Take 2 Review: Elysium

 

TAKE TWO REVIEW: 'Elysium' loses punch from never-ending fight scenes

By David Bjorkgren
Managing editor

Life on Elysium is pretty sweet. Sun-bathed gardens and swimming pools lead to palatial mansion homes. Money, influence and technology reign. Everyone looks great, and no wonder. They’re in perfect health, thanks to the crowning achievement of Elysium society—medical bays in every home that can cure anything.

The fact that it’s all on a space station orbiting a less-than desirable planet Earth completes the scene in Director Neilll Blomkamp’s futuristic film “Elysium.” Blomkamp previously brought us “District 9,” a delightful and quirky film about aliens as second class citizens in South Africa. “Elysium” continues this exploration of the downtrodden. Apparently, the wealthy have abandoned the Earth for the space station, and they’ve taken all their toys with them. Elysium society rules the overpopulated, resource-deprived residents of the Earth with the help of a police force of drone robots. People living on Earth are non-citizens, have no rights, are considered expendable and are tolerated merely as laborers.

Any similarity between the film and the widening gap seen today between the rich and the poor is purely intentional. Blomkamp does not hide his political views but puts it all on the screen, even referring to Elysium’s security forces as “homeland security.” The film extrapolates what could happen if the middle class disappears and the wealthy continue to isolate themselves from the rest of us.

Unfortunately,” Elysium “ is also a love fest to cartoonish fight scenes that seriously slow down the pace of the film. Blomkamp loses control of the story for a time, as extended gun fights and hand-to-hand combat muddle the flow of the film (People of Earth may lack everything else, but they seem to have plenty of fire power).

Driving the action in the film is the unquenchable desire of Earth’s people to go to Elysium and get that swell medical care they offer. (Earth’s medicine is still at the primitive 21st Century level, with hospitals and doctors and pills and things.) Occasionally, a crafty group of peasants are able to commandeer a shuttle and fly to the space station.

And so, Elysium has an immigration problem. They don’t want any. Elysium ‘s defense secretary, Delacourt (Jodie Foster) is particularly hell-bent on keeping unwanted folks off her station. Along with a missile defense system, she also has at her disposal sleeper agents on Earth who help put down any insurgents. She’s at odds with Elysium’s president, who doesn’t appreciate her heavy-handed tactics.

Enter Max (Matt Damon). He’s dreamed of going to Elysium since he was a small boy. An ex-convict, Max has tried to fly right, working at a factory that makes those police drone robots. Unfortunately for Max, everything suddenly goes wrong. An industrial accident exposes him to lethal radiation, giving him a five-day death sentence. Suddenly his quest to get to Elysium takes on new urgency.

He’s treated, coincidently, by his boyhood friend Frey (Alice Braga) , now a nurse with a daughter who has leukemia. A trip to Elysium might be good for what ails her, too. Max approaches a criminal acquaintance, Spider ( Wagner Moura), who has wanted to launch an assault on Elysium for some time now. Max agrees to a plot to kidnap an Elysium executive (Max’s boss, actually) in exchange for a ride to the space station. Part of the deal is that he has to download information from the executive’s head into his own head that contains all kinds of passcodes and such that will help them land on the station.

Unknown to them, this executive has conspired with Delacourt to create a reboot code for Elysium’s operating systems so she can input the name of a new president and end the current president’s reign.

Max acquires the information and now has the potential knowledge to rewrite Elysium’s priorities to improve the life of everyone on Earth. He becomes enemy number one as Delacourt’s agent, Kruger (Sharito Copley), is ordered by Delacourt to track him down.

The fates are with Max, who manages to not only finagle a trip to Elysium, but to take his girlfriend and her leukemia-ridden daughter with him.

The action accelerates to the point where I asked myself, “What the hell is going on?” before It screeches to an abrupt halt as Kruger gets into a protracted fight with Max. People get killed, a face explodes and the story eventually winds down to a satisfactory conclusion.

The film boasts some fantastic visuals, particularly during scenes at the space station. Blomkamp makes a valiant effort to explore issues of inequality and brings a gritty sense of reality to the film, but he paints in broad strokes. High concept ideas aren’t adequately explored but get trashed in favor of violence, gun fire and explosions.

Still, there are aspects of the film that evoke the magic Blomkamp brought to “District 9.” While not quite as satisfying, “Elysium” delivers most of what it promises. I give “Elysium” 7.5 luxury space stations out of 10.

By Arthur C. Ryan

NEWS Movie Critic

The concept is simple, it’s the year 2154, and the wealthy live on Elysium, a space station orbiting the Earth. The residents there are mostly white, wealthy and powerful, living a life of luxury void of disease or hunger. On the planet below, poverty, crime and disease dominate all those who live there, including the film’s protagonist, Max, played by Matt Damon.

And for about an hour or so, Elysium, released in movie theaters this past weekend, is engrossing and conjures up memories of 1970s sci-fi action films, Soylent Green and THX-1138, but soon after digresses into standard action film fare, with one too many fight scenes which become flat, predictable and boring.

At the film’s start, we are introduced to Max as a child, living in an orphanage run by nuns, where he dreams of one day living on Elysium with his childhood sweetheart, Frey.

Soon after Damon appears as the grown-up Max, a paroled car thief trying to go straight while working for a Haliburton-like weapons manufacture, where following an accident he must now find a way to Elysium in order to live.

Standing in Max’s way of obtaining health-care only available to those who live on Elysium, is its defense secretary, Mrs. Delacourt, played horribly by Jodie Foster. Foster’s defense secretary is heartless and cares for no one but herself. It’s a broad performance that doesn’t quite jive with the rest of the film’s performances, and I still can’t figure out what Foster was trying to achieve with her odd, “maybe it was French” accent.

Foster’s dirty work on Earth is carried out by a grunt named Kruger, a psycho-pathic secret agent who is charged with preventing Max from leaving Earth. Kruger is played by Sharlto Copley, who starred in District 9 back in 2009, which was also written and directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Blomkamp, fills his Elysium with similar themes as District 9, many of them inspired by his childhood growing up during Apartheid in South Africa. Elysium is political in nature, immigration, health care, and class warfare are at its core, but unlike District 9, most of it becomes muddled, when Blomkamp switches gears and highlights fight scene after fight scene in place of plotline. I’m sure these violent battles will make the film popular with the video-game crowd, but most sci-fi fans will be disappointed.

By film’s end, the story recovered, but it was too-little too-late, for what started out as a great idea, was squandered by a director who should have trusted his own instincts, rather than simply rely on what is popular.

Take Two review: Wizard loses some power in new ‘Oz, the Great and Powerful’

By Arthur Ryan

Correspondent


"Who rang that bell?” screeched Frank Morgan as the guardian of the Emerald City Gates in the original 1939 MGM classic, “The Wizard of Oz!” Morgan played “Oz” of course as well as a few others in that 74 year old film, and it took a veteran character-actor of his caliber to pull it off. Of course, Morgan’s legendary performance was one of many in that film, and his work and the work of his cast-mates were heavy on my mind while watching, “Oz, The Great and Powerful” which opened in movie theaters nationwide last weekend.

Directed by Sam Raimi of “Spiderman” and “Evil Dead” fame, and written by Mitchell Kapner, David Lindsay-Abaire and based on the works of L. Frank Baum, this new “Oz” outing is a loving tribute to that 1939 classic, whose only misstep is the miscasting of it’s star. James Franco is an Oscar-nominated actor with many talents, but passing himself off as a carnival charlatan from Kansas, is not one of them. The problem here is that Franco, unlike Morgan is too 21st century in his demeanor, speech and mannerisms. What was needed here was an actor with the same charm, and ability as Frank Morgan to carry an entire film and be believable as the character he’s trying to play.

Having said that, what remains is a delightful homage to the classic MGM film, only this time Walt Disney Pictures, who owns the rights to all the other L. Frank Baum “Oz” Books except the original, is behind this new movie. The film starts out in Kansas, a generation or two before Dorothy was born, where the former Professor Marvel (as he was called in the original film) is now Oscar Diggs, a traveling carnival magician who goes by the name of “OZ: The Great and Powerful!” 

Shot in black and white and in the same square screen ratio as the original film’s opening, it’s only after another tornado transports Oscar to the magical land of “Oz” do we switch to color, widescreen and in stereo. It’s here in Oz that Oscar meets Theodora, a good witch who’s part of a trio of witches all vying for control of their late father’s kingdom including the famed Emerald city. Theodora is played by the busty Mila Kunis, who later turns into the Wicked Witch, played so perfectly in 1939 by Margaret Hamilton. Kunis gives it her best, and is bound to produce nightmares in children for years to come, but like Franco, suffers from the outstanding work of her predecessor who put her mark on a character that still lasts almost 75 years later.

