BY RICK JACKSON
Gainsbourg is not your average biopic but an extraordinary look at the man and his eccentric life as both a composer and lover. He was a great poet and as Eric Elmosnino portrays him, you feel you know him because of his positive look at the world and the way he perceived it as one in which you only live in once. As a poet he could write something about anything and easily add music as if it came to him naturally. Despite the fact he didn't like music when he was a boy, he used it to create an aura of possibilities and it is from this he loved life to the hilt.
Directed by Joann Sfar, there are ample opportunities to show off his flair for the coomon man and there is even a chance to see how his mind worked as if it were something madness could easily penetrate and this gives this a dramatic edge other films like this don't often present.
The celebrated affairs and sexual nature of his personal life inject Gainsbourg with an affinity for the absurd and, at the same time, you are entertained by a French gentleman with a notoriety he didn't take to his head. The lyrics to his songs were risque and this engendered a sense of apparent importance as a songwriter who loved attention. It is almost as if he was using it as a substitute for the lack of love he received as a boy and wanted to gain more acceptance from his parents who didn't feel he was going to amount to much.
Based on the director's own graphic novel, the screenplay spends a lot of time on who he was as both a man and a cause celeb. His affairs with women, notably Brigitte Bardot and Jane Birkin symbolize the the person as a man of different tastes within his own generation and his songs reflected a devilish quality to his tastes in women who he saw as something more than sex objects but a chance to experiment with his own ideas of sexual intimacy and strength he only dreamed about over and over again as he grew up and where he was exposed to sexual repression. His music as you will see brought forward a way he could express himself eloquently and it caught on to a legion of fans who agreed with his views.
When you first hear him sing, there is a raspy quality to his voice reminiscent of Leonard Cohen. Even the latter's quiet persona is similar to Serge Gainsbourg.
The supporting cast includes Laetitia Casta as Bardot and it is her acting that distinguishes and underscores the actress who was unafraid to express herself personally. Her life almost mirrored Gainsbourg and in the film you see them complement each other.
Elmosnino conveys on the big screen the kind of Gainsbourg may have been and the controversy that dogged him because he strived to be different and, inescapably, became famous because of it.
The old-fashioned influence he projected through his chansons was often morbid but there were some high points such as Lollipops which was recorded by France Gall and British teen idol Twinkle. Lollipops caused a scandal which the film doesn't go into, but it still presents Gainsbourg as man who loved to push the envelope to see what would happen.
Some of the other songs mentioned via dramatic or musicak scenes include La Javanaise (1962),Baby Pop (1966), Bonnie and Clyde (1968) and Je t;aime..moi non plus (1969).
Serge Gainsbourg was born Lucien Ginsburg on April 2, 1928 and died on March 2, 1991. If you want to know more about him, check out this biopic for it is a remarkable portrait of the man and his music.
It is rated 14A, with the warning: sexual content.
October 30, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
IN TIME (20TH CENTURY FOX, 2011)*
BY RICK JACKSON
Movies about time related to the life span of the human race have been a worthy subject for discussion for a long time. Their dark vision of the future does not always relate well to moviegoers because their interest is not equal to Hollywood. Unlike disaster movies or other genres which-have built up an audience, the idea of living a long time is something science fiction writers like to ponder over. When it comes to the silver screen, the presence of big or popular names doesn't always guarantee the movies about time will be big at the box-office. In Time is an example.
If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s you will find other films about man's destiny: Soylent Green (1973) starring Edward G. Robinson as Sol Roth who remembers what life was like to enjoy life and decides to end it rather submit to the chemically reducing sea algae named after the film's title which destroys life. Co-star Charlton Heston discovers the truth about it and declares it is people. in Logan's Run (1976) no man is allowed to live past the age of 29, and in Blade Runner (1982), Batty (Rutger Hauer) remembers how precious life was like while being pursued by Harrison Ford's character , a replicant hired to kill him.
With In Time, it is a future that resembles the present except you are not permitted to live past 25 unless you are wealthy enough to buy time. It is explained early in the film that most humans are poor and can't live long and to make sure you do what you are told there are timekeepers and their henchmen.
Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a protagonist who values life and like everyone else one of his arms glows with a number that reduces by the second. You find out what happens when it reaches zero and the lengths the rich and poor will do.
Written and directed by Andrew McNiccol, there is a certain lack of details that lead you astray in really appreciating what you see. Apart from the separate desperation of the characters, there isn't anything memorable to recommend.
Amanda Seyfried, who plays Sylvia Weiss, Will's love interest, does an admirable job but not even her beautiful screen presence will leave a mark for her performance is too contrived and predictable like much of the simplistic plot.
Cillian Murphy manages to convince you that he makes a good villain as Leon, the time keeper and he injects some cursory interest to keep you from checking your watch to see how much longer before it finally ends.
One of the best movies about time and motion is Run Lola Run (1998). Writer/director Tom Tykwer leaves you out of breath as you watch Frankie Potente as Lola running in both real and animated sequences that cross alternate and parallel lines. As you watched other characters, it made more sense because you, at least, were asked to explore the possibility raised in one of the quotations at the very beginning from T.S. Elliott's Little Gidding: We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
Over the opening credits, there is a clock and a string. The camera zooms in to an empty hole where darkness yields to people running around in circles until the title card that reads: Man-probably the most mysterious species on our planet.
It makes more sense to deal with this one thought than be exposed to science fiction that serves only to make you more perplexed than ever.
In Time doesn't leave you hooked to keep watching like Tykwer's film and when the end credits roll, you are shaking your head and wondering why style over substance ruined an afternoon or evening at the movies.
It is rated PG, with the warnings: mature theme, violence and language may offend.
October 29, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
It's too bad that the ideas explored here in these films were not well developed beyond the storytelling stage and have left you feeling empty and cold. There is nothing memorable to any of the films I've mentioned, despite the fact they may be science fiction classics.
Movies about time related to the life span of the human race have been a worthy subject for discussion for a long time. Their dark vision of the future does not always relate well to moviegoers because their interest is not equal to Hollywood. Unlike disaster movies or other genres which-have built up an audience, the idea of living a long time is something science fiction writers like to ponder over. When it comes to the silver screen, the presence of big or popular names doesn't always guarantee the movies about time will be big at the box-office. In Time is an example.
If you go back to the 1970s and 1980s you will find other films about man's destiny: Soylent Green (1973) starring Edward G. Robinson as Sol Roth who remembers what life was like to enjoy life and decides to end it rather submit to the chemically reducing sea algae named after the film's title which destroys life. Co-star Charlton Heston discovers the truth about it and declares it is people. in Logan's Run (1976) no man is allowed to live past the age of 29, and in Blade Runner (1982), Batty (Rutger Hauer) remembers how precious life was like while being pursued by Harrison Ford's character , a replicant hired to kill him.
With In Time, it is a future that resembles the present except you are not permitted to live past 25 unless you are wealthy enough to buy time. It is explained early in the film that most humans are poor and can't live long and to make sure you do what you are told there are timekeepers and their henchmen.
Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a protagonist who values life and like everyone else one of his arms glows with a number that reduces by the second. You find out what happens when it reaches zero and the lengths the rich and poor will do.
Written and directed by Andrew McNiccol, there is a certain lack of details that lead you astray in really appreciating what you see. Apart from the separate desperation of the characters, there isn't anything memorable to recommend.
Amanda Seyfried, who plays Sylvia Weiss, Will's love interest, does an admirable job but not even her beautiful screen presence will leave a mark for her performance is too contrived and predictable like much of the simplistic plot.
Cillian Murphy manages to convince you that he makes a good villain as Leon, the time keeper and he injects some cursory interest to keep you from checking your watch to see how much longer before it finally ends.
One of the best movies about time and motion is Run Lola Run (1998). Writer/director Tom Tykwer leaves you out of breath as you watch Frankie Potente as Lola running in both real and animated sequences that cross alternate and parallel lines. As you watched other characters, it made more sense because you, at least, were asked to explore the possibility raised in one of the quotations at the very beginning from T.S. Elliott's Little Gidding: We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
Over the opening credits, there is a clock and a string. The camera zooms in to an empty hole where darkness yields to people running around in circles until the title card that reads: Man-probably the most mysterious species on our planet.
It makes more sense to deal with this one thought than be exposed to science fiction that serves only to make you more perplexed than ever.
In Time doesn't leave you hooked to keep watching like Tykwer's film and when the end credits roll, you are shaking your head and wondering why style over substance ruined an afternoon or evening at the movies.
It is rated PG, with the warnings: mature theme, violence and language may offend.
October 29, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
It's too bad that the ideas explored here in these films were not well developed beyond the storytelling stage and have left you feeling empty and cold. There is nothing memorable to any of the films I've mentioned, despite the fact they may be science fiction classics.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
JOHNNY ENGLISH REBORN (UNIVERSAL, 2011)***
BY RICK JACKSON
Johnny English Reborn is an engaging spy spoof starring Rowan Atkinson who reprises the title role with a much more comic touch. Director Oliver Parker thankfully doesn't pick up from the awful 2003 original and has stuck more to the spy spoof genre. I was reminded of Casino Royale(1967) but to director William Davies' credit, there is a substantial amount of originality to cheer about. Granted, there is a certain predictable aspect to the main story, but it aspires to be a last vestige for Atkinson to be funny as he gets older.
As the film opens English is learning martial arts after a disastrous mission in Mozambique. The diabolical organization known as The Vortex is after three keys that will unlock a major weapon that is not clearly identified but all you need to know is what is explained throughout the film.
Like the James Bond films it emulates, there are the pretty girls: Rosamund Pike as Kate Summers, MI7's behavioural psychologist, and Gillian Anderson as Pegasus, head of MI7.
Anyone familiar with Rosa Klebb played by Lotte Lenya in 1965's From Russia With Love will appreciate Pik-Sen Lim as the hired assassin known only as The Cleaner.
The usual hijinks ensue as you might expect from Mr. Johnny English, whose debonair personality and appearance anywhere makes him a target. It made me remember Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther movies and, despite the lack of physical comedy on the same level as Sellers, Atkinson tries hard to impress with his schtick.
The supporting cast does justice to the plot and there are some laughs if you let yourself go and not take everything so seriously. They include Daniel Kaluuya as English's sidekick Tucker, Richard Schiff as ex-CIA agent Fisher, Dominic West as fellow MI7 agent Simon Ambrose and Tim McInnerny as Patch Quartermain.
By film's end, you have enjoyed yourself without being bored silly or stupid. Whether or not you see Atkinson back as Johnny English is debatable, but he does bring some undeniable charm to the role and, besides, the franchise is meant to be taken with a dose of humour. Don't be afraid to laugh, anyway.
It is rated PG, with the warning: violence.
October 23, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Johnny English Reborn is an engaging spy spoof starring Rowan Atkinson who reprises the title role with a much more comic touch. Director Oliver Parker thankfully doesn't pick up from the awful 2003 original and has stuck more to the spy spoof genre. I was reminded of Casino Royale(1967) but to director William Davies' credit, there is a substantial amount of originality to cheer about. Granted, there is a certain predictable aspect to the main story, but it aspires to be a last vestige for Atkinson to be funny as he gets older.
As the film opens English is learning martial arts after a disastrous mission in Mozambique. The diabolical organization known as The Vortex is after three keys that will unlock a major weapon that is not clearly identified but all you need to know is what is explained throughout the film.
Like the James Bond films it emulates, there are the pretty girls: Rosamund Pike as Kate Summers, MI7's behavioural psychologist, and Gillian Anderson as Pegasus, head of MI7.
Anyone familiar with Rosa Klebb played by Lotte Lenya in 1965's From Russia With Love will appreciate Pik-Sen Lim as the hired assassin known only as The Cleaner.
The usual hijinks ensue as you might expect from Mr. Johnny English, whose debonair personality and appearance anywhere makes him a target. It made me remember Peter Sellers in the Pink Panther movies and, despite the lack of physical comedy on the same level as Sellers, Atkinson tries hard to impress with his schtick.
The supporting cast does justice to the plot and there are some laughs if you let yourself go and not take everything so seriously. They include Daniel Kaluuya as English's sidekick Tucker, Richard Schiff as ex-CIA agent Fisher, Dominic West as fellow MI7 agent Simon Ambrose and Tim McInnerny as Patch Quartermain.
By film's end, you have enjoyed yourself without being bored silly or stupid. Whether or not you see Atkinson back as Johnny English is debatable, but he does bring some undeniable charm to the role and, besides, the franchise is meant to be taken with a dose of humour. Don't be afraid to laugh, anyway.
It is rated PG, with the warning: violence.
October 23, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
SARAH'S KEY (AZ FILMS, 2011)****
BY RICK JACKSON
Told in flashback and in the present, the essence of time and the knowledge it holds unlocks the compelling story of American journalist Julia Ormond's search for the truth of what happened to Sarah Starzynski and her baby brother after their home was raided in July 1942 by the French police under orders from the Vichy government. Sarah valiantly protects her brother by hiding him in a closet, taking the key and promising to return to get him. When the story picks up in 2009, Julia is working on an article about the Velodrome d'Hiver stadium and how it played an important historical role. What she uncovers is as shocking as any other Holocaust film. with the emphasis on Sarah and her brother. There are moments that will remind you of Sophie's Choice(1982) or Life Is Beautiful (1998) but the series of events unfold feel as if this was really happening. Fact blends into fiction on the big screen with an uneasy grip that you quickly become absorbed by the strong sense of storytelling. With each flashback, you are almost feel like hiding your face but you have to be as courageous as the characters themselves so you can see and understand the outcome right up to its conclusion.
