. Instead of money, he swaps the animal for some supposedly magic beans which is none too pleasing to the person who sent him. Lo and behold, the beans get planted accidentally, resulting in a beanstalk that stretches to the sky. At the top of this beanstalk is a man-eating giant and a princess to save. If my memory serves correctly.

Basically the same thing happens, here. The first difference is that we're dealing with an entire race of giants. Another is that along with Jack, King Brahmwell (McShane) sends a rescue party after Isabelle (Tomlinson), the princess. Among them is his top advisor, Lord Roderick (Tucci), and his top guard Elmont (McGregor). Elmont is a faithful soldier, but Roderick wants to take over both realms as he is in possession of a magic crown enabling him to do so. Oh, almost forgot something you probably already know. Jack is falling hard for Isabelle.

There is another difference more major than any I've mentioned thus far. In this world, the magic beans and the giants are part of a famous legend on par with the boogeyman in the eyes of many. A select few, the king and Roderick for sure, know the stories to be true. This adds a misplaced and unnecessary layer of self-awareness. Instead of the tale just being, we have to hear constantly about how they all thought it was just a myth. By itself, that wouldn't be terrible, but it's talk that goes nowhere and doesn't enhance the film. It just pads the run time with more needless exposition than we already get from the rest of the movie.

Everything else that happens is paint-by-numbers. It's a fairy tale told from Prince Charming's Jack's point of view, but that's hardly enough of a change in perspective to make a difference. In fact, it's only a very slight change. Normally, these are male-centric stories told through the eyes of the damsel in distress and the wicked person who put her there. This dispenses with any faux-girly pretenses yet still gives us the same outcome. We know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen. The kids in the target audience know it, too.

What all of this menas is Jack the Giant Slayer is a movie that has its worth resting completely upon its spectacle. At being one, it's a modest success. The beanstalk itself is fabulously rendered and causes all sorts of mayhem. The giants are also pretty well done. A few of them even have personalities which helps the cause a bit. The action scenes, which almost always involve the stalk, work out solidly. Our hero, portrayed by Nicholas Hoult of Warm Bodies is rather bland, here. As the villain, Stanley Tucci is typically excellent. Neither is enough to save or sink this movie. It can only be what it is: pretty, somewhat fun, and entirely derivative.

Burlesque

Directed by Steve Antin.

2010. Rated PG-13, 119 minutes.

Cast:

Cher

Christina Aguilera

Stanley Tucci

Cam Gigandet

Eric Dane

Julianne Hough

Alan Cumming

Peter Gallagher

Kristen Bell

Glynn Turman

Terrence Jenkins

Chelsea Traille

Dainna Agron

Ali (Aguilera) flees her small hometown and dead-end job in search of fame and fortune in the big city. Once there, she stumbles into a burlesque bar owned by Tess (Cher) and just has to find a way to get on that stage. For you young’uns not sure what a burlesque bar is, I’ll (over) simplify. It’s a place where people go to watch women dance and get not quite naked. In this case, Cher has incorporated lip-syncing into all the routines and is pretty strict with the rule that no one sings live, but her. All of this is merely backdrop for the two real issues. The first, of course, is Ali's potential romance with barkeep turned roommate Jack (Gigandet). The other is that the club is going broke. You know how this works. They have x number of days to come up with x amount of money, or else.

It’s interesting that this movie uses lip-syncing as a focal point because it clearly imitates maybe a hundred musicals that came before it. Truth told, there is not one original bone in its body. Burlesque isn't just influenced by the movies of the past, it seems to have ingested them then jammed a finger down its own throat and regurgitated. We can predict the next event with alarming accuracy because we've seen this exact movie at least a few times before.

For the most part, the cast doesn't help. Cher brings the Cher persona and works just fine. Her less experienced co-star is not. Christina Aguilera isn't terrible, just boring. All that she really brings is that big voice to the numbers where she is eventually allowed to sing. Her love interest Cam Gigandet, as well as her fellow dancing girls (Kristen Bell and Julianne Hough among them) are all similarly vanilla, but don’t have any musical moments to elevate him. The one saving grace in this crowd is the remarkable Stanley Tucci. He continues to validate my belief that he’s one of the finest character actors of our time with another wonderful turn.