Like the original Oz film, Oscar in place of Dorothy discovers some magical friends along the way, two of which are as every bit as charming and magical as the Cowardly Lion and Scarecrow were in 1939. Zach Braff voices Finley, a flying monkey in a bellhop suit who after being saved by Oscar, pledges his loyalty to him as well as a promise not to reveal the truth about Oscar not really being a Wizard! Braff, like some others in the cast doubles up as Frank, Oscar’s assistant in the black and white opening sequence, again an homage to the earlier film. Finley is charmingly animated by computer imagery along with China Girl, a small broken porcelain doll who Oscar repairs thanks to some glue, which goes a long way in convincing all that Oscar is the great Wizard who has been prophesized to come. 

All of this combined with Glinda the good witch portrayed here by Michelle Williams, makes for a magical outing that although is in no danger of replacing the original films classic status, is sure to delight generations to come. Had the makers of “Oz the Great and Powerful” managed to cast Robert Downey, Jr. in the title role as originally planned, or an actor of his comedic charm and ability, this film may have reached a higher status. But Franco’s less-than-stellar work combined with maybe one too many endings keeps this “Oz” outing from being the great and powerful film it could be




By DAVID BJORKGREN

Managing Editor


A woman scorned. A weak man in search of his nobler self and a battle between magic and an illusionist whose only tools are a bag of tricks and turn of the century technology. These are the elements that make up a prequel of sorts to the classic 1939 MGM film “The Wizard of Oz.”But Disney’s “Oz the Great and Powerful” also dishes up plenty of 3D eye candy and fanciful scene painting that will keep the kids entertained, earning its place as a family film, despite some darker moments.

Fans of the original (and who isn’t?) will appreciate this visit to Oz and a storyline that explains how things came to be the way they are when Dorothy eventually takes her first step on to the yellow brick road. James Franco plays the starring role as the manipulative and unscrupulous carnival con man Oscar Diggs. Diggs dreams of being a great man, but his own fears, selfishness and weaknesses block that path to greatness. His limitations are revealed when he tries to convince the crowd at a carnival side show that he is a powerful wizard, yet he is unable and unwilling to heal a girl confined to a wheelchair. 

Diggs is quite the ladies’ man, which gets him in trouble in 1905 Kansas where the film begins (in black and white) and later in Oz (shown in fantasyland color). He takes to a hot air balloon to escape an angry strong man and gets swept up in a twister that dumps him unceremoniously in Oz (one has to wonder, is there any other way to get to Oz, clicking heels notwithstanding?). The Land of Oz is somewhat more textured in this digitally-enhanced version than the one depicted in “The Wizard of Oz.” The yellow brick road is there, so is the Emerald City, the dark forest and the witch’s castle. But we’re also treated to some mountain scenery, a raging river and a visit to Chinatown (where, you guessed it, everyone and everything is made out of china). 

Diggs befriends one of Oz’s three witches, Theodora (played with an interesting mix of innocence and sensuousness by Mila Kunis). Somewhat naïve, but possessing true magic, Theodora believes Diggs is the powerful wizard come to Oz to rule, as foretold by prophecy, and so she bows to his whims. Diggs, in his pursuit of wealth and power, pretends that he is the powerful wizard they’ve all been waiting for, though not everyone is taken in by his bag of tricks. Theodora’s sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz), hiding her true identity as the Wicked Witch of the East while hanging out at the Emerald City, is skeptical that he’s the right guy. So is Glinda (Michelle Willaims), who has been keeping the people of Oz (broken down into three classes - famers, tinkerers and munchkins) safe. Despite some doubts, Glinda puts her faith in Diggs that he can vanquish the Wicked Witch of the East and save the people of Oz.Theodora, meanwhile, has been spurned by Diggs and, with some help from Evanora, turns all those negative feelings into a package of powerful evilness, complete with green makeup. 

Enter the Wicked Witch of the West.It’s a bad time for Oz as the two evil witches team up to rule the land. With the help of Glinda, Frank, a friendly flying monkey (Zach Braff) and a china doll (Joey King), Diggs turns away from his selfish tendencies, learns the value of friendship and comes up with a plan to save Oz, using his tricks of the trade. This film had a bit of an uphill battle, since the characters and the land they live in are so well known. Franco is a younger, more hip Oz, which may upset some traditionalist, but I connected with his character, particularly after he had lived in Oz for a while.Kunis does a nice job as the Wicked Witch of the West but we know it’s not Margaret Hamilton under the makeup and that’s always going to be a little disappointing.

There is no Scarecrow, though there are references to scarecrows. There is no Tin Man and the only lion that comes out of the woods is real (or as real as a digital re-creation can be) and not at all cowardly. There’s certainly no Judy Garland, no Dorothy.Even so, I enjoyed traveling on the yellow brick road again with these new companions. There is a charming and funny winged monkey and a sweet but uncompromising china girl and that made the trip worth taking. 

This film works as family entertainment and gives us its own vision of Oz that stands up pretty well. And when it’s not charting its own course, it is a delightful homage to the original Oz movie. It will never be the classic that the first film was, but “Oz the Great and Powerful” works at a few levels and deserves a look. I give “Oz the Great and Powerful” 7.8 bubbles and fire balls out of 10.

Take 2 Review: Jack The Giant Slayer

Action, yes, but "Jack the Giant Slayer" is a little thin

By David Bjorkgren

Managing editor

“Jack the Giant Slayer” has a lot of stuff happening on screen.  We’re talking battlefield Armageddon here between man and giant, filled with flying arrows, flying rocks, a burning moat, burning trees and giants who not only stomp on anything that moves but also snack on terrified humans.  Plus, huge beanstalks are sprouting everywhere.

It almost makes up for a thin and not particularly imaginative storyline and less-than-riveting dialogue.
The source material for the movie, the English folk tale “Jack and the Beanstalk,” isn’t exactly complex so there wasn’t too much to work with from the get go. To the film’s credit, they do a decent job of fleshing out and expanding the well-known tale by adding an ancient war, a princess, knights and a human turncoat that uses magic to dominate the giants in the hopes of taking over the human world.  This “Jack” story shows us more than one giant and his wife. Here, there is a whole army of giants to contend with.

In this version of the story, it’s been a long time since humans and giants faced each other, centuries in fact. The first conflict took place when humans created magic beans so they could climb a giant beanstalk to heaven. Turns out, there were giants in the sky.  Big, tall, terrible giants.  War erupts. The clever humans create a magic crown crafted from a giant’s heart. The person wearing the crown has the power to control the giants and so the humans are able to order the giants  to return to their skyward land. The beanstalk is cut down. Peace is restored.

It’s centuries later and the story of the conflict with the giants has faded into legend, told as a bedtime story to a young Jack and young Princess Isabelle.

Jump ahead a few years and Jack ((Nicholas  Hoult) is selling the family  horse and cart when he comes to the aid of the princess (Eleanor Tomlinson), who has snuck out of the castle incognito and is being accosted by some unsavory gentlemen.

A monk has stolen ancient magic beans from the castle to keep them out of the hands of Roderick (Stanley Tucci), one of the king’s henchman.  Roderick has evil plans of his own for those beans. The monk trades the beans to Jack for a getaway horse.  Meanwhile, Roderick has discovered the magic crown once used to subdue the giants.

The princess shows up at Jack’s house. Jack has tossed the beans to the floor. One takes root and the first of several giant beanstalks starts to grow, taking Jack’s house and the princess with it.

A rescue party of the king’s knights, accompanied by Jack and Roderick (with magic crown in hand) climbs up the stalk and discovers the land of the giants.  They are taken prisoner and offered up as a snack while the giants try and figure out what the heck the humans are doing there. Roderick fulfills his evil scheme, donning the crown and taking charge of the giants.  Jack frees the princess and the head of the king’s guard, Elmont (Ewan McGregor) and they make their escape down the beanstalk.

Roderick, meanwhile, loses his crown to the lead giant, General Fallon (Bill Nighy) and he is killed, making a sudden exit from the film.

With everyone back safely on earth, Jack’s beanstalk is cut down, but several magic beans have been inconveniently left behind with the giants. As they sprout four more additional beanstalks, the giants use them to descend to earth to capture the lands occupied by the humans.  A massive battle ensues, with the giants quickly gaining the upper hand.  Jack ends up taking on General Fallon and, thanks to a rather unusual use of yet another beanstalk, recaptures the crown and wills the giants into submission once again.

The limited, predictable story did have me yawning a few times in the theater.  What saves the film (somewhat) are its action sequences, credited to director Bryan Singer (“The Usual Suspects,” “Superman Returns,” “X  Men”).  There’s not much down time as we move from one scene in motion to the next.