Based on the popular novel by Tatiana de Rosnay, Gilles Paquet-Brenner has come up with one of the most suspenseful and detailed stories about a time in world history there is an abundance of tales to tale. Without being too predictable, the truth does come out slowly but not without maintaining a strong tone of empathy and urgency from beginning to end.
Kristin Scott Thomas plays Julia as if she was born to play her. Her persistence at getting to the truth helps keep focus on the real story she is investigating and this is where you, the moviegoer, are invited to be entertained. The full depth of the emotionally built up sequences depend on your undivided attention as you join her in unravelling the full impact of Sarah's Key.
The ensemble cast also engage your attention by the sheer nature of the intricate plot details and the adherence to the vicissitudes of change that govern the time-related dimensions as you watch everything unfold back and forth between the past and present.
Paquet-Brenner maintains a steady pace and the visual rhythm of scenes match both time frames and this increases your curiosity in sticking with the slow moving developments because you want to know the outcome.
The scenes that will stick in your memory are the sounds of screaming children who are left abandoned in fear, and the fate of Sarah and her brother which is patiently resolved in the secrets of the supporting characters as they relate to the moment the director wants to inform you.
As you watch, pay particular attention to Melusine Mayance whose portrayal of Sarah impresses you immediately because it is her innocence of youth that stays with the story consistently and even as you see her as an adult, her baby face lets you know it's her.
Aidan Quinn is effective as the American who refuses to believe her mother was the person in the picture Julia showed him. The screenwriters use him to tie loose ends and, thereby, inject a powerful ending to the entire film consistent with the pace of everything that preceded it. Never does the director give anything away too soon and it is to his credit as a director that Pauet-Brenner uses time and knowledge to serve the story so well, you are held within its grasp as if you are waiting for the last note of a symphonic movement to be played.
In reference to the music score composed by Max Richter, the piano you hear adds a haunting
quality by being there when the screenwriters obviously felt the absence of dialogue would work better and it does. The force of nature in the wind, the tree, and the beach and the unending sense of calm by film's end adds resonance and poignance to an already unforgettable journey. Don't miss it.
It is rated PG with the warning: mature theme.
October 22, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Told in flashback and in the present, the essence of time and the knowledge it holds unlocks the compelling story of American journalist Julia Ormond's search for the truth of what happened to Sarah Starzynski and her baby brother after their home was raided in July 1942 by the French police under orders from the Vichy government. Sarah valiantly protects her brother by hiding him in a closet, taking the key and promising to return to get him. When the story picks up in 2009, Julia is working on an article about the Velodrome d'Hiver stadium and how it played an important historical role. What she uncovers is as shocking as any other Holocaust film. with the emphasis on Sarah and her brother. There are moments that will remind you of Sophie's Choice(1982) or Life Is Beautiful (1998) but the series of events unfold feel as if this was really happening. Fact blends into fiction on the big screen with an uneasy grip that you quickly become absorbed by the strong sense of storytelling. With each flashback, you are almost feel like hiding your face but you have to be as courageous as the characters themselves so you can see and understand the outcome right up to its conclusion.
Based on the popular novel by Tatiana de Rosnay, Gilles Paquet-Brenner has come up with one of the most suspenseful and detailed stories about a time in world history there is an abundance of tales to tale. Without being too predictable, the truth does come out slowly but not without maintaining a strong tone of empathy and urgency from beginning to end.
Kristin Scott Thomas plays Julia as if she was born to play her. Her persistence at getting to the truth helps keep focus on the real story she is investigating and this is where you, the moviegoer, are invited to be entertained. The full depth of the emotionally built up sequences depend on your undivided attention as you join her in unravelling the full impact of Sarah's Key.
The ensemble cast also engage your attention by the sheer nature of the intricate plot details and the adherence to the vicissitudes of change that govern the time-related dimensions as you watch everything unfold back and forth between the past and present.
Paquet-Brenner maintains a steady pace and the visual rhythm of scenes match both time frames and this increases your curiosity in sticking with the slow moving developments because you want to know the outcome.
The scenes that will stick in your memory are the sounds of screaming children who are left abandoned in fear, and the fate of Sarah and her brother which is patiently resolved in the secrets of the supporting characters as they relate to the moment the director wants to inform you.
As you watch, pay particular attention to Melusine Mayance whose portrayal of Sarah impresses you immediately because it is her innocence of youth that stays with the story consistently and even as you see her as an adult, her baby face lets you know it's her.
Aidan Quinn is effective as the American who refuses to believe her mother was the person in the picture Julia showed him. The screenwriters use him to tie loose ends and, thereby, inject a powerful ending to the entire film consistent with the pace of everything that preceded it. Never does the director give anything away too soon and it is to his credit as a director that Pauet-Brenner uses time and knowledge to serve the story so well, you are held within its grasp as if you are waiting for the last note of a symphonic movement to be played.
In reference to the music score composed by Max Richter, the piano you hear adds a haunting
quality by being there when the screenwriters obviously felt the absence of dialogue would work better and it does. The force of nature in the wind, the tree, and the beach and the unending sense of calm by film's end adds resonance and poignance to an already unforgettable journey. Don't miss it.
It is rated PG with the warning: mature theme.
October 22, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Saturday, October 22, 2011
ANOTHER EARTH (FOX SEARCHLIGHT, 2011)**
BY RICK JACKSON
From Mike Cahill, the writer and c0-director of the Cuban documentary, Boxers and Ballerinas comes a thought provoking and interesting dramatic piece about the possibility of a second earth and what it all means to the individual on our own earth. Despite not going deep enough in its discussion of the concept conceived by Cahill and Britt Marling, who plays Rhoda, Another Earth leaves you wanting to know more and you just might have to wait for the director's commentary on the DVD and Blu-Ray. Until then, you are advised to see it on the big screen for it conveys the images of a similar planet to earth and how it is connected to a man and a woman. I've already mentioned the woman. The man's name is William who is effectively played by William Mapother.
Marling and Cahill don't quite draw a biblical parallel with Adam and Eve but those religiously inclined may discuss it anyway and, thus, bring forward ideas that might have worked better in explaining the existence of the film's title beyond the metaphorical and metaphysical.
It's been a long time since I've seen a similar film, Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun (1969) or Doppelganger which focused on the existence of a planet orbitting earth on the exact opposite side of the sun. It starred Roy Thinnes who is not a household name, but this film was curiously interesting enough to hold your attention as a Saturday matinee.
Solaris, the original 1971 epic by Tarkovsky has been mentioned in Roger Ebert's review but it is speculative for it has more to do with 2001:A Space Odyssey(1968).
As you watch Another Earth promise what it suggests, you are made to believe that we all have a double on the second earth which Cahill fails to convince.
Marling and Mapother are more symbolic of a contemporary couple whose paths converge forcefully as part of the weak narrative that holds your attention long enough to keep you entertained. She plays an important role which I won't divulge. It's too bad her role is too predictable and almost a waste of time by the time the conclusion comes. Had her part been enlarged it may have worked in convincing us of a second earth. After all, this is science fiction even if it is presented as a pseudo-documentary. As the latter it surely would have succeeded on the same level as What The Bleep Do You Know.
