I am certain no two people in the theatre were more ignorant of the Marvel comic title Thor than my companion and I. We gamely let the film unfold before us with zero preconceptions and (to be honest) pretty low expectations. The fans around is seemed to feel pretty good about it as a whole, and we both found it entertaining and pretty well self-contained.

The story takes place in two worlds: ours, and the far-off realm of Asgard, where the personages of Thor (Chris Hemsworth(, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Frigga (Rene Russo), and Heimdall (Idris Elba) live. The presence of these space gods in our Norse folklore is explained as long-ago visits to Earth where their advanced science seemed magical. Naturally, back in New Mexico, we have Stellan SkarsgÃ¥rd as a Swede who knows the stories, though a children’s book is still needed to explain the extra bits.

Read On

When I finished Sara Gruen’s novel, I hugged it before I put it down.  I just loved the feel of it, the story, the characters, and I was sorry when it was over.  When they announced the film, I was pleased — until they announced that Robert Pattinson would be playing Jacob, the lead.  The last time I did not want to punch Pattinson in the face was when Voldemort cut him down in a cemetery in Little Hangleton.  Even with Reese Witherspoon and the two-for-two Christoph Waltz, I was nervous that the main character would not be the lovely man I had loved on the page.  Then Hal Holbrook plays elderly him in the framing narrative, and all was well in the world.  Of course Waltz is as always a freaking genius.  Pattinson and Witherspoon do look strange together, but it’s no matter — the story flows smoothly around them; it’s less about any love among these people than love for the world of the circus, anyway.

Read On

As many long-suffering high schoolers did, I read Jane Eyre in 9th grade and hated it.  Later, of course, I reread it and loved it!  Even as I warmed to Charlotte Bronte’s surprisingly astute judge of the psychological damage inflicted by the callous societal attitudes of the day, I never really got why Jane went for Mr. Rochester.  Simple as that.  In a culture of withholding and cruelty, his “charms” could best be described as “as expected” rather than alluring on any level.

In this adaptation, screenwriter Moira Buffini and director Cary Fukunaga finally helped me get it.  From Rochester’s hysterical secret to Jane’s default setting of undeservingness, Buffini takes them both to a place of mutual respect and understanding.  It may not necessarily be true to the text as such (it has been quite a while) but it’s true to the spirit of Jane.

Casting Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds) as the glowering antihero was equally as inspired a choice as using Colin Firth in 1995′s Pride and Prejudice:  both of them are unconventionally handsome and gentle actors thrust into roles that radiate unpleasantness and are difficult to warm to.  Rochester’s irrational grumps and rages feel more human coming out of Fassbender, not unlike Firth’s cold and cutting remarks.  It’s the only way to insert humanity into them onscreen in the truncated time span of a film.

Mia Wasikowska’s Jane is stoic and unselfconsciously beautiful, frail-looking but strong as bamboo when tried.  We can see all her internal scars, feel the effects of her abusive upbringing, even as the movie is forced to rush through the extent of it.  From such a barren life grows a fierce weed, almost mannish her lack of guile or vanity — and from thence her appeal.  It’s funny how literary and contemporary men always decry women for leaving their feminine place, but are yet always drawn to the outspoken, independent, fearless women they decry.

This version of Jane Eyre is light on Rochester being cruel to her himself, and in that fails the story just a little — but I confess I enjoyed it more for that.  I also liked the sense of Rochester being in the world when Jane has not been.  Not only in terms of his bastard ward, but just his whole clearly grown-up-ness and jaded weariness — yet still he is weaker than this beaten down servant girl.

My one quibble is a sort of narrative device that confused me — and likely might have done for anyone who hadn’t read the book at all.  The whole episode with St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell) and his sisters, I had forgotten happened at all.  So when we’re shown the flight across the — moors? heath? — by Jane, twice, it’s not immediately evident where it falls in the timeline, both times.  It can be worked out and it’s not vital, but it rendered a scene a little contextually confusing, implying through editing that Rivers helped her find her job at Thornfield, the Rochester house.  It’s only a quibble.  I enjoyed this film very much.  I hope you will too.

MPAA Rating PG-13

Release date 3/11/11

Time in minutes 120

Director Cary Fukunaga

Studio Focus Features

The previews for the Adjustment Bureau make it seem like a psychological thriller, but one with vaguely Matrix-y overtones.  In reality, this film is a romance in metaphysical thriller drag, and an interesting take on the notion of predetermination.  Based on Philip K. Dick’s short story “Adjustment Team,” which I have not read, this film veers away from Dick’s more nihilistic tones (see: Blade Runner) and into ones of overt sweetness, which I imagine are not present in the original story, but were pleasant to witness.

While watching the film play out, our winsome leads Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are compelling and lovely and the machinations of the titular bureau are interesting to watch.  As a work of filmmaking, Adjustment Bureau is sexy and solid and entertaining.  Damon is a credible young politician, driven and charismatic.  Blunt is a graceful but relatable dancer, the Perfect Girl embodied but with aspirations of her own.

The visual tricks that help convey the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Adjusters are simple and effective.  Thomas Newman’s score is reliably lovely to hear and John Toll’s photography is typically gorgeous.  I was amused by the mid-century-yet-timeless feel of the Bureau members and witnessing their petty bureaucratic hierarchies.  The messages of love and possession and release were all good, and the story kept me interested.

That said, once I left the theatre the whole façade fell apart.  I often have this problem with adaptations of Dick stories because for some reason the big ideas never really grow into anything with any solidity for me, which is why I suspect this story veers as above.   When your deus ex machine actually has a deus in it, you know you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

The idea of small moments causing huge ripples in the universe is not a new one.  The idea that there is a Plan, specifically on that undergoes constant revision, is the most compelling thing about the story. The fact that the interfering minions aren’t privy to the Plan was a fun running theme. The notion that the Plan changes but leaves echoes of itself behind (so that what was once meant to be later becomes not so) vexed me, but is integral to the story. An omnipotent, omniscient being running things through discreet micromanaging (a spill of coffee, a dropped phone call) seems both reasonable and ridiculous.

What is the point of all this meddling and greater good power if it is so easily thwarted or redesigned?  It confounded the cool idea that our free will is an illusion, that every time we as a species are left in charge of our destinies, we screw it up — so why respond to our stubbornness by updating the plan?  The film seemed too contradictory to really hold up.

That said, the chemistry and inevitability of Damon and Blunt was sweet to witness and the action as it unfolds is enjoyable to watch.  Rent at your leisure.

MPAA Rating PG-13

Release date 3/4/11

Time in minutes 106

Director George Nolfi

Studio Universal Pictures

The first ten minutes of The Green Hornet contained a surprising mashup of Oscar-caliber actors, which made me think perhaps this movie might be a worthwhile piece of entertainment after all. Then most of them vanish never to reappear again, and we settled into the lower-rent rest of the movie.

I am not so much enamored of the Green Hornet premise, and while I do like Seth Rogen in the right part, I was never convinced that indeed he was in the right part here. Rogen plays a gadabout Peter Pan syndrome-afflicted rich playboy.  His Seth Rogenness could only be offset for his ample harem of lady friends by his steaming bags of cash and cocky confidence. Who would I cast in his place? Someone funny and cute yet still believably slackerrific like his Freaks and Geeks costar who makes a too-short appearance in this film, James Franco.

So, the rich ginger ends up dependent on a former household servant, Kato (Jay Chou) who is of course the meat and potatoes of their ad hoc crime-fighting partnership. Everyone’s motives but Rogen’s are flimsy at best. Kato’s superhuman capacity for awesomeness repeatedly and annoyingly begs the question: why does he put up with Rogen at all? Even if Bruce Wayne acted like a complete putz, he still has good motives and does his own stunts.

It almost goes without saying that seeing this movie in 3-D adds nothing to the experience. The most in-your-face thing about the movie is the crippling insecurity of all the main players, which rendered it painfully difficult to care about them. The action is excitingly filmed and the car, the Black Beauty, is retro-cool and sexy. Kato’s fight scenes are fast and impressive but invalidated by director Michel Gondry’s GUI explanation of how the master warrior actually manages his badassery in his head.