The scenes where girls are cavorting about on stage are truly the lifeblood of Burlesque. These, plus two other show-stopping moments make a valiant effort to save the film: the first time our heroine gets to sing and the powerful ballad Cher gets to belt out near the end. Unfortunately, they only prove to be brief reprieves from the movie trudging from one well-worn plot point to the next.

MY SCORE: 4.5/10

The Hunger Games

Directed by Gary Ross.

2012. Rated PG-13, 142 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Liam Hemsworth

Woody Harrelson

Elizabeth Banks

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Donald Sutherland

Wes Bentley

Isabelle Fuhrman

Willow Shields

Paula Malcomson

Once a year, as penance for an earlier uprising against The Capitol, each of the 12 districts in the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem is required to send one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to participate in The Hunger Games. The 24 “tributes” are shipped off to the Capitol where they’ll train for a couple weeks than head out into the forest where they will literally try to out survive each other. Yes, this means only one of them will leave these battlegrounds alive and be crowned the winner. This person will then be showered with copious amounts of fame and fortune.

The kids are chosen at their annual “Reaping.” Basically, all the adolescents have their name thrown into a bin from which two unlucky contestants are drawn. This year in District 12, barely eligible and obviously weak Primrose Everdeen (Shields) gets picked. Valiantly, her older and sturdier sister Katniss (Lawrence) volunteers to go in her place. It helps her chances that she’s an expert with a bow and arrow. She’ll be joined by Peeta (Hutcherson). No one is kind enough to volunteer for his spot. Off they go to The Capitol. Oh, I almost forgot: they travel with Effie Trinket, one of the district’s head honchos. I only mention her because she’s played by ElizabethBanks in full drag-queen regalia. Also with them is their appointed coach Haymitch Abernathy (Harrelson). He’s a past winner and obviously jaded by the experience.

We get a lengthy section on our heroine training, learning how strong some of the others are, how to play nice with the higher-ups and being introduced to the world. Sorry, I failed to mention that “The Hunger Games” are televised throughout the country. After more than sufficient build-up, we finally get to the games. Teenagers trying to kill each other ensues.

On the surface, it’s a fine movie. The setup is a bit too long as it is working really hard to make sure we like Katniss. Much of it is extraneous energy since she has us wrapped around her finger the moment she volunteers. This part of the film also makes sure we know who the favorites to win are. By default, they serve as villains. We also get to meet a few bad guys who will stay behind the scenes. This way, we’re fully vested in Katniss by the time the action begins. Like I said, it’s overdone but it’s still effective.

For some of us, there is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room: Battle Royale. For those unaware, BR is a 2000 Japanese film with pretty much the same premise. A group of ninth graders are made to go off into the woods and terminate one another until only one remains in the land of the living. The way things play out in both movies makes The Hunger Games essentially a remake, or re-imagining, with a bigger budget, more screen time for adults and far more extravagant costuming.

That said, there is a major difference between the two movies: what they choose to be a metaphor for. BR is a microcosm of the way teenagers interact with one another and of adolescence itself. The cliquish nature of high school and hyperactive teen angst take center stage. THG ignores those things as much as possible. Instead, it’s a riff on our ever-expanding fascination with and the proliferation of reality television. It takes square aim at the logical evolution of a genre in which the stakes are constantly being raised. This is a solid, though still not quite fresh, topic for people in the target audience. However, for those of us old enough to remember such films, it lacks the depth and originality of such fare as The Truman Show or The Running Man.

Taken on its own terms, THG is a solid flick with slightly more on its mind than your average popcorn flick. Still, it never gets preachy. After all, social commentary is not the main purpose here, engaging and entertaining us through a likeable protagonist is. The other purpose is precisely like almost all other big blockbuster movies: setting us up for the sequel.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Margin Call

Directed by J. C. Chandor.