Our arbitrary lives present an inferior example of our inquisitiveness about things in general and as you watch Rhoda and John interact, it is all boring as you wait for their next big scene.
You may be wondering about the resemblance of Rhoda to the girl who is killed early in the film. They look a like but I only saw the film once. The ending has her reappear in what is suppose to shock but it doesn't have the dramatic impact Cahill hopes to make.
Another Earth also misses its mark as a profound film of distinction and It's a real shame.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: not recommended for children and sexual content.
October 21, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
From Mike Cahill, the writer and c0-director of the Cuban documentary, Boxers and Ballerinas comes a thought provoking and interesting dramatic piece about the possibility of a second earth and what it all means to the individual on our own earth. Despite not going deep enough in its discussion of the concept conceived by Cahill and Britt Marling, who plays Rhoda, Another Earth leaves you wanting to know more and you just might have to wait for the director's commentary on the DVD and Blu-Ray. Until then, you are advised to see it on the big screen for it conveys the images of a similar planet to earth and how it is connected to a man and a woman. I've already mentioned the woman. The man's name is William who is effectively played by William Mapother.
Marling and Cahill don't quite draw a biblical parallel with Adam and Eve but those religiously inclined may discuss it anyway and, thus, bring forward ideas that might have worked better in explaining the existence of the film's title beyond the metaphorical and metaphysical.
It's been a long time since I've seen a similar film, Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun (1969) or Doppelganger which focused on the existence of a planet orbitting earth on the exact opposite side of the sun. It starred Roy Thinnes who is not a household name, but this film was curiously interesting enough to hold your attention as a Saturday matinee.
Solaris, the original 1971 epic by Tarkovsky has been mentioned in Roger Ebert's review but it is speculative for it has more to do with 2001:A Space Odyssey(1968).
As you watch Another Earth promise what it suggests, you are made to believe that we all have a double on the second earth which Cahill fails to convince.
Marling and Mapother are more symbolic of a contemporary couple whose paths converge forcefully as part of the weak narrative that holds your attention long enough to keep you entertained. She plays an important role which I won't divulge. It's too bad her role is too predictable and almost a waste of time by the time the conclusion comes. Had her part been enlarged it may have worked in convincing us of a second earth. After all, this is science fiction even if it is presented as a pseudo-documentary. As the latter it surely would have succeeded on the same level as What The Bleep Do You Know.
Our arbitrary lives present an inferior example of our inquisitiveness about things in general and as you watch Rhoda and John interact, it is all boring as you wait for their next big scene.
You may be wondering about the resemblance of Rhoda to the girl who is killed early in the film. They look a like but I only saw the film once. The ending has her reappear in what is suppose to shock but it doesn't have the dramatic impact Cahill hopes to make.
Another Earth also misses its mark as a profound film of distinction and It's a real shame.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: not recommended for children and sexual content.
October 21, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
Monday, October 17, 2011
THE BIG YEAR (20TH CENTURY FOX, 2011)*
BY RICK JACKSON
With the calibre of acting talent in The Big Year, it is a shame that there is so little to enjoy or laugh at. As a major studio comedy director David Frankel lacks the expertise to capture Steve Martin and Jack Black and, as a result, you don't get to laugh like you should. At the show I attended I didn't hear many people laughing around me, either.
The film's title refers to the one bird watcher who can come up with the most bird species in a year. You soon learn that Kenny Bostick (Owen Wilson) is the reigning champion birder and Brad Harris and Stu Preissler Black and Harris respectively) are out to dethrone him but, as luck would have it, it is not that simple. During the entire film you are watching all three making a fool of themselves as they track the birds with the intention of being numero uno.
At first there is a simple method of capturing the birds and the few comical moments are centered on them but the humour gets side-tracked by a series of mis-steps and gaffes that sideline the main purpose of the story and you are left with nothing but the ill-timed lines that should have made The Big Year memorable.
The screenplay by Howard Franklin and Mark Omascik doesn't allow the cast to be their funny selves, so it is no surprise when you realize there is nothing actually funny, just the opportunity to see some faces you haven't seen in a while on the big screen: Anjelica Huston, Dianne Wiest, Jo-Beth Williams and Brian Dennehy.
This is one movie which will probably remain unnoticed and remain unmemorable in a year dominated by 3D movies and directors who have done their best work in years, like Robert Redford (The Conspirator) and Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris). Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Francis Ford Coppola and David Cronenberg are among several others whose new films will certainly be worth waiting for when they arrive in local theaters.
As you wait for the next installment in the Twilight Saga next month, there is the long awaited 3D reworking of The Three Musketeers.
As a comedy, The Big Year fails to impress. It is rated PG, with the warning: language may offend.
October 14, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
With the calibre of acting talent in The Big Year, it is a shame that there is so little to enjoy or laugh at. As a major studio comedy director David Frankel lacks the expertise to capture Steve Martin and Jack Black and, as a result, you don't get to laugh like you should. At the show I attended I didn't hear many people laughing around me, either.
The film's title refers to the one bird watcher who can come up with the most bird species in a year. You soon learn that Kenny Bostick (Owen Wilson) is the reigning champion birder and Brad Harris and Stu Preissler Black and Harris respectively) are out to dethrone him but, as luck would have it, it is not that simple. During the entire film you are watching all three making a fool of themselves as they track the birds with the intention of being numero uno.
At first there is a simple method of capturing the birds and the few comical moments are centered on them but the humour gets side-tracked by a series of mis-steps and gaffes that sideline the main purpose of the story and you are left with nothing but the ill-timed lines that should have made The Big Year memorable.
The screenplay by Howard Franklin and Mark Omascik doesn't allow the cast to be their funny selves, so it is no surprise when you realize there is nothing actually funny, just the opportunity to see some faces you haven't seen in a while on the big screen: Anjelica Huston, Dianne Wiest, Jo-Beth Williams and Brian Dennehy.
This is one movie which will probably remain unnoticed and remain unmemorable in a year dominated by 3D movies and directors who have done their best work in years, like Robert Redford (The Conspirator) and Woody Allen (Midnight In Paris). Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorsese, Roman Polanski, Francis Ford Coppola and David Cronenberg are among several others whose new films will certainly be worth waiting for when they arrive in local theaters.
As you wait for the next installment in the Twilight Saga next month, there is the long awaited 3D reworking of The Three Musketeers.
As a comedy, The Big Year fails to impress. It is rated PG, with the warning: language may offend.
