NORM OF THE NORTH – The Review

NOTN_055

Sometimes a film critic has to throw himself or herself on a bomb for the good of the movie-going public. One such bomb is NORM OF THE NORTH. I see these movies so you don’t have to.

NORM OF THE NORTH is an animated movie about a polar bear that has to go to New York to save his Arctic home. What could go wrong with that kids’ movie premise? Well, in the case of “Norm of the North,” everything. What is the threat that Norm and his little lemming buddies want to save their home from – climate change? oil drilling? No, it is a housing development. Yeah, this Arctic is threatened with gentrification, at the hands of a billionaire developer named Mr. Greene (wink, wink).

Yep, that is about as funny as this film gets.

Norm (voiced by Rob Schneider) is a clumsy polar bear who is object of ridicule among the residents – caribou, orcas, seals, lemmings, other polar bears – in his frozen Arctic seaside home. He is not only a bad hunter but it too soft-hearted to actually eat the few seals he does catch (what he does live on we never learn). The Arctic animals seem to spend their days waiting for tourist ships to show up, so they can put on a show for them. Really – show-biz singing and dancing with costumes and a few Sea World type stunts. It seems pretty strange but to these characters, it is normal. However, Norm is not fond of the tourists and does not think they belong in the Arctic. Still, Norm has a knack for dancing, which he uses to entertain his family, and another, unwanted gift – he can speak “human.” This ability to talk to people is a quirk he shares with his beloved Grandpa (voice of Colm Meaney), who thinks Norm could become the King of the North.

One day, something new shows up on the ice – a house – along with a real estate marketing director named Vera (Heather Graham) and a crew to shoot a commercial for the new development from Greene Homes. The plan is to sell luxury condos in the Arctic. Norm worries that the Arctic home will suffer to same fate as his flamingo friend’s in Florida – first tourists, then year-round homes. He determines to go to New York, along with his durable lemming friends, to stop real estate developer Mr. Greene’s (Ken Jeong) nefarious plan to turn the Arctic into the next Florida.

Turning the Arctic into the next Florida is a kind-of back door climate change reference but not one children are going to get. I guess one has to give the creators of this animated mess some credit for coming up with the weirdest premise ever.  Unfortunately, the creativity pretty much stops there. Story and character elements of other kids’ movies are recycled, including bits of “The Lion King” and “Happy Feet.” The animation is lackluster at best. Even worse, “Norm of the North” is not even funny.

Most of the movie is pretty serious about its absurd “save our home” premise. What little humor it has hardly brings a chuckle – mostly fart, poop and pee jokes, some lame jokes for parents, and jabs the villainous Mr. Greene. Greene is a big ego who sports a pony-tail, wears ’70s clothes, and decorates his fancy office with Asian themes, practicing meditation while abusing his employees. At one point, there is even a throwaway line about a one-dimensional villain – that is about as funny as it gets. The writers use their Arctic location for set jokes about Sea World, tourists, card-playing caribou, movie directors and real estate – jokes so weak one hardly cracks a smile – then move the story to New York, where they miss all chances for any fish-out-of-water humor based on the idea of a polar bear in New York.

It is no wonder the studio dumped this smelly kettle of fish of a movie in the January doldrums, The question is why it did not go straight to video. One can guess that the creators of this frozen mess were trolling for some unsuspecting parents who are fishing for a family movie in this month’s sea of grown-up Oscar-hopeful films. Don’t take the bait.

NORM OF THE NORTH opens in theaters on Friday, January 15, 2016.

OVERALL RATING:  1 OUT OF 5 STARS

Final Poster

LAMB – The Review

lamb_still

A character acknowledging that it’s weird doesn’t make it any less weird. A 47 yr old man and an 11 yr old girl form a relationship, and yes, it is weird. He then takes her to a hotel room. And from there he even takes her to a secluded cabin in the woods. However, LAMB seems intent to look at these situations with unbiased eyes. This adaptation of Bonnie Nadzam’s novel aims to present a challenging film that confronts viewers with an unorthodox relationship that takes a turn into dangerous territory. But for many people (including myself), it won’t be a challenge to feel uncomfortable about this relationship.

David Lamb (Ross Partridge) is struggling to cope with the death of his father and an ongoing divorce. He finds a form of peace when Tommie (Oona Laurence) walks into his life. Tommie is an eleven year old girl who, on a dare from her bratty friends, goes up to David and asks for a cigarette. After a conversation, he decides he should teach her friends a lesson by “scaring them” and pretending to kidnap Tommie. The young girl goes back to her poverty-stricken life with her detached parents later that night, but the two maintain a friendship. Their relationship takes a dark turn when David takes Tommie for a week to his father’s old cabin without her parents knowledge.

The film tries to make the male lead seem like he’s level-headed. We are meant to sympathize with him because the director (also Patridge) never shows him do anything “wrong.” Yes, he coaxes an impressionable young girl to leave her family on a whim, but it is staged as a way to provide guidance to someone he sees as being wayward or lost in the world. If he really wanted to help her and teach her lessons about life – if he really did care about her – he would realize he ruined her life. That she’s going to be mentally traumatized for the rest of her life.

The only thing challenging about the film is the performance from its star/director. It’s not an easy feat to lend a sense of humanity to a role like this. Not excusing his actions, but Partridge gives David inner turmoil that is burning inside him. Laurence is equally as strong. If it wasn’t for their two performances, I’m not sure the film would carry the weight that it does. Not to mention, the creepy factor might have been raised exponentially if it wasn’t for their calm and calculated performances.

