WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN was originally reviewed during the 2011 Stella Artois 20th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival

Imagine yourself as a parent. Now, aside from outliving your own child, imagine the worst thing that could happen. Despite all your best efforts to be a good parent, to raise your child properly, imagine your child does something horrific and unforgivable. Imagine they have done something that turns the entire community against you. Now you are as prepared as you possibly can be for watching WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, from Scottish filmmaker Lynne Ramsay, whose previous two feature films are RATCATCHER (1999) and MORVERN CALLAR (2002) and both films are extraordinary. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is the third feature film written and directed by this exciting new cinematic voice. This also happens to be her darkest film, and perhaps her best film to date.

Tilda Swinton plays Eva, a worldly free-spirited woman who suddenly finds herself settled down with her husband Franklin, played by John C. Reilly, and having a child. Eva, despite her best efforts to be the mother she’s expected to be, never wanted a child. Still, Eva tries her very best to raise her son right, but from a very early age, there’s something Eva sees in Kevin that sends chills down her spine, something only she sees, while Franklin is fully submersed in the intoxicating drug of fatherhood, blind to the warning signs.

Ramsay constructs this frighteningly all-too-familiar story with a mastery of non-linear progression. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is really Eva’s story, while her son Kevin is the film’s antagonist. This is mother versus son on a level as close to being a horror movie without being a horror movie. Eva has her flaws, both as a mother and as a human being, but Swinton gives her such authentic emotions, such conflicted motives and desires that we can’t help but fully empathize with her. It’s not just her son she must contend with, nor her community after the tragic event, but Eva’s most debilitating struggle is with herself, coping with the guilt of what has happened on her watch as a mother.

Ezra Miller plays Eva’s son Kevin as a teenager, while his various stages of youth are played by other child actors. Most notably frightening as a child is Rock Duer, who plays Kevin as a toddler. A mostly silent role, Rock will creep you out! If THE OMEN had not already been remade, I would count Rock as a shoe-in to play Damien. However, it’s Ezra Miller’s performance that stands out in defining Kevin as the troubled, enigmatic and dangerous teenager.

John C. Reilly is sort of an odd choice for this film. His character is the right fit for his style, goofy and lovable, but it often struggles to fit the dramatic mold setup in WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN, contrasting with the intensity of Swinton’s performance, but at the same time somewhat saved by Ezra Miller’s ability to shift his character’s diabolical personality with such smoothly polished seams. Regardless, Franklin is a relatively insignificant character to the story, a tool by which to strengthen the mother-son dynamic more than a central focus.

Ramsay has crafted an incredibly dark, terrifying story of the American family, while also engaging the audience is some rather black humor. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN is one of those films that makes you laugh, then immediately feel like you’ve outright sinned for laughing at what’s really a very sad, unfortunate ordeal. The film will likely shock most audiences, hopefully most audiences, but more importantly should bring Lynne Ramsay more to the forefront of American audiences as the next great female filmmaker.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

There is a reason that the CRAZY HORSE nightclub is well-known throughout the world. Beautiful girls, elaborate dance numbers, and spectacular lighting have made this spot famous. Now, you can experience the glitz and glamour without traveling to Paris.

Directed by Frederick Wiseman, CRAZY HORSE offers a behind the scenes glimpse into one of the most famous nude dance shows in the world. Open since 1951, they strive to make their show the best that they can so that they can live up to their legendary reputation. Their choreography has to be perfect, their lighting has to be exquisite, and the girls have to be in top physical condition… not only for appearance, but to be able to withstand the vigorous practice sessions.

The first thing that is apparent when the behind the scenes footage starts to roll is that the Crazy Horse is all about preparation and practice! These girls go through long, exhausting rehearsals to make sure that every move is perfectly executed. One thing that I noticed is that they make sure that the girls all tend to look a lot alike. They are all very similar in height, bone structure, and physique. It makes sense though, so that the dancers better flow together and no particular one stands out unless made to.

The main focus, however, besides the spectacular dance numbers, is the design of the show. The choreographer, as well as the people who are behind the Crazy Horse, are trying to revamp the show without interrupting the current show. Rather than close down the show for a few days, or even weeks to create their new show, it all has to be done while the current show is running. This means that tensions are high, and the days are long.

The thing that is so seductive about the Crazy Horse, is that the show is sultry and sexy without being raunchy or trashy. It’s actually rather classy. The documentary does a great job of showcasing some of their numbers. You aren’t just watching a naked girl dance, you are watching a show. The lights alone are their own show! It’s one big artistic piece designed to entice without being overly graphic. Heck, the athletic ability that these girls display during some of their acts is incredible. It reminds me a bit of Cirque du Soleil at times.

The only problem that I had with the film is that it lacks a narrative, which causes a bit of a pacing problem. The film just kind of jumps from a full performance to the middle of a meeting, or to a practice, then back to another full performance without explaining what is going on. (Not that the film is hard to follow…) These random jumps lead to a few spots where the film lags. (I know… How am I paying attention to pacing with all of these naked, beautiful girls parading around?!) That being said, the film is still rather enjoyable.

OVERALL RATING: 3.75 out of 5 stars

BIG MIRACLE is an outstanding new family film. It’s inspired by the true story of an Alaskan shore town where three whales got stuck in a pack of ice in 1988. The story begins with Adam Carlson (John Krasinski), a reporter for an Anchorage TV station who’s spending time in Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost city in the U.S. Adam has recently broken up with his Greenpeace activist girlfriend, Rachel Kramer (Drew Barrymore), so he spends much of his time watching satellite news feeds and befriending Nathan (Ahmaogak Sweeney), a young boy from the local Inupiat tribe. While filming a story about Nathan’s ice bike, Adam discovers a family of three gray whales (given the Flinstonian monikers Wilma, Fred, and Bam-Bam) that have become trapped in a small opening in the freezing ice that is preventing them from travelling five more miles to a waterway that they need to migrate and survive the winter. Adam submits his footage of their plight to his station and it soon goes viral (or as ‘viral’ as things could go in 1988 – which means lines of dialog like “Brokaw loves this sort of thing!”) Soon, the whole world is closely following the crisis, but the hole is getting smaller, the baby whale is injured, and things are looking grave for the big mammals. The village becomes a circus. Journalists compete for on-air time, campaign promises are made, deals are brokered, and local hotel and diner prices skyrocket. (The ‘carnival has come to town’ media circus that results reminded me of a Disneyfied version of Billy Wilder’s ACE IN THE HOLE).

I had low expectations going into BIG MIRACLE. The trailer made it look like Drew Barrymore was the central human character and she indeed plays the Greenpeace warrior as the sort of slightly unhinged squeaky wheel that you can’t stand being around but have to admit gets things done. She’s introduced crashing a board meeting with her screeching bullhorn but as the movie takes shape, it’s clear that she’s just one of many, many characters that will be involved in this international drama. There’s the feeble Alaska Governor (Stephen Root), at first dismissive of the whale’s dilemma but quickly convinced to do the right thing. There’s the greedy oil company exec (Ted Danson) eager to exploit the region’s resources but who recognizes a public relations coup when he sees one. There are the Inupiat tribesmen who initially want to harvest the whales but have a change of heart. In D.C., there’s outgoing President Ronald Reagan’s aide (Vinessa Shaw) who’s quick to turn the crisis to the benefit of Vice President Bush’s upcoming election, and there’s even a glimpse or two of ol’ Ronnie himself (played sorta off-screen). There’s a pair of goofy Minnesotans (James LeGros and Rob Riggle ) with FARGO accents and an unlikely ice-melting invention, a hotshot National Guard pilot (Dermot Mulroney), a take-charge Soviet ship captain (Mark Ivinur), an on-site whale authority (Tim Blake Nelson), an ambitious but blonde female reporter (Kristen Bell) with a co-worker (John Michael Higgins) desperate to upstage her, and more. It’s a big, ambitious cast of characters and it’s very clever how they manage to squeeze in a cameo by a young Sarah Palin (and no, she’s not holding a harpoon!)

There’s a lot going on with all of these characters in BIG MIRACLE and what’s most impressive is how director (and St. Louis native) Ken Kwapis deftly navigates the logistics of this huge cast spread over different parts of the globe. If this movie had been made 40 years ago, Irwin Allen might have directed it. That Kwapis masterfully turns all the moving parts into a cohesive narrative with the excitement and momentum he generates is no small miracle itself and it doesn’t hurt that he’s working with a smart script by Jack Amiel and Michael Begler. The acting is strong across the board with a standout being Ted Danson’s drill-happy ‘J.W. McGraw’. There’s a terrific early scene where he listens to his wife’s (Kathy Baker) sneaky advice on turning the crisis into his own PR advantage while claiming the idea is his own. BIG MIRACLE has a formula that’s obvious but it doesn’t go exactly where you think it will. It’s sappy and manipulative at times but it is a movie about saving whales, so attacking it for being a tad cloying would be missing the point. The sentiment runs thick and deep but it’s an intrinsic part of what BIG MIRACLE is, so check it at the door, bucko!