October 14, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
SENNA (MONGREL, 2011)****
BY RICK JACKSON
Professional car racing has never been my favourite sport but it is watched by legions of fans every year and, despite its appeal to the average racing fan, Senna captures the career and legacy of Brazilian racing car champion Ayrton Senna for the average moviegoer with the focus on his Formula One years, and his rivalry with Alain Prost. Directed by Asif Kapadia, this documentary goes further than most docs by examining the man whose humble beginnings kept him in check and always respected the sport and promoted its integrity whenever he was asked probing questions. When his home country saw him winning, he became a hero which Brazil needed to forget the dictatorship that ran the country with an iron fist. As Brazil and the rest of the world witnessed his rise to fame, it was Senna who took it all in stride.
The director's own interest in his subject is consistent with the pulse of the individual races and his subject.
Through interviews and archival footage, there is an unerring sense of dramatic tension with each of the races chronicled as if it were happening now. It is this momentum that the film wastes no time and you are guaranteed a personal look inside the man who was neither perfect or heroic in the general sense, but he had a loyal following who worshipped him as if he were a hero and this helps inject the realties and dangers of car racing which the sport had without question and never for a second is anything glossed over or is Senna branded a hero as a label even if after his death he was treated like one.
I would have liked to have seen the racing sequences as exciting as the 1966 feature film, Grand Prix but the championships depicted in Senna are as real as a documentary can make them and for the motorsport fan this is all that is needed. The rest of us can be more than satisfied about Senna and his career, along with the impact he made in a sport he had the utmost respect and integrity. His smile was always there and his reservations about racing made him human, which, of course, this documentary proves. The legend of Senna will live on thanks to this extraordinary look at him.
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 9, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
Professional car racing has never been my favourite sport but it is watched by legions of fans every year and, despite its appeal to the average racing fan, Senna captures the career and legacy of Brazilian racing car champion Ayrton Senna for the average moviegoer with the focus on his Formula One years, and his rivalry with Alain Prost. Directed by Asif Kapadia, this documentary goes further than most docs by examining the man whose humble beginnings kept him in check and always respected the sport and promoted its integrity whenever he was asked probing questions. When his home country saw him winning, he became a hero which Brazil needed to forget the dictatorship that ran the country with an iron fist. As Brazil and the rest of the world witnessed his rise to fame, it was Senna who took it all in stride.
The director's own interest in his subject is consistent with the pulse of the individual races and his subject.
Through interviews and archival footage, there is an unerring sense of dramatic tension with each of the races chronicled as if it were happening now. It is this momentum that the film wastes no time and you are guaranteed a personal look inside the man who was neither perfect or heroic in the general sense, but he had a loyal following who worshipped him as if he were a hero and this helps inject the realties and dangers of car racing which the sport had without question and never for a second is anything glossed over or is Senna branded a hero as a label even if after his death he was treated like one.
I would have liked to have seen the racing sequences as exciting as the 1966 feature film, Grand Prix but the championships depicted in Senna are as real as a documentary can make them and for the motorsport fan this is all that is needed. The rest of us can be more than satisfied about Senna and his career, along with the impact he made in a sport he had the utmost respect and integrity. His smile was always there and his reservations about racing made him human, which, of course, this documentary proves. The legend of Senna will live on thanks to this extraordinary look at him.
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 9, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
THE FUTURE (MONGREL, 2011)***
BY RICK JACKSON
Written, directed and starring Miranda July, The Future is a quirky look at what she sees in her own perception of what love and romance will be like. Devoid of human feeling and melodrama, there is an attempt to equate love with a pet that is about to die and as you listen to Paw Paw talk to you, you are caught off guard for this is not an animated film but a live action drama where the two principal humans, Sophie (July) and Jason (Hamish Linklater) spend more time surfing the internet and playing a game where they pretend to stop time.
Less philosophical and more pedantic than her debut, Me And You Everyone We Know (2005), The Future looks empty and colourless. Like Woody Allen's Sleeper (1973) it warns against the individual's personality to do as he or she pleases. Unlike in the latter where it was replaced by the efficiency of the machine, it is more supernatural in July's latest where the moon speaks metaphorically about our existence.
What is not so strange about July's vision of the future is the existence of computers which have replaced printed matter (i.e. newspapers) and it is Jason's job to solve those who use them which hasn't changed. It seems we are always needing help with technology and it is no different here.
Paw Paw returns throughout the film to remind you of the importance of pets, presumably in our own present time, and in the future they appear to be going extinct as Sophie and Jason amuse themselves with their own ideas of living in the future.
There is one thing they still do and, moviegoers will be glad to know, sex still exists for Sophie and Jason have a daughter named Gaby. Life must go on and in the director's own future, there is obviously going to be more to expect from a filmmaker with a different point of view. Here's hoping it is good as her first two features.
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 9, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
Written, directed and starring Miranda July, The Future is a quirky look at what she sees in her own perception of what love and romance will be like. Devoid of human feeling and melodrama, there is an attempt to equate love with a pet that is about to die and as you listen to Paw Paw talk to you, you are caught off guard for this is not an animated film but a live action drama where the two principal humans, Sophie (July) and Jason (Hamish Linklater) spend more time surfing the internet and playing a game where they pretend to stop time.
Less philosophical and more pedantic than her debut, Me And You Everyone We Know (2005), The Future looks empty and colourless. Like Woody Allen's Sleeper (1973) it warns against the individual's personality to do as he or she pleases. Unlike in the latter where it was replaced by the efficiency of the machine, it is more supernatural in July's latest where the moon speaks metaphorically about our existence.
What is not so strange about July's vision of the future is the existence of computers which have replaced printed matter (i.e. newspapers) and it is Jason's job to solve those who use them which hasn't changed. It seems we are always needing help with technology and it is no different here.
Paw Paw returns throughout the film to remind you of the importance of pets, presumably in our own present time, and in the future they appear to be going extinct as Sophie and Jason amuse themselves with their own ideas of living in the future.
There is one thing they still do and, moviegoers will be glad to know, sex still exists for Sophie and Jason have a daughter named Gaby. Life must go on and in the director's own future, there is obviously going to be more to expect from a filmmaker with a different point of view. Here's hoping it is good as her first two features.
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 9, 2011
Copyright 2011 Rick Jackson
REAL STEEL (DREAM WORKS, 2011)***
BY RICK JACKSON
Real Steel is an unexpected surprise. Director Shawn Levy has taken an old idea about the bonding of a father and son (The Champ-1931&1979) and updated it with a look to the near future when human boxers have been replaced by robots. Any apprehensions of the film as decent entertainment were dismissed when the story decidedly took a less serious turn to make everything as equally exciting as the sport itself. Hugh Jackman plays a robot promoter named Charlie Kenton who is having trouble winning because of the unscrupulous manangers of his opponents. It is reminiscent of 1985's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome without Mel Gibson. However, you will be impressed by fellow Australian Jackman and his strong acting abilities to change a worn out and familiar premise and inject with some originality the part of an experienced boxer who isn't afraid to, again, be the same ambitious person he was when he started out and restore his faith in humanity by learning from the son he didn't want to meet after his divorce. Toronto-born Dakota Goyo plays Max with an enough resilience and ambition that he looks like a younger version of his father. The family resemblance and their growth together as father and son beats at the heart of the simple plot and it redeems it by forcing you to take closer look at why boxing films are popular even in the near future.