Once their friendship progresses, she starts to question what is going on.“Maybe this should be our last outing for awhile.” Tommie responds in her naive but insightful way: “Why is that? Because it’s weird.” It’s during their car ride to the cabin in the Rockies that she becomes even more cognizant. Tommie pines to reach out to her family and even has a crying spell at a gas stations that garners the attention from a concerned stranger. But David tries to calm her in a dismissing way. “Have you ever seen a place so beautiful?” He asks as a means to distract her. Situations like this and David’s constant redirection when things go awry turn the story away from any hint of a father and daughter fantasy – which seems to be hinted at through his lectures to her about the world. Sure, he says he’s there to protect her, but when protection is forced and manipulative,  it’s not necessarily for the good of the person you are protecting.

It’s weird to think about the purpose of the film. At times, it seems to be making a statement about how “normal” a very, very abnormal situation can be when taken out of the constraints of the city and let loose in nature without social norms. We aren’t necessarily supposed to accept this kind of relationship, but I think we’re supposed to understand how it can happen. I have a feeling I won’t be the only one who struggles with the implications of a wolf showing love to a lamb.

 

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

LAMB opens in St. Louis on January 15

lamb-poster

13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI – The Review

13hours

Time once again for the movies to deploy into a true “hot spot” for another “ripped from the headlines”, “inspired by true events” Middle East military thriller (perhaps it was the Best Picture Oscar winner of 2008, THE HURT LOCKER, that spurred this trend). It seems that for the past several years, around this same time, multiplexes have presented these current conflict action epics. Last January AMERICAN SNIPER, opening wide after a limited pre-holiday release, was a huge box office hit, more so than the previous year’s LONE SURVIVOR. This new film harkens back to 2012’s ZERO DARK THIRTY in that it dramatizes an event that made headlines (eventually becoming a political “hot button”). And like ZERO we know how this ended, but do we really know how it began? And more importantly, do we know about the real life heroes involved? So, is Kathryn Bigelow or Clint Eastwood helming this true tale? Surprisingly the story is directed by a most unlikely film maker, Michael Bay. That’s the “in your face” movie “bad boy” who gave us three Transformer flicks and, yes, the two BAD BOYS “shoot-em-ups”. Can the blockbuster “popcorn king” do justice to the noble warriors who endured 13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI.

The film begins its march with a brief primer of news events from the last decade or so (using a mix of real footage and recreations). We’re reminded of the revolution in Libya that toppled Gadhafi in 2011 and how the different local militias scooped up their former’s ruler’s massive arsenal of weapons. Libya was so full of unrest that nations from around the globe closed and abandoned their embassies. Everyone…except the United States. The embassy in Benghazi (another was in Tripoli) took over a plush, heavily fortified mansion. But there was also a covert CIA base operating out of a walled compound, protected by ex-soldiers designated as the GRS (Global Response Staff). The story jumps to late Summer of 2012 as  new hire Jack Silva (John Krasinski) is picked up at the Benghazi airport by old pal ‘Rone’ Woods (James Badge Dale). Immediately they are facing down radicals blocking the streets. After finally arriving at the CIA complex, Jack meets the other members of the GRS team: ‘Tanto’ Paronto (Pablo Schrieber), ‘Boon’ Benton (David Denman), ‘Tig’ Tiegan (Dominic Furmusa), and ‘Oz’ Giest (Max Martini) along with the tightly-wound, officious CIA supervisor Bob (David Costabile). For the next few weeks the GRS accompanies the covert operatives as they try to collect intel on arms merchants, often barely escaping attacks by the city’s “hostiles”. The men also get a tour of the US embassy and are dismayed by the lack of security (just a few armed men backed by paid locals at the gate). Word comes down that a special guest will be there shortly, US Ambassador Chris Stevens (Matt Letscher), As September 11 nears, tensions mount, and Stevens makes headlines while meeting with Libyan politicos. During that the last hours of that fateful day, heavily armed groups suddenly surround the embassy and swarm through the gates. Jack and Rone observe the firefight from the CIA complex and gear up, but Bob insists that they must not engage the militia. But these men will never just watch as Americans are in danger. Throughout the night these warriors face unending streams of attackers as they try to protect the staff and see the dawn of a new day.

The usually bombastic Mr. Bay gives way to a more focused, but still very confident film maker and story-teller. The fast paced editing style is still there with several “on the fly” style video/camcorder inserts balanced with lots of green-tinted “night vision” shots all employed to put us right into the action and deadly danger. From the opening airport sequence Bay fills the scene with sweaty tension as Jack almost walks about the alien streets  as if adorned with a massive target tattooed on his forehead. We can almost feel the sweltering, oppressive heat as he grapples not only with the language, but with the different factions of the population. Are they truly “friendlies” or are they just putting on an “act”, smiling as the bring out the knife or, more likely, the rocket launcher? The sense of impending doom surrounding that fateful night oozes out of the screen. Once the fighting begins, the attackers strike like a tidal wave with the GRS barely regrouping after one assault before another begins. Oddly, part of the CIA complex is referred to as “zombieland”, echoing the endless, never retreating horror film staples. And other bits of cinema history are invoked with Rone remembering the Alamo while RIO BRAVO or ZULU may be recalled by film fanatics. But with all the mayhem and chaos, Bay guides us to all that’s important to tell the tale, actually showing us a new level of maturity in his work.

Screenwriter Chuck Hogan (co-creator of “the Strain”) in adapting Mitchell Zuckoff’s book “13 Hours” avoids many “boys in the barracks” clichés while still conveying the sense of brotherhood between the men. It helps that a talented cast makes these “reg’lar fellas” every bit the equal to any Marvel superhero. The real stunner may be the assured dramatic work from Krasinski, best known for light comedy (a long stint as the heart throb of TV’s “The Office”). He shows us that Jack will not give into desperate panic when staring down a gun barrel or drown in despair as he can only see his wife and daughters through the laptop screen. Dale as his best bud Rone burns with an inner fire, a fire that rages as he yearns to help his fellow Americans. You know that the excellent Costabile as the ultimate “by the book” boss (a lethally dangerous take of Michael Scott, John K’s TV boss) will not stop him, try as he might. All the GRS actors help us feel the fatigue and exhaustion as they plow through the fear and plot out new defense strategies very quickly, all while bullets and bombs zip past. These actors along with the entire crew headed by Bay honor these men with this work so that their bravery will not remain a secret forever. Despite the politics swirling about the subject, 13 HOURS is a brutal, grueling, and ultimately inspiring true story of courage and determination.