“You’re not as easy to hate as I thought,” Barrymore’s Greenpeacenick tells Danson’s cowboy hat near the end of BIG MIRACLE and his answer: “Neither are you”. This is the type of mawkish exchange that, in a lesser film, would result in audible eye-rolling but, thanks to Kwapis, and a strong script, it’s a perfectly fitting moment and I dare even the most jaded cynic not to shed a tear of admiration for this BIG MIRACLE. I was surprised how enjoyable I found it and I give it a very strong recommendation.

4 1/2 of 5 Stars

For many, the “superhero” genre is as worn out as an old sock, with so many comic book movies proving they are bigger on their budgets than their concepts. I am, of course speaking of the average movie-goer, not the clutch of comic book fans that frequent the film adaptations, for better or worse. On the other hand, there’s the rare film that takes the superhero genre and turns it upside-down, delivering a fresh new concept or unique spin on the oft over-blown orgies of CGI and miscast megastars we are accustomed to seeing.

On one hand, you have filmmakers like James Gunn who take the superhero genre into an extremist, even exploitative (these are compliments, folks) realm of parody and violence like with SUPER, and smaller comic books of higher quality adapted into quality films such as KICK-ASS. On the other hand, you have filmmakers who take the superhero genre and break it down into its essential parts, with only the core premise remaining, and build something new, something conceptual and less grandiose. One of the best examples is M. Night Shyamalan’s UNBREAKABLE, which gets at the core of what makes a superhero, and their super villains tick on a human level.

CHRONICLE is the newest example of such a film, written by Max Landis (the son of director John Landis) and is the feature film debut of director Josh Trank, who worked as an editor on BIG FAN, starring Patton Oswalt. The story follows three teenagers — Steve (Michael B. Jordan), Matt (Alex Russell), and Andrew (Dane DeHaan) — as they learn to adapt to life with newly acquired abilities as a result of a mysterious discovery during a late night barn rave.

The film presents itself as a found footage project, with the awkwardly anti-social Andrew choosing to record everything on a recently purchased camcorder. This approach works well enough for about the first half of the film, even though most of it is clearly of a higher production quality than would be expected from amateur found footage. This is fine, alleviating concerns that arose from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and CLOVERFIELD regarding countless reports of motion sickness.

The problem, and really the only criticism I have of CHRONICLE, is that the film doesn’t fully commit to the found footage concept. The theme is inconsistent, primarily in the third act. In hindsight, this is understandable, as the third act contains most of the large scale action and special effects, which would have been more difficult to capture as found footage. There are attempts to convey and remind the audience of this notion, but there are also ways that this could have been done better, maintaining the perspective throughout the film.

I am purposefully being vague, as not to ruin anything about the ending of CHRONICLE. If you read between the lines, you’ll no doubt figure it out, but to explain how this could have been done better would not do the viewer justice prior to seeing it themselves.

As the three teenagers secretly learn and develop their abilities together, the group dynamics between them evolves and changes, which is where CHRONICLE shines. The characters are well developed, especially Andrew, who is clearly modeled along the lines of the DONNIE DARKO personality type. The film is told from Andrew’s point of view, not just because he is usually the one recording the found footage, but also because this is primarily his story. This in turn also presents another twist in the film’s approach, as Andrew becomes what you might call the film’s antagonist. Again, read into that what you will, but this is as far as I go with explaining Andrew’s involvement.

The special effects in CHRONICLE are achieved successfully, presenting the events on screen in a believable but frugal fashion, never overdoing the scale or flashiness of the effects. One of the most enjoyable scenes involved Steve helping Andrew make an impression during the school talent show, a scene where Andrew’s abilities are put to an impressively ingenious and playful use. The tone of CHRONICLE is very much in the high school “class struggle” vein, with elements of BREAKFAST CLUB and CARRIE mixed in with the previously mentioned DONNIE DARKO, and of course wrapped up in what is essentially a superhero origin story without all the pretentious back story and excess explanations of why and how. Instead, CHRONICLE focuses on how this development affects the three teenagers in their daily lives, and in whom they become.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Although we’re still in the middle of Winter, let’s take in an old-fashioned bone-chiller, one that may have your teeth chattering before exiting into those gusts of frigid air. This is what the new spook-show THE WOMAN IN BLACK promises to deliver. Appropriately enough, this gothic creeper is the second theatrical feature to be released here in the states from the revived British fright film factory Hammer. Now while the studio might be best remembered in their late fifties to mid seventies heyday for full-blooded monsters ( vampires, zombies, and even a gorgon among many others ) this tale of ghosts seeking revenge on the living  would’ve fit the bill ( perhaps as part of one of their many double bills! ) But will today’s cinema audiences be able to immerse themselves in a haunted, desolate estate full of creaking floors, quickly melting candles, and sinister secrets after a steady diet of graphic,bloody torture and shaky, found video, inspired by ” true events “scares?

After an opening sequence of a horrific multiple-victim demise ( in broad daylight! ) we meet young barrister Arthur Kipps ( Daniel Radcliffe ) in the early years of the twentieth century. Even before he encounters the title character Arthur is haunted-by the memories of his late wife. Left with a young son, he’s floundering at a London law firm. His supervisor will give him one last chance. Travel to a remote country village and organize the papers and estate of a wealthy, recently deceased matron or be sacked. After leaving his boy with his nursemaid ( they’ll journey to the village in a few days ), Arthur boards the train and meets fellow passenger, and village elder, Sam Daily ( Ciaran Hinds ). Noticing Arthur’s newspaper turned to a notice about a spiritualist endorsed by Arthur Conan Doyle ( nice historical touch! ) Sam voices his disgust over ” superstitious nonsense “. At the village train station Sam gives Arthur a lift in his fancy new motor car ( only one in town ) and invites him to dinner on another night. This is the only friendly gesture from any of the townspeople. Arthur’s arrival at the hotel pub is reminiscent of the chilly reception Peter Cushing’s Dr.Van Helsing recieved from the locals in THE HORROR OF DRACULA ( you almost expect to see the welcome mat roll itself up ). Arthur is told that no room has been booked, but luckily the hotelier’s wife steps in to find him a spot. The next day the local barrister who had been working with the estate (  he had not impressed the home office ) tells him that all is fine and puts him a coach returning to the train station. But Arthur is not so easily brushed off, and after a bribe, the coachman takes him to the desolate estate perched on a small island in the middle of a treacherous marsh. There the determined young man unearths the tragic secrets of the house and town, and later finds himself in the path of the ebony-attired spectre of vengeance.

Like those old creep-fests on the TV late shows ( more often seen on TCM nowadays ), THE WOMAN IN BLACK oozes gothic horror atmosphere. Several scenes outside the estate engulf our hero in a pea-soup fog. Things aren’t much more pleasant inside as he must make his way through a maze of creaking corridors, endless hallways, and rooms filled with all many of odd toys and nicknacs ( lots of stuffed monkeys! ). The dark costumes help enhance the black mood of the village and its residents. It’s no wonder the shiny, new automobile is looked down upon by the locals ( an intruding reminder of the new century perhaps? ).

The film boasts a better than average cast for a ” things that go bump in the night ” film outing. Hinds ( THE DEBT ) makes for a fine, resourceful helpmate as Arthur’s only local pal, but his friendly demeanor attempts to mask his sadness. Part of that comes from the tragic past he shares with his wife played by recent Oscar nominee for ALBERT NOBBS Janet McTeer. It’s a fairly small role, but she makes quite an impact with sparse screen time. The main draw for the film ( at least according to the posters ) is the former boy wizard himself in his premiere post-Potter feature film. This may be heralded as his first real ” adult” role, but Radcliffe, even with a constant five-o’clock-shadow ( like Indiana Jones, did he forget to pack his razor? ) and guzzling cordials, has a tough time making his single, widowed father of a five year old believable. The heroic qualities he honed in his former film series do serve him well, though, in his exploration of the musty home turned crypt. Kudos to him for enduring the film’s grossest moments as he explores the tar-like depths of the marsh. Eyew!

As I stated earlier this is an old-fashioned shiver-show. The film makers aren’t re-inventing the wheel ( or the spook-fest ) here. Besides those old British shock film chestnuts, it harkens back to classics like THE UNINVITED, THE INNOCENTS, and THE HAUNTING. When Arthur spends his first night alone in the gloomy estate, I actually thought back to the Don Knotts sleepover in THE GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN ( Attaboy, Luthor! Sorry, couldn’t resist ). The effects here are mostly old-school, no bouncy CGI banshees roaming the halls. Some of it may be a bit a bit trite or telegraphed ( pesky animals popping out of the shadows ) or just too familiar, but it’s kind of nice to experience a couple of goosebumps instead of the exhaustion caused by the barrages of gore and cruelty in many current ” screamers “.  I hope the Hammer team drags us back into the fog very soon.