When there’s that much activity going on, you can’t help but have some fun, distracting you from other important aspects of the film, like character development, imaginative storytelling and the concept of nuance.

The scenery is a nice distraction, too, as we look down upon the earthly kingdom of the humans from a beanstalk perspective and travel the rocky cliffs, woods and village of the skyward giants.

Credit also the animation, particularly when it comes to the look of the giants.  They have a textured look that captures all of their brute ugliness and the blend between computer generated animation and live action works quite well. What doesn’t work quite as well is the now-obligatory 3-D.  It’s OK, but adds very little and the film works fine without it.

If the movie does well, the filmmakers left themselves an open door for a sequel . Giants could once again be in our midst, if the box office receipts are there.  If they are, I hope they bring some better screenwriters with them.

As a somewhat fun, mindless, adrenaline rush, “Jack the Giant Slayer” works.   For all of you “Lincoln” people, you might want to go elsewhere for your movie experience.

I give “Jack the Giant Slayer” six giant sprouting beanstalks out of 10.

By Arthur Ryan

Correspondent

When I was a kid, I used to love to go to the movies and see the films made by Ray Harryhausen, the legendary stop-motion special effects guru. There were the Sinbad films, "Jason and the Argonauts" and Harryhausen's last big screen effort, "Clash of the Titans" in 1981. The stories were mythical adventures that lent themselves to the larger-than-life special effects that those films boasted.

This past weekend, Legendary Films and New Line Cinema, released, "Jack the Giant Slayer", which offers a new spin on the ancient fairytale of Jack and the Beanstalk. It's a timeless tale that brought me back to my youth and those fond days spent sitting in a darkened movie theatre and letting my imagination run wild, all thanks to Ray Harryhausen.

Of course, Harryhausen's stop-motion puppets have been replaced here with modern CGI technology, but the motivation is the same, mythical creatures such as giants are brought to life before our very eyes.

In this telling, Jack, played by Nicholas Hault, is a tenant farmer, who along with a runaway princess, Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) are hurled upwards when a stalk sprouting from some magic beans thrust Jack's house into the sky. 

High up in the sky lives a world of giants exiled there by the power of an ancient King’s magical crown. The new beanstalk offers the race of man-eating giants a chance to return below and devour the humans living there.

What follows is an hour and a half of pure fun and adventure, as Jack tries to rescue Isabelle from the evil giants.  Along the way Jack is also challenged by the evil Prince Roderick, who has his sights set on the magical crown that controls the army of giants. Roderick is played with dry-wit by Stanley Tucci, who despite being set up early as the film’s bad guy, proves no match for the evil giant’s collective powers.

“Jack the Giant Slayer” was based on a story by Darren Lemke and David Dobkin and is of no relation to the 1962 similarly themed, “Jack the Giant Killer.” In that film, Kerwin Matthews (himself a veteran of many Ray Harryhausen films) played a farm boy-turned knight who must protect a princess from the plots of an evil wizard. Matthews’s appearance in that film, often lead to it being confused as being made by Harryhausen, but it was not.

Here screenwriters, Lemke, Christopher McQuarrie and Dan Studney, have created a charming world of characters that are not unlike those in 1987’s “The Princess Bride”, although perhaps not as well drawn.

Director, Bryan Singer of  X-Men fame, created a wonderful look to his film, which in itself owes much to the style of those Harrthausen films of old. Singer’s camera captures the feel and dreary look of this mythical world but also matches the high pace of the action brought on by the arrival of the giants.

And it is the giants and the modern special effects geniuses who created them with their computers who deserve much of the credit here. The special effects crew on this film reads like a phone book, and it’s no surprise that it would take such a large team to create such huge imaginary creatures. The sequences featuring the giants are daring and inventive. Whether it’s seeing giants from Jack’s underwater perspective as in one scene or traveling down their insides as they swallow in another, these are giants like we’ve never seen them before.

My only gripe with this fairytale is its poor execution in 3D. Some three dimensional films benefit from the latest technology in enhancing the experience to the fullest. But in this case, the dark and dreary look to the film is made worse by the addition of very old looking 3D technology. I can’t be sure if it was just the theatre where I saw the film, or if the filmmakers are to blame, but I would recommend seeing this film in 2D if possible.

In the end, “Jack and the Giant Slayer” offers an outing of pure joy and adventure for families young and old, and for fans of the Harryhausen films of yesteryear, a fond look back!

Year End Blooper Reel

As you can see, we have trouble with our opens and closings!

Take 2 Review: Stand Up Guys

By Arthur Ryan


In 1986 Touchstone Pictures released an aging buddy-comedy called, "Tough Guys" starring Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. In it, Burt and Kirk played two recently released ex-cons who must adapt to the modern and ever-changing world outside the prison yard. It was a funny little movie with great charm thanks to it's stars who overcame the simple and at times juvenile aspects of the script.

This past weekend while watching the new film, "Stand Up Guys" starring Al Pacino and Christopher Walken, it all seemed a little familiar.

In "Stand Up Guys", Pacino plays Val, a small-time crook who took the wrap for the death of a mobster's son, and now after serving 28 years in prison is reunited with his partner-in-crime, Doc played with great charm by Walken. Doc, however has been hired as a hit-man by that same grieving mobster and is required to off his old friend or be done-in as well.

"Stand Up Guys" spends most of it's time showing these two aging conmen adjusting to old age as they spend about twelve hours together in an overnight last hurrah before Doc's hit on Val has to take place.

Walken shines throughout as we see Doc deal with just about everything with a hilarious matter-of-fact quality. While breaking into a neighborhood pharmacy to steal some Viagra for Val, Doc is more interested in stealing some medicine for his hypertension since his co-pay is too high.
Most of the jokes and set-ups dealing with the age of these two conmen work well despite the occasional juvenile tendency of the script.

Along the way the two spring their former getaway driver, Hirsch from a nursing home. Hirsch, is played with typical dryness by Alan Arkin. And although his scenes are among the most absurd in the film, you can't help but feel disappointed by Arkin's brief time onscreen.

Pacino’s Val is no great stretch for the actor, after all he’s played this type before in “Donnie Brasco (1997)” among others. In one scene Val attempts to charm a young female bar patron to dance with him. It is humorous yet totally unbelievable. The girl would practically have to know that she was dancing with legendary actor Al Pacino to make it at all plausible. But Val’s relationship with Doc and Hirsch is at times genuine, thanks in large part to the onscreen chemistry of these three veterans.

But the real surprise here comes from Doc’s friendship with Alex (Addison Timlin) a young waitress at an all-night diner that the ex-cons visit several times throughout the night. Their relationship becomes the heart of the film and it helps elevate the material to something other than just a funny buddy flick.

The script was a first effort for its young writer, Noah Haidle, and just the second big-screen outing for it’s actor-turn director, Fisher Stevens. The two have a handle on their material, although nothing too new is on display here. But both writer and director owe an awful lot to their cast of seasoned veterans whose charm, talent and onscreen personas make “Stand Up Guys” all the more enjoyable.


By David Bjorkgren
Managing editor

If nothing else, Stand Up Guys gets you to feel good about thugs.

This buddy picture about three aging criminals who are reunited stretches credibility but works well when the focus remains on the friendship they share.
And why not?  The three gangsters in question are played with a mix of gusto and tenderness by Christopher Walken, Al Pacino and Alan Arkin, with Walken and Pacino dominating the screen time.

The story begins when Val (Al Pacino) is picked up by his best friend Doc (Christopher Walken) after he is released from prison. Val has served 28 years after he took the rap in the death of a crime boss’ son.  Val’s in a party mood and Doc’s happy to oblige, as they hook up with some hookers, steal a car from some dangerous low-life’s, elude police, free their other long-time companion Hirsch (Alan Arkin) from a nursing home  and provide their own brand of justice for a rape victim against the previously-mentioned low-life’s.

In between, there are some very nice scenes mostly between Val and Doc in a restaurant with a very sweet waitress named Alex whose importance to the film becomes apparent later on.
I wanted more of those scenes.  The dialogue rang truer and the feelings of the characters seemed more authentic than the criminal antics and sexual exploits elsewhere in the picture.

To the film’s credit, every time it seemed like it was going to go over the edge with the zany antics of these geriatric criminals, it pulled back and refocused on the friendships between Doc, Val and Hirsch.

There is a plot device here, adding tension and giving particular dimension to Doc and Val’s relationship.  Doc has been coerced by the crime boss to kill Val in revenge for the death of his son.  Should Doc not carry out his mission by 10 a.m. the following morning after Val’s release from prison, his own life and/or the life of his granddaughter would be forfeited.

So we have two aging criminals reminiscing about the good old days, complaining about their aches, pains and high co-pays on their medicines. At the same time Doc wrestles with the dilemma of having to kill his best friend while Val tries to prepare for his own death.

Walken, who somehow manages to deliver a great performance when it looks like he’s doing nothing, is particularly endearing as the level-headed guy who has to make this situation work while Pacino delivers a manic, but sympathetic  portrayal of a man who is quickly running out of options.

Arkin’s appearance as Hirsch is delightful but, sadly, he seems to be around more for comic relief than as a partner on par with Walken and Pacino.  (Note to the filmmakers: There’s no way a man with emphysema could be as sexually spry or energetic as Arkin’s character appears to be.)

The film exists as a vehicle for the three actors and it really delivers,  making it worth the price of a ticket.  As to the rest of the story, it has its quirky appeal but should be seen for what it is—an over-the-top urban fantasy that in no way resembles a true-to-life gangster pic.
I give “Stand Up Guys” 6.8 over-the-hill, rough and tumble, gun-toting, but sensitive, bad guys out of 10.

Hitchcock - Fun But Uneven Look At The Master of Suspense!

Alfred Hitchcock, never won a competitive Academy Award for directing, despite being nominated five times. It wasn't until 1968 that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awarded Hitch the Irving G. Thalberg award honoring him for his work as a producer. The last of those five nominations for best director, was for the 1960 film, "Psycho" which is arguably the director's most famous and best work.

The making of that classic horror film is also the subject of a new movie, "Hitchcock", starring Anthony Hopkins in the title role. It's an enjoyable if not always true retelling of how "Psycho" got made and the toll it took on the director's health and his relationship with wife and collaborator, Alma Reville.

Written by John J. McLaughlin, the film is based on the 1990 book, "Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho," by Stephen Rebello who also worked as a consultant on "Hitchcock." Although Rebello's book focused more on the artistic production of "Psycho," this film uses Robello's work as a backdrop to the complex relationship between the aging film genius and his loving but longsuffering wife.

Directed by writer-turned-director Sacha Gervasi, "Hitchcock" opens in Plainfield, Wisconsin in 1944, with real-life murderer, Ed Gein (played by Michael Wincott) killing his older brother Henry in a fit of rage. The camera then suddenly pans to the right where we see Hopkins as Hitchock commenting on the crime in an obvious nod to the 1950's TV series, "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." It's a device that works at first, but as the film progresses, the balance of comic commentary versus dramatic exposition proves uneven at best.

Yet, "Hitchcock" still packs a favorable punch thanks primarily to the performances of it's entire cast, starting with Hopkins. His Hitchcock is part impression, part curious take on the reserved film genius. His best moment comes near the film's end, in a riotously funny scene depicting Hitch's reaction to the audience's first exposure to the famed "Psycho" shower-scene. It’s moments like this that comment on the making of the film at hand that are by far the most interesting to watch.

As for the actors playing the stars of “Psycho”, they are all reminiscent of the iconic movie’s cast. Scarlett Johansson doubles for Janet Leigh along with Jessica Biel as Vera Miles. But it's James D’Arcy as Anthony Perkins who is downright uncanny as the famed Norman Bates. It's disappointing however, that such little attention was given to Perkins in the script. D’Arcy embodies Perkins so well, that a biopic of his own seems in order.

But by far the most compelling performance belongs to Helen Mirren as Alma Reville. As Hitch’s wife and collaborator, Reville worked on many of the master-of-suspense’s films as both an editor and script doctor, not always receiving on-screen credit. In “Hitchcock,” Mirren’s Alma is trapped in what seems to be a loveless marriage to a man who is often more interested in his blond-bombshell stars than his devoted wife.

As Alma pursues creative outlets on her own with former script collaborator Whitfield Cook (played by Danny Huston), Hitch becomes suspicious and confronts her.  Alma’s response is an impassioned one and by far the dramatic high-point of the film. Mirren’s work is solid here and worthy of Oscar consideration.

The only drawback to this focus on Alma and Hitch's troubled relationship, is that if often overshadows the behind-the-scenes look at the making of the master-of-suspense's most famous film. It was hard to know what aspects about the Hitchcock's relationship covered in the film were true or just artistic license on part of screenwriter, McLaughlin. For that reason, I often felt I was watching a made-for-TV biopic, and not a feature film.

What I found the most hard to reconcile in “Hitchcock” was the filmmaker’s choice to have Ed Gein, the real-life serial killer who inspired the “Psycho” story, interacting with Hitch in several scenes. The two never really met and having the creepy Gein comment on what’s happening in Hitch’s personal life seems far fetched and unnecessary.

Despite the brief ‘making-of’ portions devoted to “Psycho,” this film spends most of it’s time peering into the personal life of it’s subject. Most of it is light and fun, but the uneven patchwork of drama, comedy and commentary keep it from ever achieving the classic status of the film “Psycho” itself.

Take 2 Movie Review: Lincoln

By DAVID BJORKGREN

Managing Editor

Is there nothing Steven Spielberg can’t do? In his latest film, “Lincoln,” Spielberg takes his cameras back in time and records one of the nation’s pivotal moments when it passed the 13th Amendment and abolished slavery. And he convinced President Abraham Lincoln to play himself in the film.

Well, not really, but it feels that way sometimes thanks to a convincing performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, a thoughtful screenplay by Tony Kushner and some good period piece lighting.

Day-Lewis gives us a mostly gentle, often humorous and folksy Lincoln who nevertheless shows the ruthlessness and political brilliance required to guide the nation through one of its darkest periods. In his Lincoln, we see not so much his human frailties, but rather the turmoil our 16th President felt trying to steer a divided nation past the institution of slavery and through the last moments of its Civil War. Lincoln’s devotion to the United States comes through, even as he occasionally tampers with its Democratic principles in order to preserve it.

And not once did he brandish an ax or try to kill off a vampire.
As with most film treatments of historical figures, we can only guess how close Day-Lewis hit the mark in portraying the actual Lincoln, but his is a Lincoln that felt real to the touch, visually and in personality.

Given the circumstances of January 1865, it seems incredible that Lincoln was able to orchestrate the House of Representatives into passing a Constitutional amendment to end slavery. The Civil War was still raging and even without the seceded southern states in play, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives was 20 votes short of getting the two-thirds majority it needed to pass the amendment. The concept of freed slaves was not a popular idea with many of the Democrats of Congress, from whose ranks many of the southern secessionists had come. There were even detractors among the Republicans.

And there’s a time limit. The South, depleted after four years of fighting, is sending emissaries north to talk about ending the war. The president’s in a quandary. If peace comes before the amendment passes then the South, readmitted to the Union, will be able to stop it. If he delays a chance to end the war early so the amendment can pass, then thousands more will die unnecessarily.

Most of the film focuses on Lincoln’s work behind the scenes to get support for the amendment before its final vote on Jan. 31. It is at these moments we appreciate Lincoln’s sheer will of personality. That personality was brought to bear against hesitant Congressman to swing them over to the “yes” column, as well as to members of his own cabinet who were often at odds over the best course of action to follow.

Day-Lewis is supported by a strong cast that has no problem sharing the room with him.

Tommy Lee Jones shines as Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens. This outspoken and sarcastic radical wanted slavery abolished and even pushed the idea that blacks and whites were equal. In a key scene during the House debates that resonates powerfully, Stevens must decide to put his tongue in check for the good of the amendment. Jones has raised the role of sarcastic, obstinate old man to an art form and he does not disappoint here. But beneath his humorous diatribes, Jones also shows us a man of deep character and principle.

Sally Fields gives us a stronger and smarter Mary Todd-Lincoln than history has often shown us. Yes, she struggles with depression and grief over the death of her sons, Edward and William, years before.

But at this point in her life, before future tragedies completely wear her down, she is still a strong and practical woman, devoted to her husband and politically-savvy when necessary. Fields shares a wonderful scene with Jones, when Mrs. Lincoln takes jabs at Congressman Stevens, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Stevens is critical of the money Mrs. Lincoln has spent to refurbish the White House and even tried to have her jailed. The White House, she counters, was a pig sty when they moved in and accuses him of withholding funds because he viewed the president and herself as hicks who didn’t need or deserve more lavish accommodations. At another point, in a bit of clairvoyance, she laments to Lincoln that she will only be remembered as that crazy woman who made her husband miserable.

David Strathairn plays Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, a strong ally in the president’s efforts to pass the amendment. Seward had lost the Republican Presidential nomination to Lincoln, but in time turned from bitter foe to staunch supporter as a member of Lincoln’s cabinet.

Veteran actor Hal Holbrook plays Preston Blair, a combative Lincoln advisor and southern politician who opposed the 13th amendment and wanted instead a peace treaty with the Confederacy and a sooner, rather than later, end to the war.

Lincoln’s efforts to secure the necessary votes were aided by three political operatives, played sometimes for laughs by John Hawkes, James Spader and Tim Blake. These men worked in secret, offering patronage jobs to lame-duck Democratic Congressman in order to win their vote for the amendment.

Two characters in the film, Congressman Steven’s housekeeper, Lydia Hamilton Smith (S. Epatha Merkerson) and White House seamstress Elizabeth Keckley (Gloria Reubenoffer) provide a black perspective on the historic events of 1865, reminding us that real lives are in the balance while the politicians debate.

Spielberg, as usual, has done a great job of creating a visually stunning piece. Scenes are lit naturally or seemingly with whatever artificial lighting was available in 1865. The dimly-lit scenes create intimacy between the characters and the audience that draw you in. The landscapes, from interiors of the White House to exteriors of Washington D.C., to the battlefields, range from elegant to gritty.

This will not be a film to everyone’s tastes. It is not action-adventure. It is historical political intrigue. It is the spoken word and it is an intimate exploration of a bigger-than-life presidential figure with noble ideas. The cinematography, as good as it is, is mere backdrop to the actors that carry the day.

I give “Lincoln” 8.5 story-telling, top hat-tipping presidents out of 10.


By Arthur Ryan

Correspondent

Steven Spielberg is no stranger to historical drama. He won his first Oscar for Best Director in 1994 for “Schindler’s List” and then again in 1999 for “Saving Private Ryan.”

Films like “Munich” would follow as well as his work as a producer on such projects as “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific.”

Spielberg has a great talent for interpreting history on film and with his latest effort, “Lincoln” which opened in movie theaters across the country this past weekend, he has outdone himself and delivered a breathtaking snapshot of a seminal moment in the life of our country and it’s 16th President.

Based in-part on historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s 2005 book, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln,” Spielberg’s “Lincoln” concentrates for the most part on one month, January 1865. The Civil War was almost over and Lincoln’s decision to amend the Constitution and make permanent his wartime Emancipation Proclamation, set’s off a political battle of wits and backroom horse-trading that seem all too familiar to the polarized times we live in today.

Daniel Day-Lewis is nothing short of brilliant in the title role of Abraham Lincoln. His cool, calm and collected Lincoln is steadfast, amusing and at times impassioned, and not at all unwilling to play politics to reach his goal of ending slavery. His onscreen performance is one for the ages, up there with James Cagney’s George M. Cohan and Marlon Brando’s Vito Corleone. There is no doubt that for generations to come, when people think of President Abraham Lincoln, they will picture him as Day-Lewis.

Sally Field also shines as Lincoln’s tormented and extremely protective wife, Mary Todd. Molly, as Lincoln calls her, is still suffering emotionally from the death of their son, Willie, two years earlier. When their oldest son, Robert (portrayed by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) hopes to enlist in the union army, it proves almost too much for Mrs. Lincoln to bear. The scenes between Day-Lewis and Field are exceptional and bring great insight into their relationship.

In a film filled with commanding supporting performances, Tommy Lee Jones shines as Republican Congressman, Thaddeus Stevens from Pennsylvania. His ardent abolitionist stand works both for and against Lincoln’s hope to pass the 13th Amendment and end slavery. His fiery rhetoric on the floor of the House of Representatives is a highlight, but Jones is equally as effective in more subtle scenes especially near the film’s end.

In at least two of those scenes at “Lincoln’s” conclusion prove why Spielberg is arguably the best living film director of our time. One is of course the assassination of President Lincoln and the other a lesser known footnote from Thaddeus Stevens’ biography, both of which are handled by Spielberg in the most inventive of ways.

His choices here are brilliant from a historical perspective. Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner know just the right moment to reveal information about a main character along with finding new perspectives in which to shed light on known historical events, many of which have been filmed before.

With great restraint, Spielberg’s camera offers a more intimate look at history this time around, one with less sweeping camera moves and obvious musical cues than in his movies of the past. In other words, there’s less John Ford and more Sidney Lumet.

Unlike so many other directors in the past who have played very loose with the facts, Spielberg’s “Lincoln” only embellishes along the margins. A handful of historians have taken only minor issues with Kushner’s script, most of which have to do with character motivation and physical appearance. But as is so often the case in translating history to the big screen, time constraints often have some characters appearing more real than others. And today more than ever, there are some historians who will see on the screen what they want to, based on their own modern political ideologies.

There is no doubt in this reviewer’s mind that “Lincoln” and it’s stars Day-Lewis, Field and Jones will be up for Oscars come February along with writer Kushner and director Spielberg. And for the first time in a long time, the hype around a film and its chances of winning Oscar gold will be entirely justified.

Spielberg has given America a gift, one that will live on in the memory of movie-goers and historians for decades to come. And following the election of 2012, he may have also given his fellow Americans the best kind of medicine, the kind in a form of a movie that allows old wounds to heal and offers something other than a political party to rally around.

Take 2 Movie Review "Skyfall"

BY ARTHUR RYAN

CORRESPONDENT

James Bond is getting old. In fact, he first appeared on the big screen, back in 1962 in “Dr. No,” the first of the Albert “Cubby” Broccoli produced Bond films 50 years ago.

And that fact is not wasted in the newest 007 film to hit movie theaters this past weekend. “Skyfall” has an aging James Bond coming to grips with his own usefulness as well as that of the intelligence agency he works for.

“Skyfall” opens, as do all Bond films with a heart-stopping chase scene, this time through the busy streets of Turkey. The chase ends up on-top of a speeding train where Bond’s on the hunt for a stolen computer hard-drive that contains the names of several undercover British agents, who are at risk of being revealed and in turn endangering their lives.

The search takes 007 all the way to Shanghai, China, where a clue in the form of a casino chip, left behind by an assassin has Bond traveling again to Macao in hopes of finding who is behind the missing hard-drive. At the same time the names of five of the British secret agents start to show up on YouTube and in turn the British spy agency comes under fire, and agency director, M (played for the seventh time by Judi Dench) is called before a committee in parliament to explain herself.

Bond’s search leads him to a deserted island where a computer genius and former disgruntled agent reveals himself as the master behind the plot to discredit M and the agency he once worked for.

Directed by Oscar-winner Sam Mendes (American Beauty), “Skyfall” is different then most Bond films in that it’s probably the first with the most at stake for its main characters. It turns out that the disgruntled agent, Raoul Silva, played with great charm by Javier Bardem, has it in for M and will not rest until he has his revenge.

Bond, played for the third time by Daniel Craig, finds himself in an ever-changing world. A world where enemies are no longer known by their country, and their threats are more high-tech and less mechanical than in the past. And to combat these modern threats, means a younger, more tech-savvy generation must step up to the challenge. So, when Bond is sent to meet the new Quartermaster or “Q” as he is known in most Bond films, he is shocked to find a young 20-something filling in where traditionally a gray-haired old man once stood.

Ben Whishaw plays Q with a nerdy brilliance and wit that does justice to former Q’s, played by John Cleese and Desmond Llewelyn. His gadgets take a back seat in this Bond, to his computer skills and tech savvy which are much more needed in these computer-based times we live in.

Albert Finney shows up in a small but pivotal role, and is charming and colorful as usual. I must admit it was a bit sad to see him looking so old, but with so many great films in his past, one can’t help but think a role like this comes very easy to him. At least he makes it look that way!

“Skyfall” is a solid Bond thriller with an intelligent script which makes a tricky plot easy to follow and more timely then most 007 films in the past. Cinematographer Roger Deakins uses a colorful pallet in painting a gorgeous looking 007 film, capturing the electronic brilliance of Shanghai, the lamp-lit waterways of Macao and the foggy moonlit moors of Scotland with breathtaking results. Whether you’re a Bond fan or not, this secret agent outing is aimed to please most moviegoers on many levels, not the least being a splendid visual feast for the eyes

By DAVID BJORKGREN

Managing Editor

I have never seen a James Bond film, unless you want to count “Moonraker,” which most people don’t.

So as a 007 neophyte I wasn’t sure what to expect when I caught the latest incarnation of the secret agent franchise.

I’m happy to say that “Skyfall” works, even if you’ve never lived in the James Bond universe. For those who love all things Bond, the film is a stylish homage to its predecessors, particularly to the more straightforward and less contrived earlier films. James Bond is a cultural icon that seems to transcend his 50-year film history so even without the detailed history of the series, I still got most of the references and occasional inside jokes.

Those who have been following the more recent versions of James Bond and the characters that surround him will see those relationships challenged as “Skyfall” dismantles his world from the inside.

Weaving in and out of the action scenes there is some human drama unfolding. In between the gun fire, the explosions and the elaborately-staged fight sequences, there is still time to explore issues of trust, loyalty, betrayal, getting old and becoming obsolete.

“Skyfall” also takes aim at the emergence of cyber-terrorism and the impact of technology on the espionage field. That includes poking fun at the overindulgence of gadgets in previous Bond films. This time out the secret agent is armed only with a radio transmitter and a gun coded to fire by his hand alone. When Bond questions Q (Ben Whishawhe), a young computer genius, about his limited tech aids, Q replies that they really don’t do the exploding pen thing anymore.

The film opens in Istanbul, where Bond (Daniel Craig) finds a critically wounded agent and a hard-drive missing. Said hard-drive contained the names of NATO agents working undercover in terrorist organizations. Bond dukes it out with a hit man on the top of a moving train, while his partner, Eve (Naomie Harris) takes aim. Eve is concerned she might shoot Bond by mistake but Bond’s boss, M (Judi Dench), orders her to take the shot anyway. She fires and Bond appears to fall to his death. Roll the opening credits.

Back in London, M is in hot water because of the missing hard drive and she is urged to retire as head of Britian’s secret MI6 operations, but she refuses. Next thing you know, someone’s hacked into M’s computer. The hacker triggers an explosion which destroys M’s office, taking out several MI6 agents. The death toll continues to mount when the hacker starts to release the names of the NATO agents from the stolen hard drive. These are dark times for MI6 and M must prove her and her agency’s relevancy in these modern times of computer terrorism.

Bond, who of course survived his fall, returns to London and offers his help. This is not the energized Bond we have come to know. He seems tired of the espionage game, resentful to M for her decision to fire on him and physically not quite up to the task. Nevertheless, M reinstates him, sending him to Shanghai to find the hit man from Istanbul. In Shanghai, we are treated to some beautifully filmed city landscape scenes reminiscent of “Lost in Translation.”

He finds the hit man but he inconveniently falls to his death before he can reveal anything about his boss or the missing hard drive. Bond’s journey takes him to a luxurious casino where he survives komodo dragons and other attempts on his life before hooking up with Severine, (Bérénice Marlohe), a beautiful woman and sex slave who welcomes him on board a yacht. They end up on an abandoned island where they meet Severine’s employer, a former MI6 agent, Raoul Silva, played with creepy, light-hearted abandon by Javier Bardem. Silva, a hacker genius, feels M abandoned him to the enemy and he is hell bent on revenge.

In true Bond style, the agent captures Silva and returns him to Great Britain, but Silva escapes into the London underground with Bond in pursuit. One train wreck later Silva has given him the slip.

Silva shows up at a hearing where M is being questioned about the problems at MI6, but Bond whisks her away taking her to his boyhood home, Skyfall, in Scotland, where no computer can reach them. The film offers a tip of the hat to its predecessors when they make the trip in his Aston Martin DB5, ejector seat and front machine gun mounts still intact.

They hook up with the caretaker for Skyfall, Kincade (Albert Finney) and they booby trap the home in anticipation of Silva’s arrival. Arrive he does and the film lets loose with a wide range of pyrotechnics.

But wait, we’re not done yet. M, wounded in the assault, has been spirited away by Kincade to a nearby chapel. Sadly, Silva spots them and, in a final showdown with M, plots their mutual death.

But where’s Bond? Destroyed in the fire? I don’t think so. He slips out through some underground tunnels and confronts Silva seemingly in the nick of time. It’s a happy ending, except for one thing that I can’t tell you.

“Skyfall” is a roller coaster ride that pauses occasionally to give us a peek at what the characters are feeling. Director Sam Mandes ruled with a firm hand, giving us a storyline easy to follow, despite its many twists and turns.

Craig offers a wonderful performance as an aging and somewhat weary Bond, who nevertheless charms his way through life, as he outmaneuvers and out fights his enemies. Dench, in a continuing role that now spans six Bond films, is terrific as the nonplussed, iron-willed M, who is forced to face her own frailties and the consequences of her decisions.

For the uninitiated, “Skyfall” is a great way to enter the world of Bond, but there’s a lot here that the devoted fans will love as well.

I give “Skyfall” (double 00) seven well-dressed cool men under fire out of 10

Take 2 Revie ARGO

Hot Films Hit The Big Screen This Fall

By Arthur Ryan - Correspondent

As fall approaches, along with the welcomed change in weather the season will also usher in a new batch of films at movie theaters around the world. But for residents of Philadelphia and especially Delaware County, probably the most anticipated film this fall will be "Silver Linings Playbook" which opens this November.

Starring Bradley Cooper and Robert De Niro, the film was shot last year all around Delaware County and when the trailer hit local movie theaters this past summer, audiences were treated to familiar shots of Lansdowne Avenue and the Llanerch diner. In the film, Cooper plays a recently divorced man who moves back home with his "Philadelphia Eagles Obsessed" parents. Something tells me the movie will be sold-out on opening night in movie theaters across the region.

Of course you don't have to wait until November to see what movies this fall will bring. This coming weekend Clint Eastwood, fresh off his bewildering appearance at the RNC, will be seen in "Trouble With The Curve", directed by his longtime producing partner, Robert Lorenz. In fact, it's the first movie Clint hasn't directed himself in since 1993! In "Curve", Clint plays an aging and ailing baseball scout who takes his daughter (played by Amy Adams) along for one last recruiting trip. From the trailer, the film looks like it's going to be either an instant classic, or a clichéd mess.

The week of September 28th brings the first of two animated kids fare that share a spooky theme. “Hotel Transylvania” is a computer animated family friendly horror fest that looks a lot like 1967’s “Mad Monster Party”. Only here, Frankenstein, Dracula and their contemporaries are held up in a “monsters only” resort when Dracula’s teen-aged daughter disrupts the peace by dating an unwelcome human visitor. The film features the voices of Adam Sandler, Kevin James and Selena Gomez and looks to be fun for the whole family.

Then just one week later on October 5th, another animated fright fest aimed at kids will come in the form of “Frankenweenie”. Tim Burton has updated his live action short from 1984 with this puppet-animated full length feature which tells the story of a Frankenstein-like house pet resurrected from the dead, only to reek havoc on his peaceful neighborhood. The film features the voices of SCTV vets Marin Short and Catherine O’Hara, as well as horror legend, Christopher Lee.
Lee Daniels, director of “Precious” debuts his follow up film with the pulp thriller / exploitation film, “The Paperboy’ this October. The movie did well at Cannes earlier this year, and features an all-star cast including Nicole Kidman, Matthew McConaughey, John Cusack, Macy Gray and Zack Efron.
The film centers around a smalltime reporter who returns to his Florida hometown to investigate a death row inmate. The film which highlights a deviant subculture should have no trouble sparking controversy.

Also this October, Actor-director Ben Affleck’s film “Argo“,  which offers up one of those strange-but-true stories that centers around the 1970s Iranian hostage crisis, is getting a lot of early Hollywood buzz. The film stars Affleck as a CIA specialist who concocts a bizarre plan to rescue six American’s held up in the Canadian embassy in Iran, by staging a mock science fiction film shoot in the Iranian desert. The cast in this dark comedy/drama includes Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Kyle Chandler, and Oscar-winner Alan Arkin.

Another anticipated fall film with a middle east theme is “Zero Dark Thirty”. Kathryn Bigelow, Oscar-winning director of “The Hurt Locker” follows up that best picture winner with a detailed look into the raid that killed 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden. The film is already sparking controversy over the White House and CIA’s apparent cooperation with the filmmakers. As well as the producer’s pledge to not release the film until after the November election. Whatever your political affiliation, the trailer promises to be an intense and action packed film much like the one that made Bigelow the first woman in history to win an Oscar for Best Director.

For presidential politics of an older kind, Steven Speilberg’s long awaited “Lincoln” lands in theaters on November 9th, just days after the election. Spielberg has been in production on this film for several years, first planned to star Liam Neeson in the title role, but in the end Daniel Day-Lewis will appear onscreen as our nation’s 16th President. The film is based in-part on historian, Doris Kerns Goodwin’s book, “Team of Rivals” and focuses on the last few months of Lincoln’s presidency. There’s Oscar buzz all around on this one, and with a stellar cast that also includes Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln, how can Spielberg miss? But will movie goers be tired of politics by November 9th?



Well, if so they can also look forward to “Skyfall” the latest James Bond film released on the same day as Spielberg’s “Lincoln”. Will it feature a sky-diving Queen Elizabeth II along side Bond star, Daniel Craig? I doubt it, but Craig fans will be lining up for this latest Bond adventure nevertheless. This time James Bond’s loyalty to M is tested as her past comes back in ways she’d like to be forgotten!