4 Out of 5

 

13Hoursposter

RIDE ALONG 2 – The Review

ride-along-2_nws2

If you enjoyed RIDE ALONG, you’ll like RIDE ALONG 2 – it’s as simple as that. Fast-talking stand-up Kevin Hart and gruff straight man Ice Cube bicker like an old couple all the way to the bank as they play off each other’s delivery styles to lively effect, but this weak follow-up to the 2014 hit is basically a series of disposable action sequences loosely connected by the presence of its two stars. What you saw in the predecessor and see in RIDE ALONG 2’s trailers is what you get: plenty of routine action, lots of Kevin Hart sass, and not much else.

RIDE ALONG 2 is pretty much on par with the original in terms of plot. Atlanta cops James Payton (Ice Cube) and his future brother-in-law Ben barber (Hart) travel to Miami, where they team up with a computer hacker (Ken Jeong) and a sexy-but-tough detective (Olivia Munn) to take down corrupt politicians and a drug kingpin (Benjamin Bratt).

Like our two loose cannons with badges, the movie misses its target far more often than it hits it but RIDE ALONG 2 is careful not to stray too far from safe ground. Hart and Cube have an easy rapport, and luckily the filmmakers have found a decent foil for both of them in the spunky persona of Ken Jeong who gives a terrific comic performance that really gooses the proceedings, but even he can’t get Rush Hour 2 out of the sequelitis quagmire. While the usual arc of the straight man in these buddy cop comedies is to eventually lighten up, Ice Cube just seems annoyed from beginning to end. Olivia Munn is easy on the eyes and I liked that she arrives at crime scenes in her sports bra, while Benjamin Bratt displays about as much menace as a Scooby Doo villain.

I enjoyed an early scene where Hart is playing ‘Grand Theft Auto’ and gets whacked by an old white lady and later on when he envisions he’s in the game during a car chase complete with GTA interface. It’s the only ambitious gag and it’s well done.  My problem with the film is that the banter between Hart and Cube lacks spirit and even the action scenes feel stale and lethargic. It’s basically a series of shootouts, nightclub bromancing, loud music, and car chases that climaxes at one of those big ship container yards with loads of gunplay and exploding barrels. Motor-mouthed Hart works hard to keep the energy levels high and there are intermittent guffaws, but no matter how many times he shouts “We’re the Brothers-in-Law!” charm is in short supply as the script focuses too much on the recycled action-movie plot instead of on verbal interplay between the two leads.

RIDE ALONG 2 isn’t very good but it’s also no chore to watch. Director Tim Story keeps things moving at too brisk a clip to be truly boring and the Miami locations provide for plenty of fine, bikini-bottomed eye candy including an eye-popping sequence set at ‘Beach Kitten Inc.’, a high-end swimsuit shop. You may not get your money’s worth with RIDE ALONG 2, but you can’t say you don’t get what you asked for.

2 of 5 Stars

Ride-Along-2-Poster-900x1426

ANOMALISA – The Review

Anomalisa

So, you’ve enjoyed most of last year’s animated feature films? Yes, 2015 was a pretty good year, but doesn’t match up to the gold standard of 1999 (TOY STORY 2, THE IRON GIANT, DISNEY’S TARZAN, and SOUTH PARK: BIGGER LONGER & UNCUT). Still Pixar had its best work in years with INSIDE OUT and that SHAUN THE SHEEP was a loving tribute to classic silent comedies, but the other major hits like MINIONS and THE GOOD DINOSAUR were geared toward the small fry (not that OUT and THE PEANUTS MOVIE didn’t appeal to all ages). For this new film, definitely leave the kiddos at home. Yes we did have an “R” rated animated film last year with HELL AND BACK, but that flick was chocked full of sophomoric sex jokes and “gross-out” gags. This holdover from ’15 (now getting a wide release) is truly adult in subject matter and graphics, understandable since the story springs from the mind of celebrated screenwriter Charlie Kaufman. Really, the same fella’ that gave us BEING JOHN MALKOVICH and ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND wrote and co-directed (along with Duke Johnson) one of the most off-beat, original animated motion pictures ever, the unforgettable ANOMALISA. Oh, and don’t worry, the unusual title is explained.

This modern fable begins on an airliner descending into Cincinnati, Ohio circa 2005. We zoom in on one sad passenger, Michael Stone (voiced by David Thewlis). He’s an author (“How May I Help You Help Them?”) and a motivational speaker, a featured attraction at a customer service conference in town. Michael is distracted and uncomfortable because everyone on board seems to be the exact same person: men, women, kids (all voiced by Tom Noonan). It doesn’t help when he reads an old disparaging letter from his wife (also with that same face and voice). After the plane lands, he endures an awkward cab ride to the Hotel Fregoli. Ordering a room service dinner, Michael then looks up an old acquaintance via the phonebook. He calls up Bella, and they decide to meet for a drink in the hotel lounge. They’ve not seen each other after a brief “fling” many years ago. But things don’t go well and she storms out of the bar area (much to the surprise of the other patrons). Returning to his room, Michael takes a brief shower. As he towels off, he’s stunned to hear a very different voice emanating from the hallway. He hurriedly dresses and charges out in search of that unique sound. After pounding on several doors (telling the guests that he’s looking for a “friend”), he finds the source of that “voice”- Lisa (Jennifer Jason Leigh), who is attending the conference with her co-worker pal Emily. The ladies are fans of his book, so they quickly agree to join Michael at the bar. Over cocktails, he is mesmerized by Lisa’s every word. As the tipsy trio return to their rooms, Michael implores Lisa to join her (and only her) in his room for a “nightcap”. The shy Lisa agrees and thus begins a most intimate encounter that may be Michael’s last chance for love and happiness.