Overall Rating : Three and a Half Out of Five Stars

A coming-of-age story about gender identity set in those awkward prepubescent years, TOMBOY is a well-intentioned, but slight and forgettable French drama. It’s the story of 10-year-old Laure (Zoe Heran), the new kid in a small town, who with her scrawny physique and cropped hair, passes as a boy among her new peers. At first life is good for Laure, who now goes by “Mikael”. She fits in, excelling at soccer, fighting, and spitting. Her younger sister goes along with the charade, excited about having a tough and protective older “brother”. Suspicions soon arise amongst her new friends and Laure must face the consequences of her deception.

TOMBOY does not have much interesting to say about sexuality, or even about adolescence. It won the Teddy Award for the Best Gay or Lesbian film at the Berlin Film Festival yet it’s not at all about budding lesbianism. It’s more about a girl who wants to participate in  boy’s sports than it is about some sort of journey of sexual awakening into young womanhood. Laure may be somewhat androgynous in appearance but so are a lot of 10-year old girls. Most of the drama in TOMBOY comes from observing Laure/Mikael’s day-to-day struggle of maintaining the ruse to her increasingly suspicious friends, sort of like a serious and slow French version of that ’80s chestnut JUST ONE OF THE GUYS. She sculpts a penis out of Play-dough to stuff into her swimsuit and sneaks off behind a tree to pee alone when all the guys on her soccer team go on the field. There’s the predictable first kiss with local girl Lisa (Jeanne Disson) and the eventual unveiling of Laure’s secret.

Insightful and sensitive, there are things to like in TOMBOY. Zoe Heran’s lead performance is brave and real and is to be commended. She’s got a natural quiet quality that Hollywood child actors don’t seem to possess. At 80 minutes, TOMBOY is pretty to look at and not exactly dull but it never engages either. With a minimalist approach, writer-director Celine Sciamma has made an amiable but inert film with an excess of silent closeups that drag out a whole lot of nothing in a way French films are known for. If French cinema is your bag, you may dig this TOMBOY, but I can’t recommend it to the casual moviegoer.

2 1/2 of 5 Stars

TOMBOY opens in St. Louis today, January 27th, at Landmark’s Tivoli Theater

Gender disguise has been used most predominately in movies for generating laughs. As a matter of fact, the American Film Institute, in their list of the greatest movie comedies ( via their TV special ” 100 Years, 100 Laughs ” ) , had TOOTSIE as number two and SOME LIKE IT HOT as number one. Most feature men dressing up as ladies to get a job in the former and escape gangsters in the latter. Occasionally dressing in drag has been used in dramatic films as in YENTL in which a woman assumed a male persona in order to gain an education. This theme is explored in the new film ALBERT NOBBS in which the title character attempts to circumvent nineteenth century society’s rules and create a better life for his/herself. Actress Glenn Close played the title character in an off-Broadway stage production thirty years ago. Since then she’s established herself as one of the great screen stars, but bringing this story to the screen has eluded her till now. Does this tale still resonate three decades later?

The slight, quiet, soft-featured Mr. Nobbs has worked as a waiter/valet at a luxury hotel ( for many guests, it is a boarding house ) for the owner/ operator Mrs.Baker for many years. Each night Nobbs retires to his sparse, meager servant’s room in the hotel and counts his tip money. He jots down the totals in a small diary, hides his savings under a floor board, and dreams of a better life. His plans are almost sidetracked by the arrival of a house painter, Hubert. Paige ( Janet McTeer ) . MINOR SPOILER ALERT ( well if you know the actors involved, it’s not too much of a twist ). Mrs. Baker insists that Mr. Paige share a room (and bed ) with Mr. Nobbs despite Albert’s protests. His fears come to pass as Paige learns Nobbs’s secret: he is a she ( a flea had made its way under Albert’s tightly strapped corset. Nobbs is more skittish than usual around Paige over the next few days until Paige reveals that he shares the same secret. Not only that, but she’s married and has a home in the back of his wife’s seamstress shop. Nobbs is fascinated and soon visits the couple. Can they give any advice on how Albert can follow his dream of owning a tobacco shop and sharing the living quarters with a wife ( perhaps the hotel’s lovely, young blonde housekeeper Helen Dawes ( Mia Wasikowska ). VERY MINOR SPOILERS DONE!

For such an unusal premise, the film is very low-key. It’s almost a PBS or BBC-America Victorian drama ramped up with a star cast and spiced up with gender disguise. Perhaps the main problem is Hobbs. We learn little of what drove him to this subterfuge besides a vague story about being poor, orphaned, and abused as a child. For most of the time he blends into the hallways of the hotel. A great deal is made of her perusal of the young Helen, but he has no real passion for her. When she demonstrates a ” lovers’ kiss” on Nobbs, he almost has an attack. Helen ‘s just one step of the big plan for Nobbs, who seems to be more passionate about operating the tobacco shop than romance. The shallow young woman only really cares for the hotel’s bad-boy Joe ( Aaron Johnson ), who’s the robust young eye candy for the hotel’s ladies. Wasikowska is not given a chance her to flex her acting chops here as she did in JANE EYRE and THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, while Johnson is riffing on the anti-social aspects of his young John Lennon from NOWHERE BOY. Close makes for a believable, wispy, older gentleman ( although the scenes of Albert going over his plans aloud don’t translate well from stage to screen ) and has a great rapport with McTeer’s Mr. Paige. Hubert is burly, rough, and quite a flirt with the maids and hotel owner ( who reciprocate ). It’s a role requiring charm and tenderness which McTeer nails down confidently. What perhaps resonates most from the film is not the gender politics ( or the affairs and secrets of the staff ), but the treatment of the working or servant class by the upper-crusts of high society. The bullying and the verbal (and often physical ) abuse is quite startling. ALBERT NOBBS is a well made journey through this long ago era, but unfortunately like it’s title character, the film is too formal and reserved. The film is strapped down tighter than Albert’s corset.

Overall Rating: Three and a Half Out of Five Stars

I suppose we should include MAN ON A LEDGE on a short list of film titles that succinctly state the plot of a movie, as in SNAKES ON A PLANE. Ah, but like that Jackson thriller, there’s a big, back story to support that title. Snakes don’t just hop aboard flights. And fellsa don’t just go out the window of a high-rise without a reason. These films would also be modern-day “B” films ( the second, lower-budgeted half of double feature bills in Hollywood’s Golden Age ). But to be more precise I would second Entertainment Weekly’s term ” January B movie “. Not quite up to the A-list Summer or Christmas-time blockbusters or prestige films. Now many of the cast have been in the recent spectacles and box office hits, so this also harkens back to the multi-star epics ( best known by the disaster flicks of the 70′s ). I mean look at those little head shots at the bottom of the poster! I don’t mean to knock this by using the “B” movie terms. Many of those filler films turned out to be little gems and propelled their actors and film makers. Will we be looking back with affection at MAN ON A LEDGE in a few years?

The movie opens with our hero Nick Cassidy ( Sam Worthington ) checking into a fancy Big Apple hotel. After some room service he opens up the window and steps out. But he’s not threatening a swan dive onto the concrete because of depression over a failed romance or personal problems ( the subject of many an hour dramatic police TV show-and a few sitcoms ). Now, I don’t want to give away anything that’s not in the trailers or commercials, but here’s a SPOILER ALERT just to be safe. Nick’s on the run and hopes to clear his name with his high-rise stunt. He also wants to be a distraction from the break-in happening in a nearby building. He’s asks for a specific police negotiator, Lynda Mercer ( Elizabeth Banks ), who he believes maybe sympathetic. As the clock ticks on, the jumper plot and the big heist converge as all of NYC seems to stand still and watch the proceedings ( lot of folks taking long lunches there ). Can the good guys triumph? SPOILER END!

Director Asger Leth makes great use of the New York City locations, especially the blocks around the hotel. All the stuff on the ledge looks real-almost as Vertigo inducing as the big skyscraper stunts in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE : GHOST PROTOCOL. Can’t detect any green screen here. Worthington has a great nervous desperation as he tries to juggle ten different things in his mind while trying not to lose his footing. He’s got a plan, but he has to improvise quickly. Banks goes from cynicism to a reluctant believer in Nick’s plight. She’s always a strong screen presence although in her first scene she doesn’t really look like a hangover sufferer ( she looks like she’s ready for a cover photo shoot ). Jamie Bell is terrific as the novice break-in man while Genesis Rodriguez is his burglary partner/ girlfriend/ eye-candy. The many shots of her in skin-tight jumpsuits and eventually just under garments seem gratuitous in the least ( she is quite a stunner, though ). C’mon film makers, you don’t need to spice things up so obviously. Anthony Mackie has little to do as Nick’s old buddy while Ed Harris does what he can as your typical evil business guy. If he had a mustache, he’d be twirling it as he lights his massive cigar ( it’s like a less subtle Chris Cooper in THE MUPPETS ). Kyra Sedgwick mingles with crowd ( they’re the old commenting Greek chorus ), watching the high-rise action as an ethnic local TV news reporter ( Suzie Morales? ) and Ed Burns has little to do other than grimace and grumble as the first cop called to the hotel room. Everything moves at a fairly brisk clip, as several plot holes are raced over. I was, unfortunately, tipped off a few times by the casting of familiar faces in small roles. I tried to be forgiving until the last few minutes as the film veering into cartoon-like lunacy. I had to stifle ” Aw, Puh-lease!” under my breath the last big action sequence. The script could’ve used a few more passes, but the cast is strong and the stunts are engaging. If you need to get out of Winter’s chill, then there are certainly worst ways to spend two hours in a warm multiplex. It’s a shame that it’s nothing that will really stick with you.