December holds some big names and big films too, starting off with the release of Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” Another first film in what is expected to be a two-part prequel to the three Lord of the Rings films Jackson gave us in the past. Ian McKellen returns along with others in J.R.R. Tolkien’s tale of curious Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins who along with a gang of dwarves searches for stolen treasure among the mountains. All of the elements are in place for another successful fantasy filled pair of epic films by the master filmmaker from New Zealand.

It’s been a while since a musical captured the movie-going public’s fascination, and will a big-screen adaptation of the popular Broadway classic, “Les Miserables” be the next? Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe and Anne Hathaway head up the stellar cast, but can they sing? Well, we already know that Jackman can hold his own on Broadway and in the West End, but the verdict is still out on Crowe and Hathaway, and one only has to think of Lucille Ball’s “Mame (1974)” to see how a star’s lack of talent as a singer can sink an otherwise good film fast. This adaptation of the classic Victor Hugo novel is being directed by Tom Hooper who gave us last year’s “The King’s Speech”, so expectations are high to say the least. Look for it when it opens on December 14th.

The end of this year will be a mix-bag of comedies and violent dramas that will test movie-goers tastes as 2012 closes. Quentin Tarantino’s ultra violent “Django Unchained” starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx will shake up the history of slavery in America much in the same way Tarantinos’ “Inglorious Bastards” did to World War II Germany, as Foxx plays a slave-turned bounty hunter who sets out to rescue his wife from a southern plantation owner played by DiCaprio.

If audiences are in a mood for more moderate fair after the holidays, they’ll find comfort in two comedies released the same week as “Django.” First up is “The Guilt Trip” starring Barbra Streisand as mother to inventor Seth Rogan as they set out on a unlikely road trip. But Streisand will be battling at the box-office with Bette Midler who teams up with Billy Crystal for “Parental Guidance”. Crystal and Midler play grandparents who battle with daughter Marisa Tomei on how to raise her kids. No doubt, a lot of star power in one weekend for movie-goers to chose from. And just who will win the day? Well, we’ll all have to wait till after the new year to find out!

Take 2 Review - Hope Springs

Ernest Borgnine 1917 - 2012

To say I’m an Ernest Borgnine fan would be the biggest understatement for anyone who knows me. I’ve been a lifelong Borgnine-obsessed fan since I first saw “The Poseidon Adventure (1972)” when I was about 10 years old. I have since watched that film every New Year’s Eve for the last 23 years, at my annual New Years celebration.

It seems I’ve always been aware of Ernest Borgnine. I can remember watching re-runs of “McHale’s Navy” after school as a child. And being half-Italian I discovered his Oscar-winning performance in the title role of 1955’s “Marty”, watching it many times over the years with family and friends. Borgnine beat out James Cagney, James Dean, Frank Sinatra and Spencer Tracy for the Oscar that year. It’s a performance that has stuck with me as I forayed into the acting field myself typically cast in the same kind of roles on local stages as was Borgnine.

Then, one night when I was a teen I remember watching the late-late show and seeing Borgnine play a sadistic depression-era train engineer opposite Lee Marvin in director, Robert Aldrich’s “Emperor of the North Pole (1972)”. It’s a larger-than life performance by Borgnine in a film that has garnered a legion of fans and train aficionados through the years.

As I got more and more into movies throughout my life I started seeing more of Borgnine’s work in such classics as “From Here To Eternity (1953)”, “Bad Day At Black Rock (1955)“, “Dirty Dozen (1967)” and “The Wild Bunch (1969).” All memorable supporting roles for sure, but there were also other lesser known efforts that were just as worthy. In particular the 1956 film “The Catered Affair” also starring Bette Davis. The film recently had a short-lived revival as a musical on Broadway, which tells the story of a Bronx cabbie, originally played by Borgnine who along with his wife, Davis struggle to pay for the wedding of their daughter, played by Debbie Reynolds. Borgnine and Davis make a great pair, and would team up again 15 years later in the laughably bad, “Bunny O’Hare (1971).

“The Poseidon Adventure” wasn’t the only disaster-themed film of Borgnines, he starred opposite Jimmy Stewart in the 1965 airplane crash film, “The Flight of the Phoenix.” Again another film, like “Poseidon”, and “Willard (1971)” which also enjoyed remakes in recent years. In fact another redo of a Borgine favorite of mine, “John Carpenter’s Escape From New York (1981)” will hit movie theaters next year.

Many of Borgnine’s films over the years have achieved cult status. Horror & Sci-Fi films like “The Devil’s Rain (1975)”, “The Black Hole (1979)”, “Deadly Blessing (1981) ” and the aforementioned “Willard.” But there were also dark comedies like “Law and Disorder” from 1974 which costarred Carol O’Connor who along with Borgnine play auxiliary neighborhood cops in New York city with disastrous results.

To try to mention each and every Borgnine film would be futile, he appeared in over 100 films and TV programs. One of my favorite small screen efforts of his was the 1977 mini-series, “Jesus Of Nazareth” in which Borgnine played a centurion. It’s a heartfelt performance and a more subtle one than we are used to from Borgnine in that period. Another fine work of Borgnine's that received very little notice was in director Sean Penn's segment "USA" in the controversial 2002 film "11'09"01." Borgnine plays a widower and shut-in whose life changes from one of darkness to light following the collapse of the twin-towers. It's a medaphoric look at life before and after 9/11 and handled brilliantly by Borgnine.

Ernest Borgnine worked right up until the end, his final appearance was in last year’s “Red” starring Bruce Willis and Morgan Freeman. Along the way when he wasn’t making film classics or cult favorite’s he supplied voice-overs for everything from “The Simpsons” to “SpongeBob SquarePants!” And if you can get a hold of a copy of the 1997 documentary, “Ernest Borgnine On The Bus”, a hysterical look at the movie star driving across country in an RV, it’s an absolute treasure.

In the end Ernest Borgnine proved to be one of Hollywood’s most unlikely stars. His average looks and gap-toothed grin were not what we think of when we think “leading-man.” Yet, as “Marty Piletti”, a Brooklyn butcher he won the hearts of Americans and audiences around the world and began a 60 year career as one of Hollywood’s most reliable performers.

Ernest Borgnine Movies

Andy Griffith 1926 - 2012

Andy Griffith’s passing got me thinking about how little television I watch nowadays. In fact I watch so little TV anymore that I got rid of my extended cable package in favor of the basic offering of only three major broadcast networks and a handful of PBS and local channels. I did this a little over a year ago, and I have to say I don’t feel I’m missing all that much.

The 24 hour “news” channels became so loud and obnoxious with nothing but shouting ideologues hurling lies and misrepresentations at each other, that I, like so many have turned to the web and the handful of local newspapers left to get the news.

The variety of sitcoms and TV dramas that could reasonably pass the time a few nights a week has dwindled to such a precious few that it hardly justifies paying out all that money for an expensive cable TV subscription.

Nowadays we’re bombarded with useless “reality” programs that flood the airwaves with no intellectual or educational value at all. My guess is that the only reason they have become so popular is the cornucopia of “real” persons who make up the casts whose only talents are stripping down and behaving badly in front of millions. Whenever I come across someone behaving ignorant or rudely in public anymore, I can’t help but feel that they are influenced by watching others act so selfishly on TV.

So, when the news of Andy Griffith’s death came I found myself longing for that time when I huddled around a TV with my family and watched the old TV shows of my youth. Shows like “The Andy Griffith Show” which besides being riotously funny could be wholesome and genuine and so appropriate for the entire family. I don’t think we could ever find room for a show like that on modern TV anymore.

In 1979 Griffith tried for a television comeback with the short-lived Sci-Fi series, “Salvage 1” that captured my 13 year-old imagination and made me believe that I could build a spaceship in my backyard just as he did on the show. But, this would not be his triumphant return to a weekly TV series, it would only last 19 episodes, and we would have to wait till “Matlock” for Griffith to find success again on the small screen.

Ironically Mr. Griffith’s passing also reminded me of his great performance in the 1957 film, “A Face In The Crowd”, where as the character Lonesome Rhodes, he eerily foreshadows the likes of Glenn Beck and other modern day charlatans of our airwaves. It’s a mesmerizing performance and an acting lesson that will be studied for generations to come.

Those who create most of what we watch on TV these days haven’t an ounce of the grace that could be found in a man like Andy Griffith. He made a hit out of a TV show that during the turbulent changing times of the 1960s, spoke to a simpler more humble way of life that those of us watching even in reruns could somehow identify with. What Andy Griffith will most be remembered for is the eight seasons of great television he created that offered a sense of family and community in a fictional but so very familiar town called, Mayberry!

Take 2 Review: Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World

Take 2 Review: Prometheus

'Prometheus' is good on style, but muddled

By Art Ryan
NEWS Movie Critic


The first movie I ever rented on videocassette was the 1974 cult Sci-fi comedy, “Dark Star.” It was directed by John Carpenter who also co-wrote the script with the film’s star, Dan O’Bannon.  The film was a send up of the Stanley Kubrick classic, “2001: A Space Odyssey” complete with a talking bomb taking the place of  the HAL 9000 computer and a hilarious “beach- ball-with-claws” alien thrown in for good measure.

In 1979, O’Bannon’s ridiculous beach ball alien became the inspiration for a much more frightening movie monster in O’Bannon’s screenplay that year for “Alien”, starring Sigourney Weaver. “Alien” was directed by then newcomer, Ridley Scott who with only one previous film under his belt, had a lot to prove. Following blockbusters like “Star Wars” and “Close Encounters…”, the task was daunting, but Scott delivered a masterful film that blended both science fiction and horror in a way that hadn’t been seen before.

For me what made the original “Alien” film so appealing was the claustrophobic atmosphere that Scott and his fellow artist created that allowed us the audience to feel trapped onboard along side the film’s stars.
Let’s face it the original “Alien‘s” plotline was a simple survival story that was executed to mere perfection.

Although released to mixed critical reviews, the original “Alien” was a hit and spurned four sequels and countless imitations. Director Scott would go on to direct several films over the years including 1982’s “Blade Runner”, another milestone in the science fiction film genre.

So now over thirty years later Ridley Scott has teamed up with two of “Alien’s” original producers to bring us “Prometheus”, a prequel of sorts which after getting off to a promising start, ends up asking more questions then necessary about the original film’s origins.

Following an intriguing opening sequence showing a human-like alien life- form withering away off the coast of Scotland in the distant past, “Prometheus” then jumps to the year 2089 where archeologist discover identical star-maps drawn on the walls of caves of ancient civilizations. These maps will eventually lead a scientific vessel called Prometheus to a far away moon where the ship’s crew search for possible “engineers” of life on earth.

Weighty ideas to be sure, although not new to science fiction. Carl Sagan’s “Contact” covered similar territory brilliantly, minus the horror angle. “Prometheus” fairs well for about an hour until too many subplots and too many implausible twists and turns make a comprehensible outcome all but impossible.

What “Prometheus” does very well is deliver on look and style. Although the H.R. Giger drawings that inspired the original Alien look are far less prevalent here, the other-worldly look to the alien moon in “Prometheus” is nothing less than spectacular. The film’s visual style will hold your attention throughout despite the eventual rambling of its storyline.

By far the most interesting character that writers Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof have come up with for “Prometheus“, is an android named David. David, played with great charm and mystery by Michael Fassbender spends two years alone while journeying to the alien moon as his fellow crewmembers are in hibernation. He passes the time by studying Peter O’Toole’s performance in the film “Lawrence of Arabia”, and even colors and combs his hair in an attempt to appear more like Lawrence and in turn, more human. None of the other characters here are as well drawn as David or even come close to the stellar cast of characters made famous in the original film. This made me wonder what “Alien” creator Dan O’Bannon could have contributed this time around. Sadly, O’Bannon passed away in 2009 following a battle with Crohn’s disease.

But even Fassbender’s fun performance can’t save the muddled mess of the last 40 minutes. Even David starts doing things that don’t make sense for his character, and none of it gets explained. And with all due respect to director Scott, it’s a bit disingenuous after 30 years to make us sit through a long awaited prequel only to find out that we have to wait until the prequel’s sequel to get answers to questions the prequel should have answered in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, “Prometheus” is worth the cost of admission, there are some genuine scares and a lot of eye popping visuals to keep it moving despite the muddled narrative. But once again as in most special effects driven movies these days, “Prometheus” unnecessarily has to throw every computer generated gimmick in at the end in hopes of making up for what it’s lacking in plotline.

After seeing “Prometheus” I couldn’t help but think of the now famous scene from the original “Alien’ where the first murder committed by the title character is shown mostly through the reaction of the on board cat, Jones. It was a daring move for a young director back in 1979, who trusted his instincts as well as his audience. I wish that young director was on hand this time around to bring a bit more originality coupled with simplicity that could have made this Alien outing as thrilling as it’s predecessor.

'Prometheus' dazzles but doesn't delight

By David Bjorkgren
NEWS Managing editor

   It’s a good thing the crew of the Prometheus doesn’t work for NASA.  This group of future space travelers would have easily washed out of the astronaut program.

   Not only do they not work well as a team, they don’t even follow the basic safety protocols that go with the dangers of space travel.  They land on an unknown world and sloppily expose themselves to all kinds of environmental and biological hazards. Guys this stupid deserve to be eaten by aliens.

   And that was just one of the implausible things I found in “Prometheus,” the latest offering in the 33-year “Alien” franchise.

   The film is striking visually. There are harsh alien worlds, cavernous spaceships, exotic-looking humanoids, a whole menagerie of morphing aliens ready to devour you in several disturbing ways  and some nice-looking future hardware (the mapping probes are pretty cool).  Credit has to go to director Ridley Scott, who directed the original “Alien,” along with the film “Bladerunner.”

   Kudos also to the filmmakers for examining two of humanities most profound questions, “Who made us?” and “Where do we come from?”  Exploring those ideas, coupled with all the eye candy, makes for a pretty interesting first hour or so.  If they had stuck with that, thrown in a little more eerie tension and given us a scary alien assault every once in a while, the film would have earned its rightful place in the “Alien” saga.

   The film revolves around an “ancient astronaut” moment when archaeologists discover a cave painting of a large humanoid pointing to a group of stars. This star map is discovered at several ancient sites and could point to the origin of humanity. The idea sparks the curiosity of Peter Weyland, founder of the Weyland Corporation. He funds a mission to follow the star map and seek out these aliens, now dubbed the “Engineers.”  It is the year 2093 and the science vessel “Prometheus” has arrived at a distant moon  from Earth to find some “Engineers.”

   On board are the archaeologist couple, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapaci) and Charlie Holloway, (Logan Marshall-Green) who discovered the star maps. The crew finds a structure on the planet and start exploring. They find an Engineer’s corpse and discover the Engineer DNA perfectly matches human DNA. Hmm.

   Of course, they go a little too far in their explorations and all kinds of nasty things, from tinny- tiny creatures in black goo, to a couple of snakes emerge, wreaking all kinds of unimaginable mayhem on the crew. How do these nasty things fit in with the Engineers? And what exactly is up with the Prometheus’ on-board android, David, (Michael Fassbender) who seems polite enough but does some fairly sinister things?  And maybe most importantly, where does Elizabeth Shaw get all of her stamina moments after performing major surgery on herself?

   It’s a couple of hours later, audience time, and we’re still not sure.
 
   Like so many films these days, the filmmakers overreached, then ran out of steam, money, or time.  There are multiple story teasers that take the film-goer down too many unanswered paths. Yea, I know, it’s a setup for the sequel, but confused audiences mean frustrated audiences, which can mean no audience.

   Shortcuts suddenly emerge that had me scratching my head, saying to myself, “now how did they jump to that conclusion so easily?”It’s as if someone said at one point, “OK, let’s wrap it up.”

   The film’s screenplay was penned by Jon Spaihts and  Damon Lindelof, executive producer of the TV series, “Lost,”  which would explain the confusing multiple storylines.

   Sadly, the original screenwriter for “Alien,” Dan O’Bannon, died in 2009. He did not envision the 1979  “Alien” as an epic film. It was a horror movie in space, O’Bannon’s scary follow up to the quirky space comedy “Dark Star.” It worked because the storyline was simple, using the same formula Steven Spielberg used in “Jaws”: Don’t show them the shark until you absolutely have to.”
The anticipation of a gross-out alien attack made “Alien” fun and scary. Throw in a great cast and some interesting characters (Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley holds up well as the never-say-die heroine), give us good sci-fi window dressing along with a sinister android and you’ve got yourself a movie.

   Aside from the sinister android and a lot of sci-fi, “Prometheus” doesn’t have too much in the way of interesting characters.  There’s plenty of gross-out alien scenes, but not enough scary foreshadowing to take you there.

   “Prometheus” tries to bring an epic feel to the “Alien” universe. It gets part of the way there. But audiences would have been better served if it had either gone all the way, or gone back to its simpler horror film roots.

   I give “Prometheus” seven-and-a-half slimy morphing aliens out of 10.