ANOMALISA is unlike almost any movie-going experience in recent memory. The first thing that registers is its approach to animation. It is not the computer generated movement that services nearly every other recent animated feature, nor is it a return to the classically hand-drawn (“cell”) work of those “golden age” Disney features (BAMBI, DUMBO, etc.). It harkens back to stop-motion animation, a technique nearly as old as cinema itself. Some just refer to it as “claymation”, a term made famous by artist Will Vinton in the 70’s with his short “Closed Mondays” (and later on TV with the “California Raisins”). Those characters (and later ones like Aardman Animation’s “Shaun the Sheep”) are shaped with colored, pliable modeling clay, while this new film features figures closer to puppets, often made with wood and plastic with a bendable metal “ball and joint” skeleton, much like the recent films of Laika (PARANORMAN, CORALINE) Studios. The superb work of Starburns Industries (TV’s “Moral Oral” and “Franken-hole”) propels this story to new artistic heights. Squint your eyes and you may think you’re watching footage of real, human actors. This adds to the dream-like feel of the film, as if we’ve drifted into another dimension. The amount of skill and patience is astounding. There’s none of the “herky-jerky” action that added to the odd charm of Gumby or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. Particularly amazing are the scenes set at the hotel bar in which nearly twenty figures are all moving, drinking, and talking (each had to be positioned by an animator’s hand) at once. The strands of hair and clothing respond naturally to the actions. Plus the faces have an eerie design with a break (allowing the lower faces to be changed for lip-syncing dialogue) across the eyes and the bridge of the nose. Ah, but that also is essential to the story. This upscale Ohio hotel is turned into a wonderland with each corner revealing another part of Michael Stone’s twisted psyche. It’s truly a remarkable achievement.

But it’s not just the look and movement that captures the viewer. A trio of wonderful actors makes all those animated figures come to life, with real emotions. Noonan often employs a “sing-songy” tone to the different guests, staff, and strangers that plants us firmly in this unique dimension. Thewlis conveys a man at a crossroads, but still somewhat lost, nearly drowning in sadness and frustration. The biggest treat may be the delightful Jason Leigh who gives Lisa a delicate, fragile persona. She’s truly puzzled by Michael’s attention especially after her quiet, halting rendition of an 80’s pop music standard (a riveting, magical scene). All three do great justice to the terrific script by Charlie Kaufman (based on his radio play). He’s exploring themes from other works (MALKOVICH springs to mind), but he’s giving us a truly original story and, with Johnson and Starburns, a very adult (yes, Michael and Lisa…well.. with real folks it’d be rated NC-17) motion picture. If you’re wanting a very, very different film, unlike any of the usual studio fare, then take a chance and spend 90 minutes with ANOMALISA.

4.5 Out of 5

ANOMALISA opens everywhere and screens exclusively in St. Louis at Landmark’s Tivoli Theatre

Anomalisaposter

 

THE REVENANT – The Review

the-revenant-image-leonardo-dicaprio

Acclaimed Mexican director Alejandro Iñárritu has stepped out from the canned stage lights and into the natural light. Going from the backstage existential crisis of BIRDMAN to the frigid survival in the wild of THE REVENANT is quite a change of scenery. In the months leading up to the film, it seemed that that was what everyone was talking about. Iñárritu and DiCaprio were teaming up and filming a raw and intense movie out in the middle of nowhere. What a drastic change of pace for them both. In interviews and featurettes, the physical and mental hardships surrounding the production were highlighted, occupying the spotlight more than anything else.

THE REVENANT truly is breathtaking. The snowy landscapes are awe-inspiring. The performances are palpable. The action is gritty and fierce. Emmanuel Lubezki’s camerawork catches every heavy breath on camera. Iñárritu rubs your nose in the mud for over 2 and a half hours. Take that as a warning if you will. To me, I say warning, not because most people can’t handle the violence or “the gritty realism” – because I think most absolutely can – but because that’s what you’re getting for 156 minutes. Is it well done? Yes. Is it a brutish film that revels in its wolfish journey? Yes; perhaps even a little too much.

While on an exhibition out West, American Explorer Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) is nearly killed by a bear and left for dead by members of his team of fur trappers. Led by John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the team deserts Glass in a shallow grave and ventures forth on their journey home. Injured but alive, Glass awakens and struggles to crawl, climb, and fight his way through the hostile wilderness, blanketed in a harsh winter. All this, in the pursuit of vengeance and redemption.

DiCaprio and Hardy could be sitting across from each other doing crossword puzzles and they would still be captivating to watch. Unfortunately for the two of them, THE REVENANT doesn’t give them as easy of a job as that. But as you would expect, both of these extremely talented actors are up to the challenge. You might need subtitles to understand some of what Hardy and his fellow fur trappers are saying, however, you can understand their sentiments through their facial expressions and actions.

The film’s intensity is astounding, but also, a smidge distracting. This is mostly due to the camerawork. Lubezki jumps between extreme close-ups of faces and upward camera shots (practically looking up the actors’ noses) to long takes that at times adds a heightened reality to the action, while other times it feels like a director and a cinematographer showing their hand too much. Some of it even becomes dizzying as some shots go on for several minutes at a time. I suspect some of this camera trickery is used to distract from the laborious affair of watching poor, injured Leo slowly trek across the landscape. Especially in the middle section, slow is the keyword. Leo’s journey across the icy landscape was so long that Morgan Freeman should have narrated it (and maybe adding a penguin or two couldn’t have hurt).