Overall Rating : Three Out of Five Stars

RED TAILS seems to be a Hollywood war movie on its surface, but it offers much more than the expected action sequences. It’s the story of The Tuskegee Airmen, a group of black pilots who fought in World War II as part of a Fighter and Bombardment escort Group of the U.S. Army Air Corps. At the time, the American military was racially segregated and these black soldiers were subject to much discrimination, both within and outside the army. Before President Truman integrated the armed forces, black pilots were given the most rundown planes (“from Uncle Sam’s junkyard”), the fewest promotions, and the most dangerous (or boring) assignments. Despite these adversities, they trained and flew with distinction. Throughout the course of the RED TAILS they must overcome not only the racism, but also conflicts in their own trust and tragic losses amongst friends. It’s square, old-fashioned melodramatic entertainment to be dure, but is it good? Put simply, RED TAILS is worth seeing for its astonishing special effects sequences alone – the aerial battles achieved using a mixture of replica planes and seamless CGI imagery are excitingly staged and nothing short of spectacular. It’s when the film is grounded, which is way too often, that the film fumbles.
Set in Italy near the end of the war, RED TAILS focuses on a handful of the members of 332nd fighter group. Front and center are life-long friends Marty “Easy” Julian (Nate Parker), the hard-drinking squadron leader and reckless daredevil Joe “Lightning” Little played by David Oyelowo (all the flyers have nicknames). Then there’s Major Stance (Cuba Gooding Jr.) who doesn’t get to fly but does get to smoke a pipe and make a lot of motivating speeches and Colonel Bullard (Terrence Howrad) who doesn’t fly either but does get to show up his superior office (Bryan Cranston) who’s constantly expressing doubts that black (or “negro”, as they prefer to be called here) fliers are capable of operating aircrafts, following orders, or much else. The supporting cast includes Method Man as the guitar-picking pilot Sticks, Leslie Odom as Winky who has a funny voice, and Tristan Wilds as “Junior”, a baby-face pilot who hates his nickname and may or may not be ready for battle

Way too much of RED TAILS is spent on an unlikely romance between Lightning and Sophia, a gorgeous Italian resident of the picture-perfect villa near their base that develops after he spots her hanging clothes on her roof. It’s dubious that when Lightning enters a white officers’ club, he’s immediately called the ‘N-Word’, yet when he and Sophia walk in the open hand-in-hand expressing their love for each other (though they don’t speak the same language), not a head turns. This overvisited, underwritten love story is the least successful aspect of the film. Less time is given to an 11th hour subplot where Junior is shot down, captured, sent to a Nazi POW camp, digs a tunnel, and escapes, an mini-adventure given maybe five minutes of screen time.

But then the cast and the conventional, humdrum narrative isn’t the real draw of RED TAILS. The planes – and the resultant close-quarter, high-flying carnage- is the main selling point and it’s where RED TAILS soars. The myriad computer-generated dogfights are very well choreographed and rendered, and all of the tactics and flight movements seemed very realistic. I especially liked when the pilots exchanged menacing glares at the Germans, or (so it seems) one German in particular, a nasty, scarfaced devil nicknamed “Pretty Boy” (even the villains have nicknames!) who gets the films juiciest (subtitled) lines: “Show no mercy!” (yeah, that’s a problem with movie Nazis – they show too much mercy!) and my favorite: “Die, you foolish Africans!”. It’s the action scenes that have the realism and the energy that the rest of RED TAILS lacks and they are the only reason to recommend the film.

RED TAILS is produced by George Lucas’ Lucasfilms and it’s the first movie made by this studio since 1994′s RADIOLAND MURDERS which doesn’t involve either the Star Wars or Indiana Jones franchises. Lucas claims he has long tried to make this film and griped on the Daily Show that he had trouble finding a distributor because of…..(you guessed it) ….Hollywood RACISM! (this from the guy who created Jar Jar Binks). Tyler Perry or the producers of THE HELP may disagree but RED TAILS is an expensive-looking film, the story’s been filmed before(HBO’s THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN in 1995) and it’s not particularly good, so if it bombs, Hollywood will be even less likely to invest in big pictures with all-black casts. Lucas, who has pledged that this will be his last motion picture, claims “I’m making a movie about Heroes not a movie about Victims”, yet he misses the irony in portraying himself as one.

3 of 5 Stars

Two insufferable hours of sanctimonious Hollywood mush, EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE topped my “Ten Worst” of 2011 because it aimed so high and had so far to fall. It’s easy to dump on a lame comedy like JACK AND JILL, but EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE, a self-important look at one boy’s experience with the 9-11 tragedy, is a picture obviously tailor-made for Academy Award consideration, but it’s a crass sap-a-thon (or sappy crapathon) that indulges to the hilt every obnoxious feel-good quality imaginable, a saccharine nightmare that you may find yourself trapped in should you not heed my warning: ….It’s simply the worst….movie…..ever!

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE tells the story of 12-year-old Oskar Schell, whose father was killed in the 9-11 tragedy. Oskar’s Jewish jeweler dad (Tom Hanks) is shown in flashbacks trying to focus his socially-challenged son’s mind by sending him on scavenger hunts, coming up with clever oxymorons, and making up stories together of a sixth New York City borough that floated away leaving Central Park in its place. Then came the morning of 9/11/2001, or ask Oskar continually calls it: “the worst day”. He was let out of school early that day and returned to his family’s empty apartment to listen to six messages left on the answering machine – the voice of his doomed dad trapped on the 102nd floor of the World Trade Center. A year after the tragedy Oskar discovers a key hidden in a vase in an envelope labeled “Black”. Perhaps it’s the key to a black door or a black box? No, Oskar immediately determines it’s a name and decides to visit every one of the thousands of folk surnamed “Black” in the New York telephone directory. This leads to a quest across the five boroughs, visiting every address – on foot, for poor Oskar is too neurotic for public transportation – to see if they have the lock the key fits so he can receive that one last message he’s sure his dad left (I’m not sure why he didn’t just pick up the phone and call these people). So begins the kid’s journey, traipsing around New York City, knocking on doors of stranger’s homes while his mother sits at home and mopes, unaware of what her son is up to. The first “Black” he confronts is a weepy woman in mid-divorce (Viola Davis), who gives Oskar a snack and gets a kiss on her cheek. Oskar gathers the various Black’s stories and glues them along with photographs in a research journal.

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE is one of those movies where the plot is doled out incrementally. It feeds you the story like a mystery. What’s wrong with this kid? Why is he hounding these people? What’s the deal with all those flashbacks? Sadly, it seems the reason for this mystery is to disguise the fact that the story never goes anywhere interesting. At one point, Oskar is joined on his journey by an old man known as “The Renter” who is living in the nearby apartment of his paternal grandmother (Zoe Caldwell). He has a secret identity you may not guess if you sleep through the film’s first half, and is played by Max Von Sydow. The Renter is cursed with that movie construct of being mute (I’m pretty sure mutes only exists in movies – I’m 50 years old and have never actually met one) so to help communicate with the boy, he has the words Yes and No tattooed on the palms of his hands. I’m not sure why the hell he can’t just nod his head for yes or shake his head his head for no like anyone else, but then we wouldn’t get to see him dramatically raise his right hand to answer Oskar’s constant badgering  in the affirmative. He does this a lot! Then there are the scenes when the answer is No, so he forlornly looks at the boy and gravely raises his other hand. He does this a lot too before he abruptly exits the film (probably to go get his next tattoo: one that reads “Shut the Fuck Up Kid!“).

Thomas Horn plays young Oskar, who’s in every scene, and gives what may be the whiniest, most precocious and unpleasant performance by a child actor in cinema history. Horn was actually found after winning on Kid’s Jeopardy (because I guess hiring someone with actual acting experience to carry their expensive prestige production would have made too much sense), so not only is he a brat, he’s a know-it-all brat who’s constantly throwing out references to his phobias and whimsical trivia (“If the sun were to explode, you wouldn’t even know about it for eight minutes” ) like a disagreeable version of the kid from JERRY MAGUIRE. Horn knits his brow and talks at length with a voice that’s always getting increasingly shrill. The script throws out a couple of references to autism or Aspergers to try to explain away the kid’s oh-what-I-wouldn’t-give-for-a-tranquilizer-gun abrasiveness but those excuses don’t make the two hours we have to spend with him any more bearable. Actually, it looks as though the filmmakers must not think he’s irritating enough, so they hand him a tambourine to carry around throughout the film. I guess the instrument is supposed to relax him, but it makes an already insufferable character one who you just want to knock down and stomp on his neck.