Hope Davis plays Max's aunt and although she is pictured as the villain there is still a sense of humanity ringing outside the boxing ring for screenwriter John Gatins, based on the short story, Steel by Richard Matheson, wants to convey less the brutality of boxing and the exponent of the thrills and fun of it.
Levy succeeds in doing this and you can really enjoy Real Steel because you become so excited it's as if you are right up there with the main action. With each robotic posturing whether it is shadow-boxed by Jackman's expertise or not, the real deal is the real steel in the ring.
I couldn't help be reminded of the robot in Short Circuit(1986) when I saw Atom. It is made to dance and box and without divulging too much more, Max learns Atom's secret. It all contributes to your enjoyment in a film where entertanment is the key and this time you are spared the senseless beatings of Rocky and other boxing films for it is all geared for an audience comprised of fathers and sons. This is the only reason I recommend it and I hope you will agree.
(
It is rated PG, with the warnings: violence, language may offend and not recommended for young children.
October 8, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Real Steel is an unexpected surprise. Director Shawn Levy has taken an old idea about the bonding of a father and son (The Champ-1931&1979) and updated it with a look to the near future when human boxers have been replaced by robots. Any apprehensions of the film as decent entertainment were dismissed when the story decidedly took a less serious turn to make everything as equally exciting as the sport itself. Hugh Jackman plays a robot promoter named Charlie Kenton who is having trouble winning because of the unscrupulous manangers of his opponents. It is reminiscent of 1985's Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome without Mel Gibson. However, you will be impressed by fellow Australian Jackman and his strong acting abilities to change a worn out and familiar premise and inject with some originality the part of an experienced boxer who isn't afraid to, again, be the same ambitious person he was when he started out and restore his faith in humanity by learning from the son he didn't want to meet after his divorce. Toronto-born Dakota Goyo plays Max with an enough resilience and ambition that he looks like a younger version of his father. The family resemblance and their growth together as father and son beats at the heart of the simple plot and it redeems it by forcing you to take closer look at why boxing films are popular even in the near future.
Hope Davis plays Max's aunt and although she is pictured as the villain there is still a sense of humanity ringing outside the boxing ring for screenwriter John Gatins, based on the short story, Steel by Richard Matheson, wants to convey less the brutality of boxing and the exponent of the thrills and fun of it.
Levy succeeds in doing this and you can really enjoy Real Steel because you become so excited it's as if you are right up there with the main action. With each robotic posturing whether it is shadow-boxed by Jackman's expertise or not, the real deal is the real steel in the ring.
I couldn't help be reminded of the robot in Short Circuit(1986) when I saw Atom. It is made to dance and box and without divulging too much more, Max learns Atom's secret. It all contributes to your enjoyment in a film where entertanment is the key and this time you are spared the senseless beatings of Rocky and other boxing films for it is all geared for an audience comprised of fathers and sons. This is the only reason I recommend it and I hope you will agree.
(
It is rated PG, with the warnings: violence, language may offend and not recommended for young children.
October 8, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
IDES OF MARCH (ALLIANCE, 2011)****
BY RICK JACKSON
Like Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939) and Meet John Doe (1941), The Ides of March is a powerful look at how cynical the real nature of politics continues to be and how, by film's end, you are either converted into the director's own way of thinking or not when it comes to believing Governor Morris (George Clooney) is a hero to the people and the candidate of choice by you, the filmgoer.
What you have here is not so much a rehash of the political movie of yesteryear but as close to a definition of what politics stand for today. For the Canadian moviegoer, this may be harder to achieve for our politics is quite different from the cut-throat competition, intrigue and survival of who will actually win when the actual vote is taken.
Co-written, co-produced as well as directed and starring Clooney, this is an absorbing tour de force by a cast of experienced actors who have waited for the chance to sink their acting chops of roles they have longed to do and the result is more than satisfying. It is based on the play, Farragut North by Beau Willimon who is listed as one of the screenwriters along with Grant Heslov.
Clooney use of closeups defines the film's perimeters for they tell you exactly where the story is going. This is a movie that literally and figuratively talks to you and whether you understand it or not will up to your interest in watching a movie about politics.
Clooney's Morris is a well spoken Democrat among the fray on both sides of Democrats and Republicans. Unlike The Candidate(1972) which came out during an election year in the United States, director Michael Ritchie did, indeed, focus on Robert Redford's charisma and boyish good looks as much as Clooney concentrates on his personal character. He, too, is also a welcome example of the WASP American hero and this contributes to the moviegoer's prime interest for Clooney, like Redford, is the key reason to see Ides Of March.
Not to be taken too seriously, of course, are the dramatic behind the scenes that ring with familiarity but it is the acting of all involved that helps make you forget the ordinary long enough to keep you absorbed in the head-to-head political games on both sides by the campaign managers on both sides: Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) for Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) for Senator Pullman. It is clear from the start that Duffy is a veteran at the political game and Giamatti expertly plays him as an intimidating player in the game. He is street savvy and has the innate ability to size up every situation and take the right gamble to get what he wants. Watch how his facial expressions do not give him away for Clooney is being very careful to ensure the camera is on him for a different reason and this is to capture his demeanor and the glint in his eye so you can appreciate his character's suave and calculated moves without hissing at him.
One character I have purposely avoided in mentioning until now is Steven Myers, Morris' press secretary, who is played with such polished conviction by Ryan Gosling, you are secretly cheering for him as he tries to handle the job at hand and be an equal competitor and player opposite Giamatti's Duffy. Their scenes are rich in political dalliances and both their instincts for survival maintain the same level of winning and this keeps the focus of the election in all its ripened glory.
Not to take away from the actual vote there is a sub-plot involving a young intern named Molly (Evan Rachel Wood) who becomes the victim of Myers and how, through his suave and cool exterior he is able to make her his by being impressionable and charming.
Marisa Tomei is well cast as journalist Ida Horowicz whose field experience conveys a thirst for action during a campaign in which she seizes every opportunity to obtain the information she needs. The way she reacts solo and in concert with Molly provides an unerring sense of fun and excitement.
Alexandre Desplat's music score adds the right suspense and intrigue along the way and there is plenty of small but important speeches to underscore the tension on both sides.
The Ides of March scores as an inside look at the nature of politics and what strange bedfellows it all makes in the end, something that reminded me of a statement said by Van Johnson in Frank Capra's State of the Union (1948).
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 7, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Like Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939) and Meet John Doe (1941), The Ides of March is a powerful look at how cynical the real nature of politics continues to be and how, by film's end, you are either converted into the director's own way of thinking or not when it comes to believing Governor Morris (George Clooney) is a hero to the people and the candidate of choice by you, the filmgoer.
What you have here is not so much a rehash of the political movie of yesteryear but as close to a definition of what politics stand for today. For the Canadian moviegoer, this may be harder to achieve for our politics is quite different from the cut-throat competition, intrigue and survival of who will actually win when the actual vote is taken.
Co-written, co-produced as well as directed and starring Clooney, this is an absorbing tour de force by a cast of experienced actors who have waited for the chance to sink their acting chops of roles they have longed to do and the result is more than satisfying. It is based on the play, Farragut North by Beau Willimon who is listed as one of the screenwriters along with Grant Heslov.
Clooney use of closeups defines the film's perimeters for they tell you exactly where the story is going. This is a movie that literally and figuratively talks to you and whether you understand it or not will up to your interest in watching a movie about politics.
Clooney's Morris is a well spoken Democrat among the fray on both sides of Democrats and Republicans. Unlike The Candidate(1972) which came out during an election year in the United States, director Michael Ritchie did, indeed, focus on Robert Redford's charisma and boyish good looks as much as Clooney concentrates on his personal character. He, too, is also a welcome example of the WASP American hero and this contributes to the moviegoer's prime interest for Clooney, like Redford, is the key reason to see Ides Of March.
Not to be taken too seriously, of course, are the dramatic behind the scenes that ring with familiarity but it is the acting of all involved that helps make you forget the ordinary long enough to keep you absorbed in the head-to-head political games on both sides by the campaign managers on both sides: Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) for Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris and Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) for Senator Pullman. It is clear from the start that Duffy is a veteran at the political game and Giamatti expertly plays him as an intimidating player in the game. He is street savvy and has the innate ability to size up every situation and take the right gamble to get what he wants. Watch how his facial expressions do not give him away for Clooney is being very careful to ensure the camera is on him for a different reason and this is to capture his demeanor and the glint in his eye so you can appreciate his character's suave and calculated moves without hissing at him.
One character I have purposely avoided in mentioning until now is Steven Myers, Morris' press secretary, who is played with such polished conviction by Ryan Gosling, you are secretly cheering for him as he tries to handle the job at hand and be an equal competitor and player opposite Giamatti's Duffy. Their scenes are rich in political dalliances and both their instincts for survival maintain the same level of winning and this keeps the focus of the election in all its ripened glory.
Not to take away from the actual vote there is a sub-plot involving a young intern named Molly (Evan Rachel Wood) who becomes the victim of Myers and how, through his suave and cool exterior he is able to make her his by being impressionable and charming.
Marisa Tomei is well cast as journalist Ida Horowicz whose field experience conveys a thirst for action during a campaign in which she seizes every opportunity to obtain the information she needs. The way she reacts solo and in concert with Molly provides an unerring sense of fun and excitement.
Alexandre Desplat's music score adds the right suspense and intrigue along the way and there is plenty of small but important speeches to underscore the tension on both sides.
The Ides of March scores as an inside look at the nature of politics and what strange bedfellows it all makes in the end, something that reminded me of a statement said by Van Johnson in Frank Capra's State of the Union (1948).
It is rated 14A, with the warning: coarse language.
October 7, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
PROJECT NIM (MONGREL, 2011)***
BY RICK JACKSON
From Oscar-winning director James Marsh (Man On Wire), Project Nim is an uneven and uninteresting documentary about Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was used as a subject of extended srudy at Columbia University by Herbert S. Terrace. As you watch Nim from birth to old age, you are more persuaded than drawn into what the study is meant to do which remains unclear from the start. Moviegoers are interested in the concept of chimps using American sign language to communicate and it is, albeit, nothing new.
Project Washoe conducted by Beatrix Gardner did the same thing and accomplished better results. Washoe was given more affection and her ability to communicate was superior to Nim's and this is proven in the documentary by the limitations of Nim that are clear as he grows up with little of the intelligence that chimpanzees are supposed to have. The fact that you are not introduced to their world and not told the purpose of the study so you can assimilate what the study is doing in your own mind, you are disappointed at the lack of profound knowledge that the people involved during the activities with Nim are able to discern. Instead, you only share in their emotional involvement and this takes away the analysis and conclusions of their study.
The entire idea of adapting the same way humans develop and speak lacks evidence from the scientific point of view of ourhuman However, Marsh doesn't dig deep enough and only goes as far to peak our curiosity. The archival footage and the issues the experiments are not fully explained enough and this may point to why Project Nim did not lead to further study with chimps like Nim for further study. If this was the case, you would have been told this and it might given more weight to Project Nim.
How the chimp was named after Noam Chomsky, the foremost theorist of human language is also not given as a premise to the study, either. It's as if Marsh expects us all to know what he is doing and wants to tell us what he found from his personal perspective which is fine for this is his documentary. Conversely, his Man On Wire was provocative and entertaining because he allowed you to become involved as someone watching and experiencing the feel of the high wire.
Project Nim was meant to go further than Washoe for Columbia used experimental analysis of behaviour through the development of the ape abilities they were convinced would work.
Based on Elizabeth Hess's book, Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human, published in 2008, Project moNim doesn;t succeed in achieving its aim to edify the moviegoer beyond the simple understanding that hopefully it will peak some individual moviegoers into wanting to know more.
The times you see Nim using sign language to express what he is thinking in three word phrases is amazing. Sub-titles are used so you will know what he is saying. Some examples include apple me eat, banana Nim eat, eat Nim eat me more eat, tickle me eat and yogurt Nim eat.
I still found the work achieved in Project Nim a subject worth reading more about and, despite its flaws, it will provoke enough conversation to pass the word about it.
It is rated G, with the warnings: language may offend, not recommended for young children and disturbing content.
October 4, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
From Oscar-winning director James Marsh (Man On Wire), Project Nim is an uneven and uninteresting documentary about Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was used as a subject of extended srudy at Columbia University by Herbert S. Terrace. As you watch Nim from birth to old age, you are more persuaded than drawn into what the study is meant to do which remains unclear from the start. Moviegoers are interested in the concept of chimps using American sign language to communicate and it is, albeit, nothing new.
Project Washoe conducted by Beatrix Gardner did the same thing and accomplished better results. Washoe was given more affection and her ability to communicate was superior to Nim's and this is proven in the documentary by the limitations of Nim that are clear as he grows up with little of the intelligence that chimpanzees are supposed to have. The fact that you are not introduced to their world and not told the purpose of the study so you can assimilate what the study is doing in your own mind, you are disappointed at the lack of profound knowledge that the people involved during the activities with Nim are able to discern. Instead, you only share in their emotional involvement and this takes away the analysis and conclusions of their study.
The entire idea of adapting the same way humans develop and speak lacks evidence from the scientific point of view of ourhuman However, Marsh doesn't dig deep enough and only goes as far to peak our curiosity. The archival footage and the issues the experiments are not fully explained enough and this may point to why Project Nim did not lead to further study with chimps like Nim for further study. If this was the case, you would have been told this and it might given more weight to Project Nim.
How the chimp was named after Noam Chomsky, the foremost theorist of human language is also not given as a premise to the study, either. It's as if Marsh expects us all to know what he is doing and wants to tell us what he found from his personal perspective which is fine for this is his documentary. Conversely, his Man On Wire was provocative and entertaining because he allowed you to become involved as someone watching and experiencing the feel of the high wire.
Project Nim was meant to go further than Washoe for Columbia used experimental analysis of behaviour through the development of the ape abilities they were convinced would work.
Based on Elizabeth Hess's book, Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human, published in 2008, Project moNim doesn;t succeed in achieving its aim to edify the moviegoer beyond the simple understanding that hopefully it will peak some individual moviegoers into wanting to know more.
The times you see Nim using sign language to express what he is thinking in three word phrases is amazing. Sub-titles are used so you will know what he is saying. Some examples include apple me eat, banana Nim eat, eat Nim eat me more eat, tickle me eat and yogurt Nim eat.
I still found the work achieved in Project Nim a subject worth reading more about and, despite its flaws, it will provoke enough conversation to pass the word about it.
It is rated G, with the warnings: language may offend, not recommended for young children and disturbing content.
October 4, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Monday, October 3, 2011
DOLPHIN TALE (3D), WARNER BROTHERS, 2011)***
BY RICK JACKSON
Movies about dolphins are rare on the big screen. In 1957 Alan Ladd and Sophia Loren starred in Boy On A Dolphin which was more about a treasure hunt in the Aegean Sea with director Jean Negulesco using more close-up shots on Loren than Ladd. Shot on location in the Aegean off Hydra, a rocky island not far from Athens, the Twentieth Century-Fox production remains a curiously empty film in which the story lacked enough drama to make it memorable. Anyone who has ever seen it will only remember Loren whose beauty stole the film.
In 1973, George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere starred in Day Of The Dolphin (1973) in which the former Oscar-winning actor for Patton played a character who trained dolphins to speak and understand English. As you watched this part of the story, you were entertained but director Mike Nichols took the magic out of it when the plot focused on the dolphins who were stolen and used in an assassination attempt.
In 2000, there was the IMAX documentary about dolphins featuring the music of Sting.
With Dolphin Tale, Hollywood has struck box office gold for it is what a film of this nature should be in the first place: a family film.
Based on a true story when Winter, a bottlenose dolphin, was caught in a blue crab trap in December 2005 in the Mosquito Lagoon, off the coast of Florida, hence her name. She was brought to the Clearwater Marine Aquarium where she learned to swim without a tail. Kevin Carroll and a team of experts designed a new tail for Winter and this is primarily the focus of Dolphin Tale.
Filmed in and around the actual locations, director Charles Martin Smith (Never Cry Wolf)
does an excellent job in balancing the events that inspired the film with a dramatic and uplifting sidebar about a boy named Sawyer Nelson whose life changes when he and Winter establish a relationship that is both moving and poignant. Albeit it is predictable, it is the acting that distinguishes it from the proverbial TV movie of the week mentality. There is a genuine series of emotions and concerns in which you are slowly drawn and absorbed and with the real Winter playing herself there is a lot to cheer at by film's end.
Morgan Freeman gives an impressive supporting role as the kind-hearted and genial Dr. McCarthy. The air of authority and his quiet manner of behaviour will endear younger moviegoers for he could almost be their grandfather or Dutch Uncle.
The rest of the cast features singers Ashley Judd as Sawyer's mother, Kris Kristofferson as the grandfather of Hazel whom Sawyer befriends at the aquarium where he communicates with Winter and where he and the boy communicate as if they have known each other for years, and Harry Connick Jr as Hazel's dad.
As you watch it all unfold, there is an air of fun and frivolity to enjoy and there is, of course, Rufus the pelican, for the small fry to appreciate.
When Frances Sternhagen shows up to threaten the livelihood of Winter and Hazel and Sawyer's dolphin friend, there is the requisite conflict until the predictable but decent conclusion to please both young and old.
Despite any real effects in 3D, it is still worth seeing for it touches the heart with all the right moments to remember and you have to congratulate the director for making the first really good family film of the year.
It is rated G which means everyone can see it.
October 2, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Movies about dolphins are rare on the big screen. In 1957 Alan Ladd and Sophia Loren starred in Boy On A Dolphin which was more about a treasure hunt in the Aegean Sea with director Jean Negulesco using more close-up shots on Loren than Ladd. Shot on location in the Aegean off Hydra, a rocky island not far from Athens, the Twentieth Century-Fox production remains a curiously empty film in which the story lacked enough drama to make it memorable. Anyone who has ever seen it will only remember Loren whose beauty stole the film.
In 1973, George C. Scott and Trish Van Devere starred in Day Of The Dolphin (1973) in which the former Oscar-winning actor for Patton played a character who trained dolphins to speak and understand English. As you watched this part of the story, you were entertained but director Mike Nichols took the magic out of it when the plot focused on the dolphins who were stolen and used in an assassination attempt.
In 2000, there was the IMAX documentary about dolphins featuring the music of Sting.
With Dolphin Tale, Hollywood has struck box office gold for it is what a film of this nature should be in the first place: a family film.
Based on a true story when Winter, a bottlenose dolphin, was caught in a blue crab trap in December 2005 in the Mosquito Lagoon, off the coast of Florida, hence her name. She was brought to the Clearwater Marine Aquarium where she learned to swim without a tail. Kevin Carroll and a team of experts designed a new tail for Winter and this is primarily the focus of Dolphin Tale.
Filmed in and around the actual locations, director Charles Martin Smith (Never Cry Wolf)
does an excellent job in balancing the events that inspired the film with a dramatic and uplifting sidebar about a boy named Sawyer Nelson whose life changes when he and Winter establish a relationship that is both moving and poignant. Albeit it is predictable, it is the acting that distinguishes it from the proverbial TV movie of the week mentality. There is a genuine series of emotions and concerns in which you are slowly drawn and absorbed and with the real Winter playing herself there is a lot to cheer at by film's end.
Morgan Freeman gives an impressive supporting role as the kind-hearted and genial Dr. McCarthy. The air of authority and his quiet manner of behaviour will endear younger moviegoers for he could almost be their grandfather or Dutch Uncle.
The rest of the cast features singers Ashley Judd as Sawyer's mother, Kris Kristofferson as the grandfather of Hazel whom Sawyer befriends at the aquarium where he communicates with Winter and where he and the boy communicate as if they have known each other for years, and Harry Connick Jr as Hazel's dad.
As you watch it all unfold, there is an air of fun and frivolity to enjoy and there is, of course, Rufus the pelican, for the small fry to appreciate.
When Frances Sternhagen shows up to threaten the livelihood of Winter and Hazel and Sawyer's dolphin friend, there is the requisite conflict until the predictable but decent conclusion to please both young and old.
Despite any real effects in 3D, it is still worth seeing for it touches the heart with all the right moments to remember and you have to congratulate the director for making the first really good family film of the year.
It is rated G which means everyone can see it.
October 2, 2011
Copyright Rick Jackson 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)