2011. Rated R, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Kevin Spacey
Zachary Quinto
Simon Baker
Paul Bettany
Demi Moore
Jeremy Irons
Stanley Tucci
Penn Badgley
Aasif Mandvi
Mary McDonnell
Ashley Williams

It’s already a tough time at NBS, one of America’s largest companies. They’re laying off a sizable chunk of the risk management department at their Wall Street office. This includes department head Eric Dale (Tucci). Just to let him know they’re not screwing around, his company cell phone is shut off as he is being escorted from the building. On his out, he hands a flash drive to Peter Sullivan (Quinto), one of the young guys lucky enough to survive. It contains a project Dale was working on. He urges Peter to take a look at it and “be careful.” Talk about ominous. Peter does, finishes it up and voila! He figures out that the company’s business module is broken beyond repair and they’re going to go belly up any day now. Meetings with people all the way up the chain of command ensue.

Yes, I said meetings ensue. However, don’t get these confused with the nod inducing type you fight through at your job by taking coffee intravenously. These meetings have the gravity of deciding how to react to a world altering event. These people are literally trying to figure out whether or not a company whose collapse will have far reaching consequences can survive the next day. If so, how? How many of their own will have to be sacrificed? Is their best play an unscrupulous one? And on, and on. The weight of the world is truly on their shoulders. The tension between them is almost unbearable. Almost.

At it’s core, Margin Call is just people talking their way through a problem. Movies like this require strong acting. After all, there are no action or sex scenes to bail out the plot. The plot is all there is. The ensemble cast puts its collective best foot forward. As an admitted apologist for Kevin Spacey (Sam Rogers), I’ll have to start with him. He endows his character with such world weariness he constantly seems on the verge of checking out. In a career chock full of showy, over the top performances, this is one of his more subtle and impactful turns. Demi Moore (Sarah Robertson) is another standout. You can really see the Herculean effort it takes to restrain herself. We can tell that the words coming from her mouth are a mere fraction of what she wants to say.

There are two actors who get to cut loose. Not that either character is flashy, they just say what’s on their mind. One is Paul Bettany playing Will Emerson. He’s Sam’s right hand man. Most of his time is spent with Peter and his buddy Seth (Badgley), both subordinates of his. Therefore, he can speak freely more often. Occasionally, he even does so to a couple of his superiors. It’s a well done portrayal. The other is the great Jeremy Irons as company CEO John Tuld. He has an immense presence and as the top dog, never minces his words.

In addition to excellent acting, MC gives us a compelling story. Obviously, its heavily inspired by the events that sent the U.S. spiraling into a recession in 2007 and 2008. Indeed, NBS is loosely based on Lehman Brothers which declared bankruptcy in ‘08. It’s a story we’re familiar with. Essentially, it’s a film about the fate of its target audience. Like so many things, the strategies that will affect the 99% are begrudgingly agreed upon in boardrooms we’re not allowed to enter. This is one we get to peek into.

MY SCORE: 9/10

Captain America: The First Avenger

Directed by Joe Johnston.

2011. Rate PG-13, 124 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Evans
Hayley Atwell
Tommy Lee Jones
Hugo Weaving
Sebastian Stan
Stanley Tucci
Dominic Cooper
Toby Jones
Neal McDonough
Derek Luke
Samuel L. Jackson

To say Steve Rogers (Evans) is weak is an understatement, at least in a physical sense. Mentally, he’s uncommonly pig-headed…er…determined. It’s 1942, and he’s hell-bent on getting into the military. After all, he hates bullies and there are none bigger than Hitler and his Nazis. Unfortunately, 90 pound asthmatics get turned away from service repeatedly. As it turns out, Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci) has been watching him. The doctor thinks Steve’s qualities, both physical and mental make him the perfect candidate to be the guinea pig in an experiment to create a super soldier using a special serum the doc invented. Lest you think Rogers is the only pumped up soldier in the world, high-ranking Nazi Johann Schmidt (Weaving) had already gotten a hold of an early version of the serum. He’s also gained possession of an ancient magical thingamajig that pretty much eviscerates anything its pointed at. So there’s that to deal with.