Hanks does his nice guy/perfect dad shtick in a handful of flashback scenes but his absurd casting here is clearly a box-office ploy because really, when I think Jewish New York jewelry merchant I know I picture Forrest Gump (what’s next for Hanks? Fiddler on the Roof?). As Oskar’s mom, Sandra Bullock isn’t given much to do except act miserable and bitter, and who could blame her? Not only has she lost her husband, but she’s now stuck by herself raising this tambourine-toting hellion that she clearly doesn’t love and her circumstance makes you start to think her husband was the lucky one. Only John Goodman, in an amusing cameo as a gruff doorman, escapes with his dignity intact because he’s the only one who treats the kid in a realistic way (by mostly ignoring him).

Alexandre Desplat’s tinkly overburdened score swells up to make it appear as if we’re being profoundly touched but EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE comes off as trying way too hard, and thus it never gets under your skin or into your heart. If the film had been better constructed and better directed, I still doubt it would have worked. When EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE made our “Top Ten Worst” list last week here at We Are Movie Geeks, a reader comment noted that we should be “ashamed” for including it. Because of the Holocaust-like enormity of the event, must every film on the subject of 9/11 be treated with a hushed reverence? Would only a heartless cynic dump on such a good-hearted film? No, it made the list because it’s a bad movie and it really wouldn’t have changed the plot much if Oskar’s dad had been killed by a mugger or run over by a train or died of cancer, nor would the boy’s grief have been any less profound, so it’s the filmmakers who should be ashamed (assuming there’s shame to go around) of exploiting the 9-11 tragedy and using it as the background for such an appallingly manipulative tear-jerker. UNITED 93 and Oliver Stone’s WORLD TRADE CENTER were two outstanding films on the subject, but they focused on very specific events of that day. EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSED supposedly is about the bigger picture, yet it’s a movie that cravenly attempts to wring tears from scenes of a young boy’s father falling to his death from the Twin Towers. To extract meaningful drama out of mass tragedy requires skill, depth and authentic sensitivity instead of gimmicks, treacly music and an over reliance on cliches. I have nothing against sentiment, but it must be earned. EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE is ill-conceived, poorly written and badly directed drama, a muddle-headed treatment of serious issues capped with some really weird, stupefying plot twists.

(SPOILERS ALERT! The next paragraph reveals major plot points)

You may be interested in where Oskar’s quest with the key will lead but it’s never resolved. Turns out the very first Black home that Oskar visited (the one with the crying Viola Davis) was the correct one after all and when he finally goes back and confronts her husband (Jeffrey Wright), Mr. Black indeed recognizes the key. Turns out it was left to him by his father, and it may solve some mystery between that father and son, two men who we’ve never been introduced to! So Oskar hands the key over to Mr. Black, he’s on his way and that’s the end of the puzzle! Maybe something heavy is resolved for this Mr. Black, but certainly not for the audience. If that isn’t bad enough, EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE adds one final dumbfounding twist; Turns out Oskar’s mom has stumbled across his busy scrapbooks and has figured out exactly what her son has been up to all day. No responsible mother would let her son wander around New York alone going into strange homes in a fruitless search, would she? Well, this one would, but not only does she keep her discovery to herself, she too begins cruising around the city visiting all the Blacks, a step ahead of her child (I guess this is to make sure his subsequent journey is safe – I’m not sure – my shaking head was buried in my hands by this time). At one point, a dimwitted slobbery guy hugs her 14 times. This is supposed to be a heartwarming moment until you realize that she must be aware that this drooling perv will soon be embracing her little boy. What a smart, caring mother.

(END OF SPOILERS)

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE joins PATCH ADAMS, PAY IT FORWARD, and SEVEN POUNDS in a gummy helping of self-righteous drivel smothered by an overdose of sickly sentimentality – avoid like your life depended on it and if you do see it, don’t say you weren’t warned. EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE is the worst movie of this – or any -  year.

0 of 5 Stars

A compact, conclusive primer on the criminality and rise of the Nazi party, NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY, is actually a recovered documentary from 1948 written and directed by the late Stuart Schulberg (brother of Budd, the writer of ON THE WATERFRONT) that, though U.S.-sponsored, was never released in this country. Thought lost for many years, Schulberg’s daughter Sandra Schulberg and her fellow documentarian Josh Waletzky have now restored the film using a decent print that they discovered with the help of the German Bundesarchiv (Germany’s National Archive, headquartered in Berlin). Enlisting the vocal talents of actor Liev Schreiber, the narration has been re-recorded, this time in English and the result is an interesting documentary that combines footage of the trial of Hitler’s commanders who survived the war – Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Julius Streicher, etc. with a concise flashback history of the rise and fall of the Nazi Party. The result is a film that never sheds new light on the subject  but I’m sure  was quite eye-opening when it was made just three years after World War Two ended.

The Nuremberg Trials were a series of International military tribunals hosted in a World Court at the Palace of Justice in the city of Nuremberg Germany in 1946 . They were held by the conquering Allied forces of World War II, and were most famous for the prosecution of the leaders of the defeated Nazi Party. NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY covers a lot in 80 minutes, starting in 1945 with the opening statements of Justice Robert H. Jackson, was one of four lead Allied prosecutors in the Nuremberg trial. These defendants were accused of “Crimes against Peace of the World” and were considered living symbols of arrogance and cruelty. The film shows archival footage to illustrate exactly what the Nazis did, in chronological order, without much exploration of why they did it. The history lesson begins with the burning of the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament in 1933, which was the Nazi’s pretext for seizing power which they continued to do for the next decade through fraud, deceit, intimidation, and coercion. Under the Third Reich, Germany soon left the League of Nations, enacted compulsive military service, and its factories began churning out the tools of war. They eventually annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia by making their leaders offers they couldn’t refuse, making it easier to conquer Poland and set off the global conflict that would become the Second World War.

Nothing’s new in NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY, especially to WWII buffs, but it’s an informative and well-illustrated overview and the footage, especially the Holocaust atrocity stuff that dominates the second half, still packs a dramatic punch. It’s skillful in its editing, smartly jumping to the trial footage at the right moments to keep things in context. The defendants are shown smoking and some are holding their heads in their hands while the blasphemies they are accused of are read aloud including crimes involving the use of slave labor and “The Final Solution”. NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY was suppressed by our government not because Americans were too squeamish about the death camp footage but because by the time it was completed in 1948, we were enemies with the Soviets, while the film shows us still as allies. At a time when politicians were nurturing a fear of Communism, the film became a political hot potato, thus a victim of the Cold War. NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY would make a good background-providing companion piece to JUDGEMENT AT NUREMBERG, a 1961 drama starring Burt Lancaster and Spencer Tracy that was a dramatization of the later trial of some judges who used their offices to conduct Nazi sterilization and cleansing policies. While not as moving and or as affecting as some of the many Holocaust docs, NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY still drives home the horror and the justice that transpired over six decades ago, half a world away, and is recommended.

4 of 5 Stars

NUREMBERG: ITS LESSON FOR TODAY Opens today in St. Louis at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

Everybody loves a good action film, right? But, what happens when a filmmaker more known for art house films takes a stab at a more mainstream Hollywood genre? Steven Soderbergh is, if nothing else, a highly curious, even enigmatic filmmaker. The same creative vision that came up with films such as SEX, LIES AND VIDEOTAPE (1989) and SCHIZOPOLIS (1996) also created the OCEANS ELEVEN through THIRTEEN films. In between were some great films that fall somewhere between art house and mainstream, like THE LIMEY (1999), CHE: Parts 1 & 2 (2008) and the recently disturbing CONTAGION (2011).

Soderbergh’s newest undertaking is called HAYWIRE, an action-thriller written by Lem Dobbs, who also wrote THE LIMEY and DARK CITY. The film follows a young female former marine named Mallory, played by Gina Carano. While working in Barcelona for a private firm, a rescue mission goes terribly wrong and Mallory finds herself on the run from both her employers and the law as she attempts to uncover the truth of what happened and clears her name. Her immediate boss and ultimate threat is Kenneth, played by Ewan McGregor, who has an oddly youthful and off-putting charm about him in this film. The opening scene of HAYWIRE somewhat sets the mood for the film, as Mallory is sitting quietly in a café when her former teammate Aaron, played by Channing Tatum, shows up and they confront each other, revealing that HAYWIRE isn’t going to pull any punches, but it’s going to address the audience on it’s own terms.

HAYWIRE is not unlike so many other films of the genre, most notably the BOURNE trilogy, whereas a highly trained agent goes rogue after being framed and must fight his way back to freedom. The difference between that franchise and this film, however, is in its state of mind. The Bourne films were rugged, frantic and jarring, whereas HAYWIRE has a sort of poetic rhythm, a sort of jazzy cool cat ease to the way the film flows. The score, composed by David Holmes, is highly influenced by and contributes greatly to the spontaneously freeform feel of the film, which slows and mellows during the dramatic dialogue-driven scenes and then ramps itself up for the action sequences.