Truly the reason to watch Green Hornet at all, besides Chou, is Christoph Waltz. As the mildly neurotic head of a petty local crime syndicate, Waltz brings his Inglourious Basterds’ character’s oily charm and a hefty dose of comedic potential. He juggles the responsibilities of simultaneously playing the heavy and the sole comic relief (strangely so in a Rogen vehicle), a difficult task to pull off with such aplomb, but there’s a reason he has so many trophies at home for acting. It was hard to root for the unlikeable antihero with such a deliciously enjoyable villain on the docket. The best film would have had Kato finally murdering Rogen’s character over something hilarious and joining forces with Waltz to open a nightclub.

Watch the Green Hornet on HBO for Waltz and Chou, and pray someone writes Waltz a funny starring vehicle and Chou a dramatic action franchise, soon.

MPAA Rating PG-13

Release date 1/14/11

Time in minutes 108

Director Michel Gondry

Studio Sony Pictures

 

 

Full disclosure: The first two times I tried to watch this Coen Brothers remake of John Wayne’s 1969 film, I fell right asleep.

I’m a fan of the Coens’ sensibility nearly across the board, and of stars Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon. I was impressed by Hailee Steinfeld’s turn as 14 year-old spitfire Maddie Ross and tickled to see my long-ago acting teacher have a nice long chewy courtroom scene with Bridges. Is it just that it’s a western that sent me packing with the sandman? Twice?

Read On

Never Let Me Go

Matinee with Snacks

Based on the quiet and elegant book by Kazuo Ishiguro (he also wrote Remains of the Day), Never Let Me Go is a wonderful adaptation. Not only does director Mark Romanek (most notably One Hour Photo) capture the tone and sense of mystery of the novel, but director of photography Adam Kimmel gives the alternate world a grounded and even quaint feel, which belies the cold ethical questions at hand. It’s foggy and cold, even on sunny green days, a world whose back is turned (not from scorn, from discomfort) on this anachronistic institution. If you go in ignorant of the real premise, you may still feel like something is off about this small world. Halisham is a boarding school in the 1978 British countryside. The drab grey clothes and the rigorous yet permissive environment all feel foreign and false. Screenwriter Alex Garland (notably Sunshine and 28 Days Later) feeds out what you need to know with grace; by the time you’re watching what in lesser hands could have been The Island or Dollhouse, you’re hooked on the characters.

Read On

Rabbit Hole

Matinee with Snacks

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again — often times, plays that are adapted into movies feel weird and stilted in their dialogue. Screenwriter David Lindsay-Abaire adapted his own play, and he does a marvelous job de-theatricalizing his won work. Why does thus matter? What’s wrong with theatrical language? Nothing, as such. But Rabbit Hole is a delicate piece of drama, involving high states of emotion and confrontation — and for it to work as a movie, it absolutely must not sound anything but real and natural. Well done, Lindsay-Abaire. Director John Cameron Mitchell (Hedwig & The Angry Inch, Shortbus) is no stranger to intensity or discomfiting levels of intimacy (emotional or otherwise), nor is he a stranger to the theatre. He’s the perfect director for a story that could have been maudlin, depressing, or self-indulgent in other hands. I had resisted watching this one for a while, concerned that it would be too crushingly sad or psychologically disjointed.

The premise is simple — eight months after the accident death of their young son, Aaron Eckhart and Nicole Kidman (also consummate stage and screen crossovers) are struggling to keep their marriage afloat. Their coping, their mourning, but also their attempts to bounce back to some kind of new normalcy go in all directions, not always the same ones. We’ve got high drama fights and tony moment of sousal understanding — explosions and swallowing, love and fear and confusion. I haven’t enjoyed Kidman this much in some time; much is made of her ice-queenly, frozen forehead, but she is not anything but raw and uncontrolled here. Eckhart is always solid and here is no different — his time spent with Sandra Oh in group therapy reminds us of the husband he must have been Before The Tragedy, so we, like Kidman, can miss that guy all the more.

The supporting cast is also great, with Oh and Dianne Wiest as Kidman’s well-meaning mom, and Miles Teller as Jason, the teenager down the block. We don’t realize why he is significant until all in a rush we find out and it’s such an impact after his quiet teen presence. Each of these people help Kidman and Eckhart move through this moment in their lives and on to the next one. The next one will also be filled with a sense of loss, and love, and all the things currently crowding this one, but it’s at least the next moment, and not a state of permanent freeze as they fear. Rabbit Hole is a lovely contemplation on the grief process, on people just doing their best (failing and not), and the importance of comfort in all its many forms. Perhaps it would even be something that someone in a group therapy as these characters are in would benefit from.

MPAA Rating PG-13
Release date 12/17/10
Time in minutes 91
Director John Cameron Mitchell
Studio Lionsgate

Disney’s trumpeting Tangled as its 50th animated feature seems a bit defensive at first.They pioneered the medium of animation in terms of technique, story adaptation, and marketing, paving the way for those young upstarts like Pixar and Dreamworks to take the ball and run with it later.

Still, 72 years later, people still think of animation as a genre of itself, not a storytelling medium, a kid’s parlor trick rather than a means of telling a story. Tangled, as an adaptation of the centuries-old tale of Rapunzel, can do little to defend against these stodgy critics. However, Tangled is about growing up, and it’s a testament to its 49 predecessors in demonstrating how much Disney itself has also grown up.

Read On

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

Matinee with Snacks

It should go without saying that if you haven’t seen the previous six movies, you shouldn’t see this one. Unlike some of the films, however, I think you don’t need to have read the book (as long as you are current on the movie), which is a testament to its script. My companion sees the movies before he reads the books (a novelty in my usual HP crowd) and then reads them right afterward. Since this is only part 1 of 2, that book will sit idle until next June. I, having read the book, loved the movie. It handled some of my favorite scenes well, and the simple and effective opening scenes of the movie are a gift from Kloves to fans of the characters (particularly Hermione). It may not be my favorite (as Prisoner of Azkaban and Half-Blood Prince continue to wrestle for primacy in my heart), but it does contain my favorite sequence (the Tale of the Three Brothers). My stars!

What Prisoner of Azkaban did for Hogwarts, Deathly Hallows Part 1 does for Great Britain. Shot entirely in England and Wales, HP7.1 drags our travelers through some incredible, otherworldly locations. As when I saw The Road, I would snap out of the story briefly to goggle at the scenery. Not only the locations, but also the cinematography grabbed me as much as the affecting tweaks given the narrative by screenwriter Steve Kloves, king of J.K. Rowling interpretation. Cinematographer Eduardo Serra also shot Defiance, Blood Diamond, Beyond the Sea, Girl With A Pearl Earring, Unbreakable… you get the idea. It may even be more gorgeous — and less showy — than Michael Seresin’s work on Azkaban. Why dwell so much on the visuals? If you’ve read the book, you may agree that this half of the story is the slower-moving, more contemplative chunk of the story, generally. As a result, Serra sets the mood of ever-present danger and menace while still keeping us in the beloved fantasy world that Rowling has given us. Camping just isn’t all that visually compelling on its own. I really got a better feel for their peril and tension with his help.

Composer Alexandre Desplat takes over from Nicholas Hooper with a less noticeable but beautiful score. Sophie Thompson, David O’Hara, and Steffan Rhodri get a fantastic sequence all for themselves in the Ministry of Magic — fans will giggle at their subtle but terrific work. Rhys Ifans as Xenophilius Lovegood? Brilliant! Without revealing too much, the film ends shortly after a key scene at Shell Cottage, and I have to say this one better evoked the book’s emotional experience than did the previous installment’s big key moment. I did not know my companion’s ignorance of the book until afterward — I wonder at its effectiveness for him. I walked out of this film hungry for the rest, already wondering if they will wait and release it as one big fat DVD, and altogether confidence that Kloves and director David Yates have it under control.

I’ve said this about Pixar, and I’ll say it now about the Harry Potter franchise. It’s such a wonderful thing that such a beloved property has landed in so many trusted hands, with such a phenomenal cast. Bless Chris Columbus for setting the stage and plowing through the requisite exposition — the least fun part of the job but the all-important foundation upon which even these darker, different sequels depend. No hate for you, Chris. The whole Harry Potter phenomenon is such a miracle of quality, love, popular adoration, and genuine beauty, I am just grateful to have experienced the books and movies as originally intended — new and large and with the anticipation of the next thing. Pottermaniacs, I think you will love it.

MPAA Rating PG-3
Release date 11/19/10
Time in minutes 146
Director David Yates
Studio Warner Brothers