Mostly though, THE REVENANT is a revenge film masked as a deeper Terrence Malick character study. There’s no deep internal revelations or subtext at work, even though at times it makes you think there is. Long shots of our tragic hero are shown looking out into the distance, intercut with allusions of a past life. Moments like these attempt to add depth to his mission, but fail to add weight to the story. It’s a revenge film, but Iñárritu tries so, so hard to make it appear and feel like more than that. I could see this story as a Charles Bronson film from the 70s, but it wouldn’t have been over 2 and a half hours. Just call the film what it is. Don’t try to dress it up as something it’s not. Don’t attempt to recall Malick when you made a borderline exploitation revenge flick – complete with an unnecessary aftermath shot of a woman’s vengeful scorn on a male’s genitals and other gratuitous bloody shots.

There’s a Buster Keaton film from 1925 called SEVEN CHANCES. At the end of the film, the director/star tumbles down long dusty hills, jumps off a cliff into a tree, and is chased by an avalanche of boulders. He gets put through the ringer as “nature” almost stands in the way of our affable hero’s goal. You will most likely be slack-jawed at the physical exertion Keaton must have gone through to film it. That being said, the sequence is only 4 minutes long. THE REVENANT is a similar sequence but for much longer. Drawing out the thrills and spills for that long begins to feel tiresome. It’s visceral cinema done excruciatingly well. However, it’s a “B-movie” setup struggling with all its might to get in the “A-movie” spotlight.

 Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5
THE REVENANT is now in theaters everywhere
revenant-leo

THE FOREST – The Review

forest-trailer-natalie-dormer

Something bad…..evil, happens in Japan’s Aokigahara Forest, a (real) destination popular for those looking for a scenic place to commit suicide. The sheer bad vibes of those woods have trapped its many victims inside as moldy ghosts that haunt people who dare enter. Such ghost stories are common in every storytelling culture, of course, but the Japanese have a long tradition of taking vengeful spirits seriously, in life as well as in art. THE FOREST, a new Hollywood film set in this foggy Japanese woodland is basically a haunted house film, replacing the house with a forest, but despite one or two mild scares, it never generates much tension and is only notable for being the first lousy horror film of 2016 (I’m sure there will be more).

 THE FOREST tells the story of young American Sara Price (Natalie Dormer) who receives word that her identical twin sister Jess (also played by Miss Dormer, but with darker hair), a teacher working in Japan, has disappeared after a visit to the Aokigahara Forest. Convinced Jess is still alive, Sara travels to the land of the rising sun alone to search for her. After a disturbing visit to the forest’s visitor’s center, she meets hunky Aiden (Taylor Kinney), an American writer for an Australian travel magazine, who just happens to be touring Aokigahara with a guide (Yukiyoshi Ozawa) the next day so Sara offers to tag along. Distrust, screaming ghosts, paranormal shenanigans, and boredom ensue.

THE FOREST doesn’t add up to much. The story is underdeveloped, and the characters underwritten. The film doesn’t know what to do once it lays out its initial premise, falling back to the clichés of most PG-13 horror flicks – rotting specters suddenly appearing where there was just open space, ghostly whispering, loads of cheesy jump-scare shocks, and it all ends on a lazy, unresolved note. Sara and Liam spend long stretches trekking through the woods talking about themselves and reciting by-the-numbers dialog like “If we keep walking in this direction, we’ll come to the path before too long” and “I’m here to find my sister and I’m not leaving without her!” and “That’s weird! Why is that happening?” They walk and hike and walk some more, stumbling across the occasional dead body that may or may not really be there while the viewer waits for something to happen, like a bear attack or a naked Nick Nolte, to liven things up. First-time director Jason Zada fails to create any atmosphere or sense of dread and there’s rarely any payoff to the build-up – just when the movie seems on the verge of becoming truly scary, Zada cuts away to a new scene and begins the process over again.  The movie is so full of inconsistencies and plot holes that I stumbled out of THE FOREST with few answers, and many questions: Are there really so many suicides in Aokigahara that the visitor’s center there needs its own morgue? How did Sara’s boyfriend Rob (Eoin Macken) suddenly arrive in Japan (a 20-hour flight from the US) to join the rescue party? Do identical twins really have identical facial moles? Is this the first horror film with a haunted Viewmaster?

THE FOREST doesn’t even work as a travelogue of Japanese spiritual beliefs. Instead of opening the film by showing a suicide there, the background on Aokigahara Forest is described by dialog in a phone call (how cinematic!). By having a bunch of Americans in the cast, led by Miss Dormer (who does her best), THE FOREST  could have taken the opportunity to educate us ignorant gaijin more about, say, yūrei (angry spirits) or Ubasute (taking the elderly to a remote place to die), or the noble history of spirits in religion and art. Instead, the visually uninteresting story might as well be set in Denver, though it adds the weird subtext of Americans being terrified by wet-haired teenage Japanese girls – a theme exhausted a decade ago in films like THE GRUDGE and RING. THE FOREST plays like one of those American remakes of a better Japanese horror film even though it’s not, which is too bad. At least then we’d have the superior original.

1 1/2 of 5 Stars

Forest-new-Poster

 

 

MAGICIAN: THE ASTONISHING LIFE AND WORK OF ORSON WELLES – The Review

orsonMagician-CMG-website-header-HV_{52801a40-0204-e511-a207-d4ae527c3b65}

Not so very long ago I had a co-worker who described himself as a movie geek, film fan, cinema addict, what have you.  He talked about film as if he knew all about it.  I asked him one day what he thought of Orson Welles. His reply?

“I don’t think about Orson Welles, he was old and fat, now he’s dead, what am I supposed to think about him?”

Needless to say I never really talked to this person again, who shall remain nameless.  Of course the fact that he was an egocentric, arrogant, narcissistic weasel didn’t help matters.  (He claimed to have a small part in Tombstone, I have seen that movie several times, never spotted him, by the way…)

orsonwelles1_25789c91-ac2f-e411-add3-d4ae527c3b65

I simply cannot fathom the arrogance of someone dismissing, so casually one of the greatest film makers who ever lived.  I have been fascinated, obsessed even, with Orson Welles since about the age of 12. I’ve been told I resemble Welles, at least in size, wish I had one tenth of one per cent of his talent!

It was not Citizen Kane that got me started, I recall seeing that on television at about the age of 16, nor was it Lady From Shanghai although I recall seeing that on television at a young age as well.  (And it wasn’t the shootout in the hall of mirrors that captivated me,  it was “I woke up in the crazy house!”  What a great sequence!

No, Welles got under my skin when I saw, late night on Channel 11, KPLR-TV in St. Louis, a historical melodrama called Black Magic.  Based on a novel by Alexander Dumas peres it tells the tale of a charlatan and a mountebank named Cagliostro who got perilously close to the throne of France, namely King Louis XV, much as Rasputin came to dominate the Russian royal family.

orson-welles-documentary-magician

Made in 1949 Welles, who allegedly partly directed the film, and it looks it, plays Cagliostro as no other actor could.  Still young and thin and energetic Welles towers over the other cast members and moves through the film like some force of nature, charismatic, hypnotic, egocentric and lusting for…everything, power, money, women, whatever.  Cagliostro wears all black clothes, decorated with every occult and religious symbol you can imagine.  He repeatedly does magic tricks, sleight of hand, which Welles always loved to do at every opportunity, hence the title of this amazing documentary.

I obtained a copy of Black Magic recently, from the now defunct Atlas Films (thanks Rob!)  I’m pleased to report it is actually better than I remembered!

Chuck Workman, (who created some of the greatest short films for The Academy Awards annual presentation, several of them are on Youtube) has put together one of the greatest documentaries about a film maker that you could ever hope to see.

Orson Welles delivers a radio broadcast from a New York studio in 1938. (AP Photo)

Apparently I am not the only Movie Geek obsessed with Orson Welles.  The subject of no less than 5 biographies (I have read four of them, I especially can recommend Barbara Leaming’s book) we now have this marvelous film that charts the rise and fall and rise again of a man described as both a genius and a failure (anyone else see any problem with that?) Welles, in his lifetime, revolutionized no less than three art forms; theater, radio and motion pictures.  Given half a chance he would have done the same with television.

Raised to be a genius (a label he was not fond of) he lost both parents at a young age.   Magician charts every part of his life, raised by a family lawyer, staging Shakespeare while still a teen ager.  A walking tour of Ireland at 17 and presenting himself at the Gate Theater in Dublin, proclaiming himself an accomplished actor, when he was no such thing.

He revolutionized theater presentation on the New York stage, with the help of John Houseman and many others in the Mercury Theater, did the same on radio, again with the Mercury Theater.  And of course the infamous War of the Worlds broadcast, which allegedly caused a panic on the East Coast (apparently an urban legend concocted by the newspapers to try and discredit radio news, check it out on Snopes.com.)

orsonwelles main

Blessed with one of the most distinctive voices in acting history Welles was all over the place in the 1930s, doing as many as 3 or 4 radio shows in one day, theater at night and carousing around town with many women and drinking buddies.

After the War of the Worlds broadcast on October 30, 1938 Hollywood came calling.  Welles himself said he didn’t think he could make a movie, kept turning down every offer and asking for the kind of contract no one in Hollywood had at the time, complete control as to projects, editing, distribution, all that and much more than he thought he could obtain.  RKO finally made an offer he couldn’t refuse and the rest is motion picture history, namely Citizen  Kane, called by many the greatest and/or most important movie ever made.

Welles didn’t know it at the time but he would never have that kind of control again and complete very few movies after that.  Considering who Citizen Kane was based on, William Randolph Hearst and his girl friend Marion Davies, it’s a miracle Welles wasn’t shot dead.

orsonmaxresdefault

We hear all about his disastrous marriage to Rita Hayworth and Lady From Shanghai.  His adventure in Brazil to try and make It’s All True while his follow-up to Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, was being taken out of his hands.  Welles never forgave Robert Wise for shooting new footage and reediting Ambersons, although Wise was only doing what the RKO management requested that he do.

Before the 1940s were over Welles would start a new pattern of making movies with his own money.  He did a very interesting version of Macbeth for Republic Studios, a company more famous for B Westerns and serials than Shakespeare.

Othello, Mr. Arkadin, The Trial, Chimes at Midnight, Welles’ self financed projects were few and far between.  Touch of Evil was his last film made with Hollywood financing.  One bit of information about Touch of Evil has always fascinated me; Welles got the job of directing the movie at the insistence of Charlton Heston, a lifelong Republican, Welles was a New Deal Democrat who never lost his love for Franklin Roosevelt.  Heston is seen in archival footage relating what he said many times,” why hire Welles as an actor and not give him a chance to direct the movie?”  Touch of Evil, either the theatrical version or the restored “director’s cut” ended up being one of Welles’ best.  But, man is that movie depressing!

Orson Welles (1915 - 1985), American actor, producer, writer and director. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)

He constantly worked as an actor, both on camera and voice work, especially for commercials.  He channeled that money into his own projects, many of which never got near completion.   There is a version of Don Quixote available on dvd for instance, but it is not what Welles had in mind, allegedly.  In fact according to an article in Filmfax Welles never intended to finish Don Quixote!

Magician has clips from both The Trial and Chimes at Midnight that look better than any version I have ever seen.  Both films have come and gone in grey market versions; neither has had a proper dvd or blu ray release.  A deluxe version of Mr. Arkadin was released a few years ago with no less than 4 versions of that film!  Part of the problem with Welles’ self financed projects is they exist in a legal tangle, along with his unfinished projects such as The Other Side of the Wind, The Deep and Merchant of Venice.

I would love to see a complete blu ray box set of everything Welles ever did, finished or not.  I would rather watch two minutes of an unfinished Welles film than some director’s entire resumes.

orsonf-for-fake2-750x400

And descriptions of Welles are all over the map.  In Magician and in several interviews I have read over the years, actors, directors, writers who worked with Welles give very conflicting stories.  Some say he was a monstrous egomaniac who terrorized crews and tried to take over every film he ever acted in.  Others said he was laid back and quiet, reading and minding his own business until he was called on to heave himself in front of the camera and earn a paycheck.

Some of the Welles haters claimed he ended up like Charles Foster Kane, except with no money, sitting alone and friendless and broke.   Gary Graver who worked with Welles for years as a camera man tells a very different story, he had plenty of money, checks came in the mail every day.  He was surrounded by young people more than willing to work for little or no money on his self funded projects just so they could put an internship with Orson Welles on their resume.  That sounds good to me, in fact I can’t think of a better internship!

Fortunately for Magician and for us, Welles was a staple on television talk shows and specials like the Dean Martin Roasts.  Much of the footage in Magician is Welles himself telling his own story that he told many times.

He considered Peter Bogdanovich a trusted friend and granted many hours of interviews that Bogdanovich captured on audio tape.   One of the best stories about Welles I can think of, not included in Magician by the way, was told to Welles by Bogdanovich in one of these interviews.  He quoted John Barrymore who was asked what it felt like to be the greatest living actor of his generation.  Barrymore called the interviewer a dirty name and told him there were only two really great actors working at that time, Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles.  Welles reaction?  He grew very quiet, stared into the distance for a while, smoking his ever present cigar, finally realized the tape was still running and said “Jack was always full of shit!”

So for me, Magician is just about a perfect celebration of one of the greatest film makers who ever lived.  A role model and idol of all the independent film makers working now Welles went his own way, made his own films the way he wanted, never was heard to complain and show any bitterness at being locked out of the studio system.  Welles himself stated the film he was most proud of, that turned out exactly the way he wanted, was The Trial.  Citizen Kane will always be on that pedestal, like a fly frozen in amber, although it still works beautifully as what it was made for, a motion picture to entertain and astonish. But for me Welles will always be the man who made Lady From Shanghai, one of the first and best of the classic film noirs. I could listen to Welles tell that shark story one hundred and fifty times and never get tired of it.

Jeanne Moreau who worked for Welles in one of his last projects, a television special called Immortal Story, has the last word on Orson Welles.  She calls him “a king without a country!”  But I disagree, Orson Welles ruled over a kingdom of the imagination, anything he ever did as a director, actor or a raconteur is worth seeing.  He was more, so much more than a “fat old man who died.”

JOY – The Review

joy

So, you consider yourself a very talented film maker, a very creative director with major skills? Okay, are you up for a test of your talents? Well, can you make an entertaining film out of any subject? Hmm, no prob, you say? Alright, how about a feature-length movie about a household cleaning device? A mop, that floor maintenance essential. Not just any mop, but the “Miracle Mop”. The mop’s essential to the tale, but the real focus is its origin story (that superhero trope). And the person who came up with this special tool. This was the test one of our quirkiest directors has set up for himself. Only a couple of years after the 70’s set, “abscam”-inspired AMERICAN HUSTLE, David O Russell has gathered many of the same actors (he seems to be assembling a modern repertory company) to tell the true-life fable of the woman who transformed that sloppy pantry staple. It’s the story of a woman named JOY.

Mimi (Diane Ladd), the adoring grandmother of the film’s title character narrates. We see her with preteen Joy and her step sister Peggy immersed in late 70’s TV soap operas, watching quietly along with Joy’s mother Terry (Virginia Madsen). Away from the tube Joy constructs fantasy doll dioramas as Peggy looks on with dead-eyed annoyance. Then the girls are rocked when pappa Rudy (Robert DeNiro) divorces Terry. Cut to the late 1980’s as the now nearly thirty-something Joy Mangano (Jennifer Lawrence) must deal with a load of adult problems. And I mean a mountain-sized load. She’s holding down a grueling job, taking lots of verbal abuse behind an airline counter. The long hours are warranted as the divorced mother of three is trying to keep their modest, rented Long Island home. A home that she and the kids share with Mimi. And Terry, who never leaves her bedroom as she runs TV soaps on a myriad of VHS tapes. Oh, and living in the basement is Joy’s ex-husband, aspiring singer Tony (Edgar Ramirez).  And now Rudy’s latest marriage is kaput, so he must share the basement with his former son-in-law. But Rudy’s soon back on the dating scene with pre-internet dating services (classifieds and 900 numbers). Through them he begins seeing wealthy widow Trudy (Isabella Rossellini). An accident (wine spillage on the deck) on a family outing on Trudy’s boat gives Joy an idea. The still inventive lady draws up a design for a self-wringing mop. She works up a prototype, but can’t raise any interest from the retail chains or the local hardware shops. Joy then hears of the new TV fad, cable channels devoted solely to selling items directly to consumers. She travels to the headquarters of QVC (Quality Value Channel) and convinces an ambitious exec, Neil Walker (Bradley Cooper) to give her a shot. But when one of the on-camera hosts bungles the mop segment, Joy doesn’t quit. She insists Neil give her invention another try, but this time she will demonstrate it live on the air. She’s a sensation, and the phone lines are jammed with orders. Her success is not the happy ending she hoped to get as family infighting, patent lawyers, and sleazy parts suppliers scuttle the “Miracle Mop” rocket just as it leaves the launch pad. Has Joy gotten in over her head?

Showcasing her astounding versatility, Lawrence gives us a character quite different from her franchise roles in X-Men and the recently concluded Hunger Games series (in addition to her Oscar-winning part in SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK). She projects dogged determination, intelligence, and vulnerability as the single mom vowing not to back down and settle for scraps. Even as forces conspire and plot against her, Lawrence shows us, in her eyes and body language, a woman resisting the urge to fold, to give in and give up. The supporting cast is more than up to her formidable skills. DeNiro is both endearing and aggravating as the gruff and gregarious Rudy as he turns on the charm for Trudy and tosses up roadblocks to Joy’s plans. He’s not relying on familiar acting tricks, instead giving a fresh spin on an untraditional patriarch. The marketing may be a tad misleading by suggesting that this new film is another romance with Cooper, as with PLAYBOOK. Instead he’s really part mentor and wizard to Joy as he introduces her to a new world (that of TV commerce). As she gains her confidence, we do see a twinkle in his eyes, perhaps pride, maybe attraction, but those film goers hoping for a last act clinch will be left wanting. Madsen also goes against type as a timid, sheltered soul who finally begins to rejoin the world, even turning off her soaps and leaving her bedroom. Ladd is warm and nurturing as the grandmother of everyone’s dreams. The biggest surprise may be Rossellini who is ferocious as an exotic pit bull zealously guarding her fortune. She’s charmed by Rudy, but not enough to give her daughter the keys to her kingdom. Elizabeth Rohm is terrific as the grown-up Peggy, partner and sneaky, jealous saboteur. Plus, in a delightful cameo, Melissa Rivers pays tribute to her beloved mother with her performance as QVC’s most popular celebrity saleswoman.

As with Lawrence, this project is a change for the usual hard-edged Russell. His penchant for coarse language is severely toned down, which accounts for the more family friendly PG-13 rating. There’s only one “f-bomb” (tossed off by DeNiro, of course). I did have some concern for the film’s first act that seems to play to the “wacky” exploits of another dysfunctional family. But I don’t think Russell’s losing his edge, as this story is a great tale of empowerment, especially for young woman. Hopefully all audiences will be inspired as Joy knocks down all the walls formed by the chants of “no, you can’t”. You can say it’s “Russell lite”, but the script he co-wrote with Annie (BRIDESMAIDS) Mumolo still packs an emotional wallop (and some real suspense as Joy confronts those who would cheat her). The period sets, fashions, and hairstyles are right on the mark, particularly in the use of actual TV soap stars in fantasy sequences that have them speaking to the real Long Island folks. The film’s strongest asset may be the collaboration of star and director (this is their third film in a row), harkening back to Josef von Sternberg/ Marlene Dietrich and William Wyler/Bette Davis (the only other such team today may be Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy, who just finished their fourth flick). When Russell and Lawrence join forces, the creative sparks really fly. These two talents really make this true story, a true JOY.

4 Out of 5

joyposter

CAROL – The Review

carol

In a landmark year for gays and gay-themed films CAROL, a period romance with a twist, stands out. As in his films FAR FROM HEAVEN, POISON, and VELVET GOLDMINE, director Todd Haynes revisits themes of taboo romance set against the backdrop of a more restrictive era. CAROL is a terrific film.

CAROL tells the story of Therese (Rooney Mara), an aspiring photographer with a devoted fiancé named Richard (Jake Lacy) who works in the toy department of a large Manhattan store in the early 1950s.  There she encounters Carol (Cate Blanchett), an elegant older woman looking for a Christmas present for her daughter. The two women seem to have an instant love connection. Carol, though still married, is recently out of a scandalous lesbian relationship, but she knows what she wants and what she wants is Therese. The younger woman is confused and slow to understand her feelings, but the pair begins an affair that is challenged by more than the societal pressures of that era. As the two embark on a road trip to get away, Carol’s angry husband, Harge (Kyle Chandler), has the lovers followed by a private eye and takes steps to gain full custody of their daughter. As the custody battle intensifies, Carol finds herself having to choose between her new-found love, her daughter, and her freedom.

This convincing evocation of 1950s tear-jerkers is gorgeously designed, stunningly photographed by Edward Lachman, ravishingly scored by Carter Burwell, and directed with great gay style by Haines. He gets awards-worthy work from his cast. Rooney Mara is appropriately naïve as Therese, a nice gal who at first keeps her opinions and feelings to herself. Her relationship with Carol changes everything from her looks to her attitude. Maybe her romance with this older woman is no healthier than her relationship with the somewhat possessive Richard but it definitely transforms her. It’s Cate Blanchett, however, who runs away with CAROL. The two-time Oscar winner has always carried herself like a classic movie star: assured, bold, and always ready for her close-up. Carol is wrung through the ringer emotionally. She must make the choice to give up something important to her, her sexuality or her daughter, and Blanchett is great in a challenging role. As good as these two actresses are, let’s not overlook a pair of outstanding performances from the actors playing the two men in these women’s lives. Jake Lacy makes up for his involvement in LOVE THE COOPERS portraying of a decent guy who may be a bit controlling, but only wants what he thinks is best for Therese. Even better is Kyle Chandler as Harge, frustrated and angrily lashing out at the wife he really wants back. These two characters are just as essential to the story as Ann Hathaway and Michelle Williams were to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and the actors deserve to be recognized.

CAROL combines so many timely topics and ideas into a film that feels like it could have been made in the period in which it takes place (except for the naked Rooney Mara) and manages to be thought-provoking and satisfying without feeling overstuffed or unfocused. Cate Blanchett’s performance alone guarantees that CAROL will be an award season contender and I highly recommend it.

5 of 5 Stars

carol-poster-600x900