One of the best parts of HAYWIRE are the fights, not merely for the fights themselves, but for the intensely kinetic, superbly choreographed ballet of combat dynamics that these scenes present to an audience not normally accustomed to realistic technique. Whereas similar films have Jason Bourne fighting in a blurred, nearly incomprehensible frenzy, HAYWIRE puts the fight on display, front and center. The success of this is due in great part to Gina Carano, a professional fighter turned actress with a Muay Thai record of 12-1-1 and a mixed martial arts record of 7-1-0. Yeah, this is one attractive and highly dangerous person in real life, so imagine how she stands out on-screen.

HAYWIRE also benefits, perhaps controversially, from the cinematography, which is provided by Peter Andrews. For those of you less familiar with the filmmaker’s history and tendencies, Peter Andrews is actually Steven Soderbergh, who often serves as his own director of photography, a relatively uncommon thing amongst Hollywood films. Soderbergh has a subtle experimental eye for shooting his scenes, often going with alternative choices in angle and composition that sometimes challenge the viewer’s sense of what should be expected.

HAYWIRE actually surprised me with its unconventional flair, complete with a quality performance from Gina Carano and an original twist on the genre, something we last had with Joe Wright’s HANNA (2011). In addition to all of this, Steven Soderbergh uses his status to fill out the supporting cast with Michael Douglas, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton and Michael Fassbender, with whom Gina Carana shares an intimately brutal scene.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

PARIAH joins a long line of coming of age dramas set in New York ( in this case Brooklyn ). It deals with a young African-American woman about to finish high school and explore the world. Unlike many of these films, this protagonist is concealing her sexuality from her family and many friends. The title refers to the reaction many have gotten when they’ve come out. They’re treated as pariahs-outcast and ostracized. Writer/ director Dee Rees tells this story with great sensitivity and avoids exploitation and stereotyping.

The film follows Alike ( Adepero Oduye ) during her last few months of high school. She lives with her religious mother Audry ( Kim Wayans ), usually absent policeman father Arthur ( Charles Parnell ) and bratty, spying kid sister Sharonda ( Sahra Mellesse ). Alike is a quiet student who excels in her writing class. After school she meets up with her best pal, the hard-working, living on her own Laura  ( Pernell Walker ) and the two cruise the local underground lesbian bars and dance clubs. Laura tries to encourage the shy Alike to be more outgoing. Before the bus ride back to her family , Alike changes back into the more feminine wardrobe that her mother has given her and tries to sneak back into her bedroom. Audry suspects something, but can’t get the attention of her distracted husband. The marriage seems to be on very shaky ground. In trying to distance her from Laura, Audry encourages Alike to hang out with the daughter of church friend. Alike doesn’t have anything in common with Bina ( Aasha Davis ), but soon the women bond over music which leads to more serious shared feelings. Can she tell this to her parents without losing them, like her pal Laura did? It’s a very complicated senior year for Alike.

Dee Rees directs the drama with a steady hand and gets terrific performances from this mostly unknown cast. Oduye lights up the screen as she blossoms into a strong, young woman reeling from her first true love, but still concerned about having her secret life exposed. Walker shows the tender hurt little girl inside the tough-talking Laura. She tries to be supportive to Alike while still stinging from her family’s rejection ( a visit to her Mom is truly heartbreaking ). The big surprise her is Wayans. I didn’t realize she was Audry until the end credits rolled. After seeing her in many TV comedies over the years I was taken aback by her strong dramatic work as the uptight, sad matriarch. The location work is exceptional and the film moves at good pace. The tender intimate scenes are offset with the violent confrontations against the gay community. The final scenes may be a bit too pretentious ( flying metaphors abound ), but PARIAH is sweet drama that presents a different viewpoint of growing up today.

Overall Rating: Three and a Half Out of Five Stars

Golden Globes viewers hopefully caught George Clooney’s very witty acceptance speech for Best Actor in a Dramatic Motion Picture in THE DESCENDANTS. He singled out a couple of the other nominees and teased Michael Fassbender for baring all in SHAME. Movie goers might go to this NC-17 rated film in anticipation of a titillating bedroom romp featuring two of cinema’s most exciting young stars. But the explicit scenes lose their erotic lure fairly quickly. Sex in this story is used much as drinking was used in the Billy Wilder classic THE LOST WEEKEND. What starts as a fun and glamorous activity turns quickly into degradation and abuse. Both film’s heroes are out of control, flawed men who must hit rock bottom before they change their behavior and save their lives.

Brandon Sullivan ( Fassbender ) seems to be single thirty-something who has it all. He’s got a lush ( probably very expensive ) apartment in the heart of the Big Apple. But something’s not quite right. His answering machine ( mmm, people still have those! ) is filled with messages from frustrated dates and conquests ( as the film progresses one caller’s pleas take on many tones: angry, inquisitive, sarcastic, etc.). He does live internet sex chats and orders up call girls as you get pizza delivered. In the morning, after pleasuring himself in the shower, he downs energy drinks and drifts into his office. There his sleazy, married boss David ( James Badge Dale ) enlists Brandon as his “wing man” has they troll for women during ” happy hour “. Brandon’s lifestyle is disrupted by the arrival of his kid sister, Sissy ( Carey Mulligan ). She’s coming off another failed relationship and needs a place in NYC to crash while her singing gig at a club lasts. Her behavior is a wake-up call to him ( Sissy pleads with former beaus on the phone, just as the desperate women on his machine ), and Brandon must decide how he will live the rest of his life.

Director Steve McQueen ( no relation to the Hollywood icon ) elicits strong performances from both main actors. Mulligan’s Sissy is a battered, bruised soul. Her breathy, hesitant rendition of the old staple ” New York, New York ” expresses her longing for someone who’ll stick by her. But the film is really Brandon’s story and Fassbender exposes much more than just flesh. Brandon is a spiralling out-of-control sex addict, who slowly wakes up to see how his actions destroy himself and those all around him. He hopes that a relationship with a co-worker will put him back on the right path, but his fractured psyche will not be so easily healed. By the time we see him on an erotic bender, sex has little enjoyment, it’s almost mechanical. McQueen gives us a quiet, low-key, dimly lit Manhattan that offers all manner of temporary cures for the lonely, broken hearts. There’s no easy solutions or quick-fixes ( for that matter, we never really find out the reasons for Brandon and Sissy’s dysfunctions ) in this sad, powerful tale but like Ray Milland in THE LOST WEEKEND, Fassbender’s Brandon can hope to find the strength to battle his inner demons one day at a time. The film drags a bit in its final third, but thanks to the work of Mulligan and Fassbender, it’s worth spending an evening with this damaged duo.

Overall Rating: Four Out of Five Stars

It’s been over twenty years since Al Pacino as Michael Corleone uttered, “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in! “in THE GODFATHER PART III, but this bit of plot motivation is still a major device in most action/crime thrillers for the lead character. In the new film CONTRABAND, the guy who thinks he’s out of the life is Chris Faraday played by an actor who had a few run-ins with the law during his teen years, Mark Wahlberg. Chris had a reputation as an expert smuggler many years ago (he brags about being able to bring in a pricey sports car), but now he’s legit with a home security business, a beautiful wife, Kate (Kate Beckinsale) and two adorable young sons down in New Orleans. Uh-oh, it seems that Kate’s nere’do well kid brother Andy (Caleb Landry Jones) has decided to enter the smuggling game.

Unfortunately, he’s not as good as his brother-in-law. He’s part of the crew on a ship that’s boarded by custom authorities (they even lower down drug-sniffing dogs from a helicopter) and Andy tosses his backpack filled with cocaine over the railing into the sea. The violent, lowlife drug dealer Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi) who hired him is not so understanding once Andy and his partner are on dry land. He rams their car with his truck. Andy survives the attack and tells Chris what happened. Chris tries to cut a deal with Briggs, who insists that he be reimbursed for his lost revenue (700 grand!) otherwise the debt falls to Chris and his family.

Chris has no choice, but to go for one last big score. He contacts another runner who’s gone legit, his old pal Sebastian (Ben Foster) who suggests making a drug run to Panama. But like the Corleones, Chris wants nothing to do with that “dirty business” and hatches a plan to bring in several loads of counterfeit cash. Thanks to Sebastian’s connections Chris becomes a crew member on a cargo ship headed south (several pals are already planted on board to help along with Andy). Once they reach Panama, Andy and a couple of guys will dash over in a van, collect the funny money, and be back in an hour when the ship’s ready to leave the dock. In and out! No problems, right?! If you think that’s the case then you don’t know your movie crime capers! And of course, that mad dog Briggs and his thugs are bearing down on Sebastian and the Faraday family back in the states. Talk about getting pulled back in (and pulled in several directions)!