Captain America pulls the trick lots of other comic book movies struggle with. The origin story is at least as good as what happens after our hero becomes super. Rogers is established as such an underdog and is so feisty we can’t help but root for him. He feels ripped straight from the pages of the old comics. Not from the stories themselves, mind you. He’s from that ad in the back where the weakling gets sand kicked in his face. By the way, I’d be remiss if I failed to mention that this early portion of the film contains some of the more remarkable uses of cgi. We have no problem believing Chris Evans is short and scrawny. This also aids Evans in giving one of his very best performances.

Once our guy actually becomes the hero, which takes a while after he undergoes his metamorphosis, we get the action we came for and of course, the villain we came for. In the role of the bad guy, Schmidt AKA Red Skull, Hugo Weaving delivers the goods as usual. It’s not quite the iconic work he turned in as Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy, but he has a way of making us feel uneasy without going over the top. When his true face is revealed, it does enough on its own. Wisely, he doesn’t break out in histrionics trying to act crazy. He has the confidence of a man who knows he’s frightening. He doesn’t have to prove it.

Marvel has managed to get its last few films right. This, along with Thor and Iron Man 2 before it, works as stand alone entries into the comic book giant’s film canon. They also work as catalysts for translating the idea of a Marvel universe to the big screen with this upcoming summer’s The Avengers. Before these three, each comic book movie was its own self-contained reality. Things have changed. Allowing these characters to be linked also allows for them to develop. We see Captain America do just that. Along the way there are bumps in the road. How he arrives where he does by the finale is bittersweet. It also leaves us very ready for The Avengers.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Easy A

Directed by Will Gluck.
2010. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Emma Stone
Amanda Bynes
Alyson Michalka
Thomas Haden Church
Lisa Kudrow
Stanley Tucci
Patricia Clarkson
Penn Badgley
Dan Byrd
Malcolm McDowell
Cam Gigandet

Keeping up a lie usually involves telling more lies. One mistruth simply begats the next. For most of us, this continues until the entire house of cards comes tumbling down on our own heads. Olive (Stone) is going through just such a thing.

It all starts innocently enough. She tells her best friend Rhiannon (Michalka) that she’s got a date this weekend when she really doesn’t in order to avoid going camping wither Rhi’s eccentric family. By the time Monday rolls around Rhi wants to know the juicy details of said date. Even though she’s done absolutely nothing at all since leaving school Friday afternoon, she tells Rhi that she lost her virginity to a college guy. Though said in confidence, this happens to be overheard by the wrong set of ears which, of course, share a head with the wrong set of lips. Olive suddenly finds herself to be the most scandalous girl in school. A select few know the tale to be false. However, most of these are boys who help perpetuate the myth, plus create more falsehoods. These guys are in search of changing their own rep and soon they’re lining up to pay Olive for the privilege of saying they slep with her, even though they hadn’t. As you can imagine, Olive soon comes to be viewed as the school whore.

Of course, this all coincides with Olive’s English class reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s classic novel “The Scarlet Letter.” She is inspired by the plight of Hester Prynne and embraces her new found notoriety since before she was never talked about at all. She also yearns to piss off Marianne (Bynes), the school’s “Jesus freak.” Olive not only dons progressively sluttier outfits, she adorns them with a giant red “A” just like Prynne was made to wear. Things are going great, until she realizes they really aren’t.

Brazenly, but wisely, Easy A juxtaposes itself with the Hawthorne classic. It even takes the time to note the similarities and differences for us. It goes so far as to defend not only the novel, but the original film version while throwing barbs at the much more recent cinematic attempt starring Demi Moore. The movie gets much mileage from this, even filling in the uninformed on what happens in the book nearly as much as telling its own story. This makes the correlation between the two easily accessible and not just an in-joke to those of us who actually did the reading assignment in school.

The film doesn’t hide from its other major influence, John Hughes movies of the 1980s. Olive blatantly tells us she wishes her life were helmed by the famed director. We also get plenty of references and even short glimpses of those movies. As with “The Scarlett Letter,” this aids our audience, presumably mostly made up of teens and twentysomethings, get the jokes. However, this also highlights the one major flaw I find in Easy A. Our BFFs are too good looking. Part of the charm of movies like Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles and The Breakfast Club is that stars like Molly Ringwald and Ally Sheedy looked and felt like awkward teens relegated to high school’s lower social class, unsure whether they would ever blossom into the beautiful butterflies they so longed to be. It helped they were actually teenagers. Stone did a fine job with the role. She just can’t possibly give off that type of vibe. Her age, she’s 22 may have something to do with it. The natural confidence of someone already past the painful stages is difficult to contain. In addition, Michalka (also 22) as Rhiannon looks anything but the sexually frustrated, unable to get a boy co-ed we’re told she is. Let’s be honest, if she went to almost any high school in America looking the way she does here, she’d be constantly surrounded by an ever-widening swarm of athletes, rich kids, pretty boys and local college underclassmen. Beating them back with a stick might be a literal action for her instead of just a figure of speech.

The looks of the cast aside, I find Easy A funny in enough spots and very smart. It doesn’t often cause out loud laughter, but extracts the grins and soft chuckles that come from being able to relate to what we’re seeing. It may resonate more with females because their reputations are generally touchier topics. Still, I enjoyed it and had no problem becoming vested in the fate of our hero.

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Lovely Bones

Directed by Peter Jackson.
2009. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
Cast:
Saoirse Ronan
Stanley Tucci
Mark Wahlberg
Rachel Weisz
Susan Sarandon
Michael Imperioli
Rose McIver
Reese Ritchie
Carolyn Dando
Nikki SooHoo
Christian Thomas Ashdale

Susie (Ronan) is your everyday, boy-crazy 14 year old in 1973. Well, we think she is. However, we very quickly discover she’s already been murdered. She even tells us that Mr. Harvey (Tucci) is her killer. Since we get all this information at the beginning of the picture, we know this is no ordinary murder mystery. But there is mystery. The obvious question becomes will Mr. Harvey be caught? There are other questions to be answered, as well. Mainly, how does Susie’s death affect her family. That aspect is explored in-depth. We can see how each person copes, or doesn’t cope with the situation. This includes Susie, who continually narrates to us from the other side while trying to find her way to Heaven.

Speaking of narration, I’ve never been a huge fan of it in movies. I freely admit if it is done right, it’s a great asset to a film. Here, it’s done right. The key is Susie rarely, if ever, crosses the line of giving us too much information. More importantly, she steers clear of simply recapping what we just saw or telling us what we’re about to see, for the most part. Essentially, she thinks out loud so that we see her perspective changing as we move along.

Playing the role of Susie, Ronan does an excellent job. Even though she spills the beans on the major details early, her performance conveys the idea there is much still to be discovered. As she, and we, come upon these revelations she is appropriately amazed and dismayed. While Ronan is good, there are two other performances that are simply perfect. The one you may know about is Stanley Tucci’s Oscar nominated portrayal of our villain, Mr. Harvey. It’s an amazing piece of work. Helpfully, it is a very well written character. He’s downright gentlemanly in his approach to most things. If we didn’t know any better, we’d think he was just some non-descript fellow who lives in the neighborhood, the scariest kind of boogeyman. The other great performance has flown under the radar. Susan Sarandon as the chain-smoking, and chain-drinking grandmother is absolutely fabulous. Her drunken wisdom and lack of domestic capabilities add both levity and comic relief. Sarandon strikes the perfect balance. In the process, she becomes the linchpin that keeps the family and potentially the movie from spiraling completely out of control.

There are times when the movie does indeed seem to take leave of its faculties. Most of these occur when the focus is on Samantha’s excursions in the afterlife. These portions of the film try to wow us with exoticvisuals. Instead, it takes what’s already a far-fetched premise and pushes it to the brink of total inaccessibility. There is also her constant lament of not having had a first kiss while alive. While that’s understandable from a teenage girl, the way this particular issue is resolved is a bizarre piece of b-movie madness that threatens to sink the movie. The same goes for her sister’s lame-brained effort at heroism that miraculously turns out far better, far easier than it should. Those issues aside, TLB is an excellent watch that intrigues us at almost every turn. It makes us empathize with Susie’s family. Eventually, we feel as if we lost a loved one. And though it’s not a horror film, it frightens us just enough to keep us on the edges of our seats.

MY SCORE: 8/10

Julie & Julia

Directed by Nora Ephron.
2009. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Meryl Streep
Amy Adams
Stanley Tucci
Chris Messina
Linda Emond
Helen Carey
Mary Lynn Rajskub

Plot: In 1949, Julia Child (Streep) begins the journey which will make her a giant in the cooking industry. In 2002, Julie Powell (Adams) starts a blog and challenges herself to cook every recipe in the icon’s legendary cookbook Mastering the Art of French Cooking. within 365 days. Based on two true stories.

The Good: It’s kinda hard to talk about a Meryl Streep movie and not start with her. As Child, Streep is a force of nature that simply dominates her every scene. As fine an actor as Stanley Tucci is, he plays her husband, he simply doesn’t stand a chance because he constantly shares the screen with her. She is “that” good. The movie does a nice job with the more contemporary story of Julie Powell and the strain her quest puts on her marriage. Adams and Messina make a very nice screen couple. As a pleasant surprise, it’s him we wind up rooting for.

The Bad: The telling of the two stories together rob the chronologically earlier part of any mystery. In any biopic, particularly of someone as famous as Child, there’s already an air of inevitability. That feeling is multiplies every time we switch back to Powell and continuous gushing over the icon. While the story of Julie and her husband is done well, it’s predictable. Their half of the movie feels like any number of the rom-coms we’ve already seen.

The Ugly: How Julia reacts when she learns of Julie.

Recommendation: J & J is a movie that really shouldn’t work as it’s constructed. On paper, it seems like it would be better as two separate films. However, the strength of the portrayals, not only by Streep but also by her cast-mates, makes the end result greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, if you require the slightest hint of testosterone-charged excitement to have a pleasurable viewing experience, look elsewhere.

The Opposite View: Kimberley Jones, Austin Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 7.2/10 on imdb.com (6/1/10), 75% on rottentomatoes.com, 66/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 6.5/10

The Tale of Despereaux

The Tale of Despereaux

2008. Rated G, 94 minutes.

Directors: Sam Fell, Rob Stevenhagen. Starring Matthew Broderick, Robbie Coltrane, Tracy Ullman, Dustin Hoffman, Emma Watson, Kevin Kline, William H. Macy, Stanley Tucci, Frank Langella, Richard Jenkins, Christopher Lloyd.

Plot: Despereaux (Broderick) is an outcast among other mice since he doesn't cower, scurry or show any fear at all. For this, he is banished from "Mouse World" into the sewers below. From there, he embarks on the adventure of a lifetime in hopes of saving a princess and perhaps an entire kingdom.

The Good: It trusts it's audience will stay with it when it lets up off the accelerator. So while there are scenes of silliness and action sprinkled throughout, there's ample time devoted to character development and plot building. The viewer is not rushed from one action scene to the next and we actually get to know a number of these characters. Visually, it's a wonderful piece of work. Like a lot of animated fare, it blends photo-realism with it's more cartoonish elements but it does so seemlessly.

The Bad: The tone might be a tad too serious. Young viewers weened on the all-out goofiness of many animated movies might be put off a bit. Also, If there's one character who was underdeveloped, it's the king. Having him more involved would've added another dimension, particularly if more attention were given his relationship with his daughter, Princess Pea (Emma Watson). As is, he sort of punctuates the movie. He occasionally shows up briefly to remind us he's there. Finally, I would love to have seen just how the rats got their two prisoners, especially the cat.

The Ugly: What happens to the queen.

Recommendation: It might move a bit slow for really young kids or those with short attention spans. Use Ratatouille or maybe even Wall-E as a guide. How you or your kids reacted to the non-action parts of those may provide insight into how they'll respond to Despereaux. For the rest of us, it's a pleasure to take in but admittedly not as good as the two movies I just mentioned. It's a movie in which we can actually relate to the characters having the adventure, even if they are mostly mice and rats.

The Opposite View: Avi Offer, NYC Movie Guru

What the Internet Says: 6.0/10 on imdb.com (4/15/09), 55% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10