The world of smuggling makes an interesting new venue for the crime thriller. It’s a nice change from the bank vault or museum break-in. Unfortunately the film makes too many side trips and cuts back and forth from the Big Easy to the big ship, so the forward momentum can’t gain any speed. It’s fun to see Chris stay one step ahead of the ship’s captain (JK Simmons in full surly, grumpy J. Jonah Jamieson-mode), but quickly we’re back watching Briggs hovering near a kids soccer game. In Panama Chris and his pal are recruited by a wild-eyed crime kingpin (an under-used Diego Luna) in an armored car hit (how long before the ship leaves?). The actors do their best with this disjointed thriller.

Wahlberg commands the screen as a good man forced to do bad things (but no drug running!) who tries to survive using his skills and street smarts. You can almost hear the gears in his head grinding as he has to come up with a new escape idea. Beckinsale’s always a lovely screen presence, but she spends way too much time here being bounced around like a rag doll by the different lowlifes. Speaking of lowlifes,  Ribisi seems to be doing a riff on the growly, grizzled  creep he just played in RUM DIARY. I hope in his next role he gets to clear his throat and clean up a bit. Foster’s Sebastian may be the most complex of the bunch. He’s given up booze and crime, but seems to miss the old thrills. Ben Foster really show us this guy’s inner conflict. It’s another interesting performance by an actor who’s compiling an impressive resume. It’s just a shame they aren’t all involving ain a better thought thriller. The film’s final action climax (there’s at least two or three) is right from THE PERILS OF PAULINE. As a cinema crime caper CONTRABAND doesn’t quite deliver (or smuggle) all the goods

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

For many, including myself, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is still the crowning glory of Disney’s animated films. It marked a high point for the pairing of the studio’s great animation team with songwriters Howard Ashman and Alan Menken. The story boasted the shape and sound of a Broadway musical – which is exactly what it became several years later. Nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1991, the film won the awards for best score and best song. Re-issued in the Imax format with and extra number (“Human Again”) in 2004, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST has now received the retro-fitted 3D treatment and opens in theaters today.

The question: is it worth plunking down ten dollars or more (plus the three buck 3D surcharge) to see a movie we’ve all owned on video for years? Disney’s motivations may be somewhat less than altruistic. This is, after all, a relatively cheap way to cash in on a premade product (and they’ve taken that extra song back out!), but leave your cynicism at the door for this time the answer is a resounding yes! The joy in BEAUTY AND THE BEAST has always been the detail applied to both the animation and the characterizations with a smooth blending of early computer-enhancement and hand-drawn animation that created astonishing texture and depth. As for the 3D effects, they’re an asset, well-suited perfectly, unexpectedly so, to the animation of the original film (something I would not have said about last year’s THE LION KING 3D conversion). Purists may say the 3D effects don’t add to the experience, but even they would have to admit that they don’t detract from it.

Disney has added a gut-busting, sight-gag-jammed  cartoon to the BEAUTY AND THE BEAST re-release, “Tangled Ever After”, a six-minute sequel to TANGLED. Rapunzel’s marrying Flynn, with her horse Maximus and pet chameleon Pascal responsible for the wedding rings until disaster strikes. Chain reaction ring-tossing high-jinks outside the castle walls ensue in the short film which will have you rolling on the floor. I’m always willing to decry the wallet-busting tactics of studios who force 3D on audiences already paying too much for a movie ticket. To charge us an outrageous fee, they need to provide not just a film, but an experience. Fortunately, the 3D re-release of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST is an event that meets that standard.

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

THE IRON LADY is a biography of Margaret Thatcher,  the first woman elected prime minister of England (1979 – 1990). She led the country out of a recession, led a war in defense of the British Falkland Islands, confronted unions and the influence of the then Soviet Union which earned her the nickname of “Iron Lady”.  A staunch conservative, Ms Thatcher is one of the most divisive figures in 20th century politics and, despite her many accomplishments, despised by the feminist left.  Director Phyllida Lloyd and screenwriter Abi Morgan have made a movie about her flashback-riddled dementia while their subject is still alive, a bold move that had many of her supporters worried that, especially with the casting of Hollywood liberal Meryl Streep in the lead, would result in a blasphemous hatchet job. But the film is more admiring and considerate than I expected, hedging in its politics, but that’s part of the problem with the film. It’s not a left-wing mudslinger (or a fawning conservative glorification), but it may have been more lively if it were. Getting worked up is more fun than being bored. THE IRON LADY is a straightforward academic bio that touches all the bases of her life but is never particularly insightful or profound. Streep is amazing in the role, but she’s better than the material.

THE IRON LADY presents Margaret Thatcher in current day as an aging (she’s currently 86), lonely widow, declining in health and doddering around her London home chatting with the ghost of her late husband Dennis (a cheery Jim Broadbent). She’s tended to by her daughter Carol (Olivia Colman) and a cadre of assistants who help schedule her occasional dinner appearances and photo-ops. Her life is told through a series of flashbacks, an episodic tour of career highlights that squeezes every major event in her life into a sort of colorful montage. The best scenes are these flashbacks, with Alexandra Roach briefly playing Thatcher as a young grocer’s daughter muscling her way into the male-dominated field of politics. All the capstones of her reign are all presented; an historic miners’ strike, the Falkands war, and her kinship with Ronald Reagan. But those sequences are too brief as THE IRON LADY is always in a hurry to jump ahead to the present, frail Thatcher, as if eager to show off Streep’s startlingly life-like old-age make-up.

American filmgoers, especially younger ones with no context of this woman, simply may not find her story interesting enough to spend two hours watching her wander about confused in her nightgown and reminiscing about her life, a repetitive framing device that gets old. Streep’s portrayal of Margaret Thatcher is an example of acting at its finest. Made up to look remarkably like Ms Thatcher, Streep also has her voice and movements down to a near-science. Lest it sound like she is just doing a great impersonation instead of a full-fledged performance, it should be noted that Streep digs deep enough to uncover a flawed but dignified woman with a sympathetic soul. Despite its flaws THE IRON LADY is a worthwhile biography that deserves to be sought out if you have any interest in the last word on one of the 20th century’s most famous and influential women. The ultimate vision of Thatcher in THE IRON LADY – a vision Streep puts into a superbly rounded shape – is as a tough old broad, a warrior who’ll go to her death defending the decisions she made for the country she served.

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

You can bet that the major studios have been looking at the movie career of multimedia mogul Tyler Perry very closely. Particularly those big box office numbers. For the last few years Perry has become a major Hollywood power player with his low budget, big grossing  films. Most of these have been adaptations of his stage productions that tour the country playing for a couple of performances to very enthusiastic, mostly black audiences. Many are little morality dramas spiced up with comedy (often with Perry himself in drag as that force of nature Madea-very broad comedy) and religious lessons (with an occasional hymn or song). Now the big studios hope to tap into that market with a mix of Perry, and a dash of TV’s “American Idol” and “Glee” with a pinch or two of FOOTLOOSE. The end result is a cinematic stew called JOYFUL NOISE, which might tickle the taste buds of many moviegoers. Or not.

When the cameras dolly (wait for it!) down the streets of sleepy Pacashau, Georgia we see the results of the economic down turn with many of the main street stores boarded up and plastered with ” Going Out of Business ” signs. But things are hoppin’ at the Pacashau Divinity Church with the singin’ and testifyin’ rainbow-hued choir (no racial tensions in this peach-flavored Brigadoon) led by Bernard Sparrow (Kris Kristofferson). But before the hymn is finished (hey, before the last of the opening credits) Sparrow has taken wing. The solemn, sometimes stuffy pastor (Courtney B. Vance) passes over widow G.G. Sparrow ( Dolly Parton ) for the position of choir director and appoints Vi Rose (Queen Latifah), the first of several conflicts between the two earth mothers (kind of like Stallone and Snipes facing off in DEMOLITION MAN). Vi Rose is a hardworkin’ mom and nurse (Dad has re-upped at a military base far,far away) trying to raise two kids: her rebellious sixteen year old daughter Olivia (Keke Palmer), who’s the choir’s big voiced MVP, and her kid brother Walter (Dexter Darden), whose Asperger’s syndrome compels him to rattle off music history one-hit-wonder trivia. As if things weren’t complicated enough, G.G.’s teenage grandson Randy (Jeremy Jordan) arrives in town after his mom kicked him out of his NYC home. He’s gonna’ shake things up and make em’ kick off their Sunday shoes (Oops. Well, it does seem that he stumbled on to this set right from the FOOTLOOSE remake auditions). Randy takes an immediate interest in the choir especially Olivia (Conflict #2!) . And before you can say “Conflict #3,”  Randy (and G.G.) are pushing Vi Rose to move away from the “traditional” spirituals and get down with gospel versions of pop tunes. I mean that’s the only way they’re gonna’ make it past those pesky regionals (aren’t those “Glee” kids always worked up about them?) and head on to the national finals (cue another TV bit from “American Idol” – “Welcome to Hollywood!”). I mean the poor, out-of-work folks back in Pacashau are a countin’ on them!

The many diverse elements in this film seem to bump, and often crash, into each other making for a sloppy, disjointed wreck of a film. At times it did seem like the first season of a new musical “dramedy” TV show called “The Church Choir” all mashed up into two long hours.  Like episodic TV, besides the main leads we get the wacky choir second-stringers (one repeats everything, another believes her lovin’ is fatal- a literal killer “booty”, there’s a break-dancin’ good ole’ boy, and an Asian who talks like Jethro Bodine- it’s pure comedy gold!) The stars do their best, but are hampered by the cliche’ ridden script. It seems as though Latifah’s Vi Rose is delivering sermons to other characters rather than conversing with them. She’s constantly ’ speech-ifying’. Dolly’s still playing the sweet, feisty, down-home, trashy-dressin’ gal, but is saddled with lots of tired corn-pone idioms and adages. I couldn’t help, but be distracted and saddened by her appearance, which is referenced a few times in the dialogue (Dolly’s G.G. says, “God didn’t make plastic surgeons to starve!”). It’s a shame that actors (male and female) don’t allow themselves to age gracefully (and have a mobile face instead of a plastic kabuki-like mask). This film is the second to explore Asperger’s in the past few weeks (after EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE), but here it seems to be more of a plot device to bring the two young love birds together. Most of the time Walter wears shades (resembling Jamie Foxx in RAY) and is able to interact socially when the script needs him to do so. His confrontation with Vi Rose questioning God is, at the least,  awkward (He cries, “I don’t wanna’ be like this!” Really?). The scenes at the national finals are laughingly absurd. Sure the stage crew could completely improvise and fellow the performers! No sweat! The popularity of gospel music is deserving of a great fiction feature film since there’s been a number of great documentaries (like 1982′s SAY AMEN, SOMEBODY). Let’s hope Hollywood will produce one soon. In the meantime file this under films you can give to Grammy for her new DVD player.

Overall Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Psychoanalysis is arguably still as polarizing in today’s society as it was a century ago when Sigmund Freud first conceived it. The very idea of all human neurosis being derived from a primal sexual foundation has controversy written all over it, which is what makes it such a fitting topic for David Cronenberg. Cronenberg’s career has spanned from RABID (1977) to A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2005) and most vividly with VIDEODROME (1983) and NAKED LUNCH (1991) – all of these films have one thing in common; sexually charged, taboo subject matter.

A DANGEROUS METHOD tells the story of Carl Jung, a protégé of Freud’s, and his triangular relationship with him and patient Sabina Spielrein during the emergence of psychoanalysis. Jung and Sabina go through a sort of symbiotic metamorphosis. Cronenberg focuses on the shift in character that occurs in Jung, which occurs in conjunction with his treatment of Sabina. They’re relation begins as strictly doctor-patient but transgresses into a sexual enlightening experience for both parties, leading to events to affect the professional relationship of all three characters.

For Cronenberg, A DANGEROUS METHOD is impressively subdued. The film is far less visually graphic and the events are far more cerebral than visceral. Regardless, the thematic elements of sexual taboo, fear and perversion are still very much in play. The film is adapted from the book of the same name by John Kerr, which lends the film its historical relevance. This is most likely the primary reason for a more restrained approach, but the film still works remarkably well.

Michael Fassbender (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays Carl Jung, a highly educated and passionate follower of Freud’s theories, the first to apply these concepts in treating a patient. That patient in Sabina Spielrein, played with remarkable intensity by Keira Knightley (NEVER LET ME GO). Freud is played by Viggo Mortensen (THE ROAD). Each character carries a specific level of emotional intensity throughout the film, allowing the dialogue-driven story to convey peaks and valleys to further engage the audience. Vincent Cassel (BLACK SWAN) plays Otto Gross, a small character with a significant purpose as a catalyst for Jung’s metamorphosis. Cassel also provides the sole source of crucial comic relief as the morally uninhibited and sexually obsessed doctor turned patient in Jung’s reluctant care.

Mortensen, playing a somewhat older character, is the calming element of the triangle. Freud rarely steps away from his levelheaded, perhaps stubbornly confident roots. Freud is very much a supporting character, a vessel through which Jung and Sabina channel their destructive yet therapeutic behavior. Fassbender strips away the confidence of Jung’s youthful ambition, breaking his psyche down into its conflicting parts from which he rebuilds himself. He shows the most range within his single character. But its Keira Knightley who outdoes herself in A DANGEROUS METHOD, showing an entirely new depth to her range, an extreme not similar to but far beyond her performance in DOMINO.

Easily the most exhilarating and profound moment in A DANGEROUS METHOD is during Jung’s initial session with Sabina. The film begins with Sabina being carried, kicking and screaming, into the hospital where Jung will attempt to treat her. In this long, boldly static scene the camera remains stationary. Cronenberg composes the frame carefully, creating a geometrically aggressive shot with Sabina in the foreground and Jung seated just off to the side and behind her, just slightly out of focus as he proceeds to dissect Sabina’s condition through a series of questions. Knightley’s performance is at first intimidating, even off-putting as she virtually assaults the viewer with her interpretation of Sabina’s physically manifesting psychosis. However, after a very short period of time, as I began to be drawn into the intricacies of her acting I began to realize the brilliance of the scene. Cronenberg set up the shot, and then allowed Knightley to carry the scene and she does with spellbinding conviction.

A DANGEROUS METHOD is a sexual film, without being blatantly graphic and direct with that sexuality. Cronenberg works so comfortably within this context that it never feels awkward or forbidden, but rather like the logical progression of such relatively fringe science to the time. Psychoanalysis is a science that feels much more like an art, a curious juxtaposition that really doesn’t occur in any other branch of the sciences. Cronenberg successfully presents a portrait of two maverick minds in a way that humanizes them, instead of placing them infallibly on pedestals. A DANGEROUS METHOD suggests the human animal is not greater than its primal instincts, but has the power to accept itself for what it is and in turn discover freedom from blindly imposed sexual morals.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Since cinema began Hollywood has raided the opposite coast (the Great White Way AKA Broadway) for works to be adapted into big screen blockbusters. Of course we’ve got the old standards by Shakespeare- his plays seem to get a cinema “dusting off ” every few years. The studios seems to have had the biggest box office hits with the Broadway musical (or to be more specific, the musical comedy). Beginning in the early thirties these movie adaptations did brisk business and some garnered lots of acclaim (including such Best Picture Oscar winners as MY FAIR LADY, THE SOUND OF MUSIC, OLIVER!, and fairly recently CHICAGO). But before the movies could talk or sing several works of the “legitimate theatre” were adapted to film. Many times the original cast is recruited to preserve their stage performances (like THE MIRACLE WORKER with original stars Anne Bancroft and Patty Duke-both picked up Oscars). Most times the studios will cast established movie stars in these adaptations (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF? is a prime example). This may be the case for director Roman Polanski’s film of Yasmina Reza’s hit play “God of Carnage” (now, shortened to CARNAGE). And quite a cast of movie stars is assembled to play the two couples: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C. Reilly, and Christoph Waltz (four Oscars in that group). This play had a great Broadway run, but does it work as a film?

At the very start Polanski’s tackles one of the criticisms leveled at filmed stage works. He adds a scene outdoors that influences the adult conflicts (this helps “open-up” the play). In a long shot we observe several children (third or fourth grade) on a playground. Soon a verbal stand-down erupts into violence as one boy uses a stick to strike another boy in the face. The next scene takes place later in the home of Penelope (Foster) and Michael (Reilly), the parents of the injured lad. They’re meeting with the parents of the “stick-boy” Alan (Waltz) and Nancy (Winslet) to iron out school statements and medical bills (the boy lost two teeth!). Through the rest of the afternoon over cobbler, coffee, and scotch the friendly get-together dissolves into passive-aggressive one-upmanship, name-calling, and stress-induced nausea. Although Polanski has an end credit outdoor finale, the film suffers from stage claustrophobia. Alan and Nancy make several attempts to leave, but never let the elevator doors close. Several times I wanted to shout, “So leave already!!”. By the end we feel as trapped in this plush apartment as this foursome does. I lost track of how many times Winslet took off and the put on her gloves.

The main interest for most moviegoers will be seeing these four actors have at each other. It seems the men have a better time in it, but this may be more the fault of the play itself. Reilly is the same big, ole’ likeable bear we’ve seen  in most of his films as the bathroom fixture wholesaler Michael, who tries to follow his wife’s lead. Unfortunately there’s little sense of danger to him during some of the more heated scenes. Waltz is the standard, boorish, lawyer character who spends much of his screen time loudly talking on his cell phone (He’s taking another call! Enough!). He does get some big laughs as his no-B.S. honesty bursts through all the good-mannered correctness. I hope we’ll get to see Reilly and Waltz team up again in a future flick. Winslet has little to do besides being exasperated with her blase’ hubby and getting green around the gills. Foster may have the most thankless role as the cultured, overly sensitive Penelope who soon loses her patience and civility after trying to deal with the corporate-ladder climbing couple. After they break out the booze she becomes bug-eyed and shrill. Polanski is doing his best with the play, but the end result seems like a superstar charged PBS broadcast “night at the theaah-tre”. There’s a few laughs sprinkled sparsely throughout but not really enough to warrant being stuck in that room with these four.

Overall Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars