Theater Review - Brief Encounter

Brief Encounter

Directed and Adapted by Emma Rice

Based on the play Still Life and the screenplay of the Brief Encounter by Noël Coward

When: Saturday, September 12, 2010, 2pm

Where: Studio 54, NYC (Roundabout Theatre Company)

What: Play, Professional Theater, Broadway

I must say that while I wasn't a huge fan of the film Brief Encounter when I watched it nearly two months ago, I did appreciate the simplicity of the tragic love story between a man and woman in 1938 Britain.  Alec and Laura meet at a train station's small café rather innocently.  They go their separate ways, but happen to meet again at a restaurant the following week.  Both are married, but there's a connection that neither can deny.  Soon, the couple are meeting every Thursday, leaving their significant others (along with their children) by the wayside to continue their affair.

Like the movie, the play is extremely simplistic, and, if there's really any problem with the production, it's that the relationship between Laura and Alec isn't fleshed out to anything beyond broad characterizations.  Yes, there's no denying that we feel and understand completely Laura's reluctance (but eventual acceptance) of this relationship, just as we recognize that Alec has essentially fallen in love at first sight with Laura, but the actors (Hannah Yelland and Tristan Sturrock) are so stiff that we as an audience are never completely drawn in.  However, it's not the fault of Yelland or Sturrock or even the play's rather ingenious director Emma Rice.  Those are simply the restrained characters that Noël Coward created.  We're in 1930s-40s Britain and this "personality rigidity" is almost to be expected (it was played in the same manner in the movie).  Laura and Alec know they're doing something taboo, and they place up walls around them to block out their other responsibilities.  While I understand the reasoning behind their characterizations, it doesn't mean I have to be head over heels about it.

What I was head over heels over was nearly everything else on display in this charming production.  It's rather difficult to describe, but Brief Encounter was a multi-sensory experience.  Paying homage to the film on which it is based, director Emma Rice has characters walk in and out of movie screens (done to neat effect multiple times and, as a fan of film, I found the mixing of the two mediums -- film and live theater -- ingenious).

Mixing mediums even further, the play sets many of Noël Coward's poems to music and has the secondary characters sing Laura and Alec's inner thoughts in song.  In the film, Laura is constantly having an inner monologue with herself which we hear in voiceover; the songs as an inner monologue in the play were spot-on and added a theatrical touch that worked very well onstage.  I could go on and on -- puppetry, vaudevillian-style dance numbers (complete with an onstage instrumental trio), clever usage of props -- Rice has staged a marvelous production that surprisingly doesn't push the audience away from the main story, but rather loosens the rigid atmosphere that Laura and Alec have created around themselves.

As I mentioned above, Hannah Yelland and Tristan Sturrock are certainly adequate as the main characters, but the supporting cast brings some much needed happiness to this otherwise anguished tale.  Whether it be Annette McLaughlin's Myrtle, the snooty manager of the train station café, or her love-obsessed younger waitress, Beryl (played by Dorothy Atkinson), or their respective beaus (Joseph Alessi and Gabriel Ebert), these clever comedians lifted my spirits when things got a tad too heavy.

Despite the bells and whistles added to this production, the essence of the play is deeply rooted in 1930s sensibilities.  Things may seem overly dramatic, but I never got a sense that the play was poking fun of the era or attempting to make things ironic.  Instead, it's a love letter to both a bygone era and the films made during that time.

NOTE: I saw this play during previews, so I guess it's possible things could change in the production.

Movie Review - Don't Look Now

Don't Look Now (1973)

Starring Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie

Directed by Nicolas Roeg

***Currently streaming on Netflix*** 

Even though you may not have heard of it, Don't Look Now is a rather "revered" film.  Ebert calls it a "horror masterpiece" and he is not alone in his fawning.

My response to those praising this 1973 flick:  Don't listen to them.

This is one of the most boring films I've seen in years.  There's 108 minutes of set-up leading to, quite possibly, two of the worst final minutes of any film I've watched.

Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are Laura and John Baxter, a married couple who lose their daughter in a tragic drowning.  Shortly after her death, the couple travels to Venice, Italy, for John to begin renovations on an old cathedral.  While there, Laura meets two old ladies, one of whom sees both visions of the couple's dead daughter and prophesies of the future, which, unfortunately for Laura and John appears to be filled with some more tragic events.

A promising set-up is completely wasted here by pretentious direction from Nicolas Roeg (who has since gone on to direct classics like Bad Timing: A Sensual Obsession and Erotic Tales II).  There's a self-importance on display that comes off as laughable.  Roeg never achieves any modicum of suspense or eeriness except for during the film's final minutes.  Unfortunately, those final minutes lead up to a ridiculous "reveal" that makes one wonder why the hell one spent nearly two hours with this flick.

As a positive, Julie Christie and Donald Sutherland are actually fine here, but their acting (which is filled with a surprising amount of chemistry) isn't nearly enough to save this so-called suspense "classic."

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Movie Review - The Running Man

The Running Man (1987)

Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Conchita Alonso, and Richard Dawson

Directed by Paul Michael Glaser

***Now streaming on Netflix***

I was utterly fascinated with game shows as a kid.  Growing up, I remember spending summer vacations watching nothing but Pyramid, Card Sharks, Tic Tac Dough, Scrabble, and too many others to count.  I would "play" the game show host, creating my own versions of Jeopardy.  It was kind of a far-fetched dream to become the next Wink Martindale or Pat Sajak.  Well, that certainly didn't happen, but because of that childhood fascination, The Running Man has been on my list of movies to see for probably fifteen years.  I had never gotten around to it until now, but thanks to instant viewing on Netflix, I managed to watch it.

And, after all these years, it should come as no surprise that The Running Man it's really just a typical Ah-nuld movie that reeks of the cheesy actioners of the 80s.  But it was fun and an enjoyable diversion -- a film with a great story that's hampered by some poor execution.

The year is the super-futuristic 2017 and the government has taken over all aspects of American life.  Arnold is Ben Richards, a government officer who is framed in the murder of 1500 innocent civilians.  He's sent to jail, but escapes, only to be caught again and put on the most popular television show -- The Running Man -- where criminals attempt to earn their freedom by evading burly guys named Seekers who set out to kill them.  

The best part of this film isn't Arnold or the various deaths (which are shockingly tame and unexciting) or the "pro wrestling" and football players who act as the Seekers (oh, Jesse Ventura...).  Instead it's Family Feud emcee Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, the host of the game show.  He's witty, devious, and, as most game show hosts are, winningly charming.  It certainly helps that his part in the flick as the "reality show producer" is the most resonant in today's society of The Bachelorette, Jersey Shore, and [insert VH1 trash here].  It's the role of Killian and the game show itself that prop The Running Man up. The action (unfortunately) and the acting (which is to be expected in a silly 80s flick like this) fall to the wayside and simply aren't that good.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Movie Review - Gone with the Wind

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Starring Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Hattie McDaniel, Leslie Howard, and Olivia de Havilland 

Directed by Victor Fleming

The only problem with Gone with the Wind is that it's too long.  Clocking in at 238 minutes (that's two minutes shy of four hours) if you include the "entrance," "intermission," "entr'acte," and "ending" music as it would have been presented in 1939, the film slowly meanders along its soap operatic path.

Here we're presented with the Civil War -- North against the South -- but it really doesn't matter.  That's just the backdrop to the epic love story between the headstrong southern belle Scarlett O'Hara and the philandering Rhett Butler.  Rhett falls for Scarlett, but she's in love with the bland Ashley (that's a guy), but Ashley's marrying his cousin (as they were wont to do back then), the heartwarming Melanie.  Such drama!

Yes, it's silly, but the story is surprisingly effective.  I dare anyone to deny that Vivien Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara is a bitch, but that's what makes her so interesting.  Yes, she's the biggest flirt in all of Georgia which angers all the women in town, and, after she steals the men away from their ladies, she simply breaks their hearts, but she's really just a woman trying to make it in a male-dominated world.  While it may seem like she hasn't changed a bit from the opening reel to the closing one, the fact of the matter is, she really has grown to be self-sufficient (despite her endless reliance on men).  She did what was necessary to survive -- more than she ever thought she would be able to do.

And that's what makes her so attractive to the womanizing Rhett.  Clark Gable plays this Southern Casanova with wit and charm, always well aware of Scarlett's manipulations and never allowing her to walk all over him.  Plus, he gets to spout some great lines -- the most famous being "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn," but my favorite being "You need kissing badly.  That's what's wrong with you.  You should be kissed, and often, and by someone who knows how."  Coming out of anyone else, it may sound silly and trite, but coming from Gable, it's kind of fantastic.  Without a doubt, both Gable and Leigh (the later of whom won an Oscar) are stellar here, rising above the melodrama and making the film much better than it has any right to be.

Aided by a rather touching performance from Olivia de Havilland as Melanie, the woman who unknowingly shatters Scarlett's dream of being with her perceived true love Ashley, and Oscar-winning Hattie McDaniel as Mammy, the house servant with the voice of reason, director Victor Fleming manages to pull out some amazing performances from his actors.  Fleming also crafts a beautiful looking film as well.  There are some wonderful shots here -- ones that resonate even hours later -- Scarlett walking through a field of wounded soldiers, a beautiful red-hued sunset at the O'Hara plantation named Tara to name just two.  The use of Technicolor (in its early stages) and a sweeping Max Steiner score are both stunning, adding some oomph to the already powerful images.

If only the film were an hour shorter.  A three-hour running time would've been perfect.  At four hours, this film's pushing its luck.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

Movie Review - Greenberg

Greenberg (2010)

Starring Ben Stiller, Greta Gerwig, and Rhys Ifans

Directed by Noah Baumbach

I'm not really a fan of movies where some narcissistic person tries to find themselves, hurting all their friends in the process, but becoming a better person by the end, and, thusly, is forgiven by said friends who turned him away.  

That's the story in a nutshell of Greenberg.  

Ben Stiller is the title character, Roger Greenberg.  Just released from a mental hospital, Roger is staying at his vacationing brother's house in California.  While there, Roger falls for his brother's assistant, Florence (Greta Gerwig), and they begin a tumultuous relationship in which Roger continually berates her but she keeps coming back to him because "he's got issues...he was in a mental hospital...it's not his fault."  Had the character of Florence been some floozy or down-on-her-luck gal, I could understand why she'd go back to him.  However, as played by the plain jane but very attractive Greta Gerwig, Florence is a woman who seems fairly sure of herself.  Granted, she recognizes that she has faults, but there's no reason why this girl would keep going back to the jerk that is Roger Greenberg.

Since this is a hip, indie movie, drugs come into play (because all those hipsters like to snort their coke and smoke their weed while downing a variety of pills) and instead of causing Roger to lose it even more, they help him realize what he's been missing in Florence.  Ugh.  The third act of this film tries to set up a magical awakening for Roger, but one never gets an idea that he has changed one bit.

The one positive thing to take away from Greenberg is that Greta Gerwig is actually quite good.  There was a genuineness about her that didn't seem forced or fake.  I wish the same could be said for Stiller who, in certain scenes, you could tell he was trying his hardest not to portray the spastic angry characters he's played before.

The RyMickey Rating: C-

Movie Review - The Runaways

The Runaways (2010)

Starring Kristen Stewart, Dakota Fanning, and Michael Shannon

Directed by Floria Sigismondi

The Runaways...also known as "the movie that actually showed this blogger that Kristen Stewart can act." Coming off of all wooden performances in the Twilight movies that made her famous, Stewart proves that there may be some significant acting chops in her after all as she portrays teenage rocker Joan Jett, lead guitarist for the 70s short-lived chick rock band The Runaways.  With Dakota Fanning (as always) performing admirably by her side, Stewart and Fanning make this rock biopic better than it really deserves to be given its by-the-book method of storytelling.

Just like any other rock band that's had a movie made about them, The Runaways dealt with the same exact stuff -- sex, drugs, an overbearing and shady manager, egos, in-fighting.  The list could go on and on, but it's nothing new or surprising.  The only difference here is that it's a bunch of girls dealing with it rather than guys.  Even though director-screenwriter Floria Sigismondi isn't able to produce anything special with the screenplay, the film looks pretty darn good.  Apparently best known for her music videos, Sigismondi certainly brings a frenetic energy to the screen, but absolutely knows when to scale back the pizzazz for the more intimate moments.

As I mentioned above, the film is carried by Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning.  Stewart brings a raw, macho edge to Joan Jett that I haven't seen in anything else from the actress.  She was surprisingly winning even in some fairly dramatic scenes.  Fanning, once again, proves why she's one of the best younger actresses ever to appear on screen.  This girl is only sixteen (possibly younger when she made this) and her role as the drug-addicted lead singer Cherie Currie is 100% believable.  With the looks of an angel and the attitude of a punk, Fanning undeniably disappears completely into this role, providing me with some very uncomfortable, but tremendously effective, moments (re: the lesbian kissing, snorting cocaine, etc...this is Dakota Fanning...not Lindsay Lohan!).  Michael Shannon also is quite good as The Runaways' manager, Kim Fowley, who knew that in order to be successful, he needed to turn the band into the bad girls that every guy wanted to screw.  (Yes, that sounds harsh, but just wait until you hear some of the lines he spouts...most of them were ridiculous, but oh so true from a music biz standpoint.)

The RyMickey Rating: B

Movie Review - Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny, & Girly

Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny, & Girly (1970)

(AKA Girly)

Starring Ursula Howells, Pat Heywood, Howard Trevor, Vanessa Howard, and Michael Bryant

Directed by Freddie Francis

***Currently streaming on Netflix***

I came across the trailer for this on some movie website and thought that it looked like one of those ridiculously silly B-movies that might be fun to watch.  See for yourself in the trailer below:

The tone of the movie is pretty much pegged in the trailer.  It's not so much a horror film, as it is a black comedy.  And while I wasn't laughing out loud, I certainly appreciated its absurd humor.  [Oops...this is British...so I guess I appreciated its "humour."]

The flick focuses on the four characters in the title who lure unsuspecting drunkards to their austere British mansion only to force them to play silly games that ultimately bring about their deaths.  However, when one of these playmates proves to be sexually appealing to all three of the ladies in the house, their libidos get the better of them causing the possible destruction of their murderous ways.

Like I said, the film's absurd, but oddly intriguing.  Of course, there's the ridiculous huge plot hole of the fact that there's not a single thing keeping these drunkards from leaving this insane family's house -- they all stick around for no apparent reason until it's too late -- but there are moments where you can kind of overlook this.

Shockingly, there are some decent performances here.  All four of the title characters along with the man known simply as "New Friend" who causes the chaos amongst the ladies are much better than the material needs them to be.  Yes, they're all acting as if they're hopped up on happy pills, but they all elevate the film beyond your standard low-rent fare.

Director Freddie Francis has undeniably crafted a B-movie.  However, it's evident that he cared about the silly material.  Everything from set design to the musical score to the acting is much better than what you may expect.  There's even a clever moment here that, without a doubt, Stanley Kubrick blatantly copied for The Shining.  Francis definitely could've gone the slasher route, but there's nearly no blood on display here nor any violence...but the film doesn't lose anything without the vicious crimes being on display.  In fact, the lack of the violence adds to the odd child-like quality that is on display throughout the film.

This film isn't necessarily good, and it's not "so bad, it's good," but I spent an enjoyable 100 minutes with it.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - Wall Street

Wall Street (1987)

Starring Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Daryl Hannah, and Martin Sheen

Directed by Oliver Stone
***Currently streaming on Netflix***

If I'm being completely honest, the only reason I watched Wall Street is because the trailer for its sequel looks moderately interesting.  I've never seen another Oliver Stone movie other than World Trade Center.  I know next to nothing about stocks (beyond what I'm told to invest in by my father).  There's no reason this movie should appeal to me.

Big surprise...I was bored out of my mind watching this.  I didn't give a damn about anything going on.  Talking about losses and dividends and insider trading and a bull and bear market...Why don't you throw something at me that I'd care about?

Throwing aside the yawn-inducing plot (which focuses on a young up-and-coming stock broker [Charlie Sheen] helping out multi-millionaire investor Gordon Gecko [Michael Douglas]), the film is simply poorly directed and structured.  Co-writer and director Oliver Stone crafts a shockingly bland-looking film.  There's not a shot here that looks rich or pretty...everything looks "film school"...not the work of an Academy Award-winning director.

Add to that one of the worst performances I've seen on film from Charlie Sheen as the young and impressionable Bud Fox, the young broker who gets played and screwed over by the sleazy Gordon Gecko.  We're talking soap opera level acting here.  That kind where there's a raised or furrowed eyebrow followed by some insipid music cue.  Any moment where Sheen is required to raise his voice in anger, it comes across as laughably bad.  Standing next to Michael Douglas and his own father, Martin Sheen (who plays his father here), one has to wonder if there really wasn't a better actor around in 1987 to take on this role.

Unfortunately, Michael Douglas's performance -- playing a character who is so well known for his quote "Greed is good" -- isn't nearly spectacular enough to raise the level of this film beyond awful.  

So now the question is will I have any desire to see the upcoming sequel to a film I've considered one of the worst I've seen this year?  The appeal of Carey Mulligan may be enough, but I'm not looking forward to it in the slightest anymore.

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Movie Review - Piranha 3D

Piranha 3D (2010)

Starring Elisabeth Shue, Jerry O'Connell, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd, and Richard Dreyfuss

Directed by Alexandre Aja

I don't quite know where to go with this one.  Let's just start by saying that Piranha is not a good movie.  Nor does it have any intentions of being one.  It knows full well that it's awful.  The question then becomes does it reach the level of "so bad, it's good" which is the goal it sets out to achieve.

The answer is "it depends."

The problem with a movie like Piranha is that it isn't good or worth your time unless you're able to watch it with a group of people who can talk back to the screen.  Sitting and watching this flick in a theater with folks who are "forced" to be quiet is going to seriously dampen your fun...and it's going to make you realize that the movie doesn't quite hit the heinously hilarious levels it hoped it would.

When a pack of prehistoric-era killer piranhas is unleashed due to a seismic event (triggered -- no joke -- by a beer bottle falling into a lake), the town of Lake Victoria is in for some trouble.  Of course, it's Spring Break and tons of college hotties who are perfectly fine with dancing topless are ready for a dip in the town's lake.  There's really no point in explaining any more plot...killer piranhas attack senseless and obnoxious college students.  You don't need to know anything else.

We're treated to a who's who of has-been actors -- Elisabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, and Christopher Lloyd -- who are all surprisingly decent.  Thankfully, the director realized that watching a movie riddled with horrible actors like the obnoxious Jerry O'Connell would have been painful to sit through, so he actually cast a few decent people to counter the awful ones.

On one hand, it's nice that director Alexandre Aja recognized he was going for pure camp.  There's a scene towards the beginning where two buxom ladies strip down to nothing but flippers and swim through the surprisingly clean waters of Lake Victoria while proceeding to hump one another.  This scene goes on for at least two minutes and it's all set to a classical opera aria.  Alone, the nude ladies would have been just nude ladies, but set to classical music, it becomes a somewhat hilarious scene.  Aja at least has an eye for the corny and it certainly is necessary in a film like this.

The 3D -- which was a conversion and not shot in the format -- was disappointing.  It created a dark tone at times where it became nearly impossible to see what was going on.  In the end, the corniness would've been perfectly acceptable in 2D.

Even after writing this review, I'm still not quite sure where to go with the rating here.  I enjoyed myself, but I'm well aware that this movie sucks.  If I watched it alone at home, I would think it was one of the worst movies I'd seen this year.  In the setting in which I watched it, however -- with a group of seven talking back to the screen -- it was an enjoyable diversion.

In the end, just know what you're getting into with this and maybe you'll come out of it with some moderate enjoyment.

The RyMickey Rating:  C+

Movie Review - The Greatest

The Greatest (2010)

Starring Carey Mulligan, Pierce Brosnan, Susan Sarandon, Johnny Simmons, Zoë Kravitz, Aaron Johnson, and Michael Shannon

Directed by Shana Feste

Calling your movie The Greatest is really just asking for trouble.  The reviewers could just pounce all over your flick and trash it.  Fortunately, first-time writer-director Shana Feste has crafted a rather beautiful film here that, while it has its minor faults, is full of some great performances including another star-making turn from Carey Mulligan.

The Greatest begins with young high school couple Rose (Mulligan) and Bennett (Kick-Ass's Aaron Johnson) in a state of undress.  They'd only been dating each other for mere weeks, but they'd been pining after each other secretly for four years of high school.  After they sleep with each other for the first time consummating that unrequited love, Bennett drives Rose home and just as he begins to tell her he loves her, their car is involved in a horrific collision.  Bennett dies at the scene.

Some time passes and Rose shows up on the doorstep of Bennett's parents, Allen (Brosnan) and Grace Brewster (Sarandon).  She reveals that she is pregnant with Bennett's child and needs assistance with her pregnancy.  The Brewster household, however, has not quite come to terms with Bennett's death with each family member, including the Brewsters' other son, Ryan (Johnny Simmons), dealing with the tragedy in various ways.  The introduction of Rose into the Brewsters' lives causes each of them to examine their own grief in ways that couldn't possibly imagine.

Sounds like fun, right?  It's not a bed of roses and, at times, the script just seems too convenient.  Everything comes together much too cleanly and quickly in the end.  There's a character that befriends the Brewsters' son Ryan whose storyline comes to an awkward conclusion.  Michael Shannon's role as the driver who hits Bennett's car is quite awkward.

All these faults, however, are overshadowed by some amazing performances that elevate this film to a level infinitely better than it deserves to be.  First and foremost, Carey Mulligan is a star.  She just shines onscreen.  There's not a false note in her performance and I think her role here is better than her Oscar-nominated turn in An Education.

Susan Sarandon is also quite good here.  As a mother who simply longs to have her baby back, she resents Rose for entering their lives.  She wants no pity from the outside world, but, at the same time, she cannot let go of her dead son in the slightest. 

Pierce Brosnan's Allen, on the other hand, refuses to talk about his son.  Brosnan really surprised me here.  He creates a rigid, emotionless persona in Allen, but this only causes the inevitable break-down to be that much more effective.  Similarly, young Johnny Simmons was gripping as the son who masks his pain in drugs.  There's something about men crying onscreen that can ring incredibly false, but both of these actors (one who's been around quite a while and one who is just starting out) really raise the bar.   

I recognize that this film isn't perfect.  It's perhaps a tad too trite and absolutely comes together much too cleanly in the end, but this tale of grief, pain, and, ultimately, forgiveness and love is something I highly recommend.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - The Page Turner

The Page Turner (La Tourneuse de Pages) (2007)

Starring Catherine Frot and Déborah François

Directed by Denis Dercourt
***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

A young girl has spent her first ten years trying to become a great pianist.  When she goes to audition in an attempt to get into an elite Conservatory, she is distracted by the female headmaster of the school and, ultimately, fails to gain entry to the academy.  

Ten years pass and the young girl has grown into a somewhat bitter twenty-year old.  Mélanie has not touched the piano in over a decade, but she has not forgotten the pain that the headmaster's flippant attitude caused her.  Mélanie soon is hired by the headmaster's husband to watch after their son while his wife, Ariane, practices for an important concert.  Needless to say, Mélanie's infiltration of this household is carefully planned and she hopes to create a bit of turmoil much like Ariane caused her a decade ago.

Knowing this is a revenge-centered film, I was expecting something a bit more along the lines of Fatal Attraction.  However, this  French flick is very quiet and subdued, but surprisingly tense.  I kept waiting for Mélanie to make her mark on Ariane and her family, but she simply waits and bides her time, waiting for the perfect moment to pounce...and when she does, it's in a simple yet effective manner.

My major qualm with the taut 79-minute film is with the actress who portrays Mélanie.  Déborah François is rather bland...I fully understand that she wasn't supposed to be a psycho and was simply supposed to be a girl who has lived with an unrealized and squashed dream for a decade, but François plays Mélanie as such a wet blanket that it boggles my mind that Ariane and her family would want her around in the first place.  While that's a fault of the script (which also brings in an odd and unnecessary Sapphic undercurrent), François doesn't do anything to make her character any more interesting to watch.

The RyMickey Rating:  B-

Movie Review - The Art of the Steal

The Art of the Steal (2010)

Directed by Don Argott

***This film is currently streaming on Netflix***

I'm not an art guy, by any means.  Not that I can't appreciate the pointillism of Seurat or the intriguing colors of a Matisse, but I'm certainly not one to delve into the deep and hidden meanings of a still-life painting of fruit.

I mainly watched the documentary The Art of the Steal because it had a Philadelphia connection and am always somewhat intrigued by films where I can go "I've been there and seen that."  Little did I know that I'd be treated to an incredibly informative and entertaining film that detailed the cultural importance of an art collection that I had no idea was right in my backyard and the governmental bigwigs that essentially spat on a man's grave in order to try and increase tourism in the city of Philadelphia.

Albert C. Barnes became rich in the early 1900s by creating medicine for treating children born to a mother with venereal diseases.  With his profits from this antibiotic, he traveled overseas and became enthralled with modern artists of the time like Matisse and Picasso.  He soon amassed a massive amount of art, bringing it all together in Merion, PA, four miles outside of his birthplace of Philadelphia.  Barnes had a distaste for the art world and made that well known.  Placing his collection in Merion was like a big middle finger to the art elite.  He refused to allow the public to view his collection except for one day a week, instead creating a school for burgeoning artists to study the 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 60 Matisses, and 44 Picassos (just to name a few).  This didn't sit well with Philadelphia bigwigs, to say the least.

When Barnes died in a car crash in 1951, his will explicitly stated that his art was never to be loaned out or sold and the art should be kept in Merion.  Barnes hated the white-washed walls of the art world, with feet of spacing between pieces.  His collection had Matisses next Picasoos next to tribal African art.  He wanted the pieces to "speak to each other" in a way no other art exhibition could.

Unfortunately, through a series of misguided Barnes Foundation presidents, the Foundation lost most of its funding.  The City of Philadelphia saw this as a great opportunity to purchase this collection valued at $35-40 BILLION at a steal at around $150 million.  Would they succeed or would Barnes' wishes be honored?

The Art of Steal is undoubtedly one-sided, but the arguments presented here don't seem refutable.  No doubt, even though Albert Barnes didn't want to associate himself with the snooty art world, his refusal to show his private collection of artistic masterpieces was inherently snooty in and of itself.  That being said, it was absolutely his prerogative to do with this art what he wanted.  The City of Philadelphia (including Governor Ed Rendell, interviewed here, who is never one to pass up anything that will put his face on a screen [look no further than Eagles PostGame Live on Comcast Sportsnet for proof of that]) definitely pulled off some hefty manipulations in order to try and get the Barnes art collection into their possession.

The documentary plays like a real movie -- there are twists, turns, surprises, and a great storyline throughout.  Interviewees are passionate on both sides of the argument, all believing that their side is undoubtedly the "correct" one.  The film itself looks incredibly well done, is beautifully edited, and contains a fantastic musical score (utilizing some great Philip Glass numbers).  

I can't recommend The Art of the Steal highly enough.  It's a first-class documentary that made me utterly intrigued about something in which I really had no interest.  I kinda wanna head out to an art museum now.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass (2010)

Starring Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Chloe Moretz, Mark Strong, and Nicolas Cage

Directed by Matthew Vaughn

I'm not really a fan of superhero comic book movies.  For the most part, I could take them or leave them...they do nothing for me, but I don't actively oppose the genre either.  Going in a slightly different direction from your typical superhero flick, Kick-Ass details the lives of four ordinary folks who desire to don corny lycra costumes and help their fellow men and women out of trouble.

We first meet Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a geeky high school kid who happens to enjoy comic books.  He wonders why there aren't real-life superheroes who, while they wouldn't hold superpowers, could assist those in need and strike fear into criminals.  He decides to test the waters and become a modern-day superhero named Kick-Ass, whose only superpower is, well, kicking ass (and he hasn't exactly become an expert at that yet).

After gaining some notoriety via a self-created website, Dave decides to assist a girl he has a crush on.  The gal is being followed by a drug addict/dealer and when Dave as Kick-Ass goes to the slums to meet him, he runs into some trouble.  Fortunately, he is assisted by two fellow "superheroes," Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).  The dad and daughter team manage to kill everyone in the drug dealer's den, saving Kick-Ass in the process.

Unfortunately, the drug dealer worked for the evil crime boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong) who decides to go after these do-gooding vigilantes.  His son Chris (a shockingly un-annoying Christopher Mintz-Plasse) takes on the personality of superhero Red Mist in order to befriend Kick-Ass in hopes of leading his father to the lair of Big Daddy and Hit Girl.

Kick-Ass is a surprisingly effective film.  Director and co-writer Michael Vaughn takes a humorous, tongue-in-cheek look at superhero flicks and does so in a violent manner.  Much talk was made of the violence (specifically the fact that young Chloe Moretz does most of the killing), but the off-the-wall tone of the film presents things in such a cartoonish way that it never feels excessive.  Vaughn (who hasn't directed a whole lot of flicks) certainly has an eye for crafting enjoyable action comedy.  He keeps comic book sensibilities ever-present, but they never felt overpowering which I enjoyed greatly.

Certainly adding to the appeal of the film is the acting of Aaron Johnson as Kick-Ass and Mark Strong as the ominous crime boss.  While Nic Cage and Chloe Moretz seemed to ham it up a little more than necessary, I still thought the characters they played were an interesting creation and the backstory that explains their birth as superheroes was particularly well-crafted.

Kick-Ass is the film that Watchmen wanted to be.  I'd watch Kick-Ass again in a heartbeat...Watchmen hasn't fared well as time as gone on.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - Inception

Inception (2010)

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, and Marion Cotillard

Directed by Christopher Nolan

There are major spoilers ahead here...This isn't so much a review as a discussion of my thoughts a day after watching the film...If you haven't seen the film yet and don't want some key plot points to be ruined, don't read any further.

In the end, some magnificent "parts" of Christopher Nolan's newest film, Inception, don't quite add up to a fantastic "whole."  Now, fair warning -- I'm going to be overly critical here.  A creative film like this wants me to question it...so I'm going to do so.  But, as you'll notice by my rating at the end, I enjoyed myself thoroughly while watching it.  I simply wish it was something I could have loved.

This movie is about Leonardo Dicaprio's character Cobb.  It's about his need to be forgiven for what he considers to be the "crime" of causing his wife's (Marion Cotillard) death.  Being absolved of this sin will allow him to not only return to his children, but also to return to a more peaceful existence with himself.  If this is the main point (which, to me, there can be no argument that it isn't), why does it fall to the wayside for so much of this film's 150 minutes?

The final hour-long act of the film -- the dream within a dream within a dream within a dream where the key players are attempting to complete the inception in Fischer's (Cillian Murphy) mind -- hardly focuses on Cobb's emotional part of the story at all.  Not until we reach the "limbo" stage does Cobb really come into play.  Granted, this whole segment of the film was really amazing -- I truly enjoyed all of the levels within the dreams and that hotel scene is just a gigantic WOW -- but it's really just a huge McGuffin (sort of).  I can't help but think something could have been trimmed here or there (or something even added, if necessary) to bring the focus back to Cobb.  Yes, there were the occasional images of his children, but a larger emphasis on Cobb would have been much more powerful in terms of character development.

Speaking of character development, where was it?  Beyond Cobb, there's nothing.  I guess that could be because "this is all a dream" (an idea which I'll touch upon in a bit) and in dreams, character development is nonexistent, but that seems like a cop-out.  So, if the film's not a dream, that makes it real -- well, "real" in terms of the fact that we're watching a film.  And if this is a film, I'd like to know something about these people I'm watching.  Unfortunately, I know nothing beyond the fact that the girl from Juno is the Architect, the guy from (500) Days of Summer is Cobb's right-hand man, and the guy from Bronson (yes, I know you've never heard of it, but you should watch it anyway) is like some fancy X-Man that can change his form.  Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy are all very good, but they're not really given anything to do beyond what their job requires.  It's like a much more intelligent Oceans 11 film in that sense.

So is the whole thing a dream?  Is the reason that I don't know anything beyond the outer surface of these characters because I'm watching Cobb's dream?  I can't buy that (even if in the director commentary Christopher Nolan tells me that is the case).  For starters, if this is all a dream, how the heck is the story so linear?  Yes, I may have some dreams that follow a general storyline, but for the most part, the restraints are gone when one dreams and logic bears no importance.  Yes, I may be dreaming about work and it may seem perfectly straightforward, but I could change my thoughts within seconds and be some place completely different.  That never really happens here.  Yes, I'm sure there are things that point to this being a dream, but if that's the case, I'd be utterly disappointed simply because things are much to logical here for that to be the case.

Plus, it seems obvious to me that at the end of the film Cobb's spinning top is beginning to wobble.  When a top begins to slow down, the change in aural tone that it begins to make is blatant -- and it does that during the final scene (plus, it starts to wobble).  Yes, one could certainly make the statement that the top was never Cobb's token, but instead was Mal's, so it was never his "way back"to reality.  While that's certainly true, I always felt that the top was his connection to her and since she was so connected to the top, he, in turn, can be taken out of the dreamscape by the top as well.

Okay...enough rambling.  Let's get to a tiny bit of general thoughts here.  Inception was a treat to watch, without a doubt.  The more I sit and think about it, the more I appreciate it.  It's not a perfect film, but it's a more than admirable effort (I still say that its biggest fault is that first point I make above in that the emotional connection for Cobb's character is pushed to the sidelines for too long in the final act).  Nolan (a director and writer who I appreciate, but don't find myself fawning over) once again proves that he's a smart guy with an eye for some special set pieces.  The rotating hotel scene which was shown in the previews really blew me away.  Even though I knew it was coming, I was amazed while watching it.

Additionally, kudos to Nolan for making what could have been a convoluted mess of a film perfectly coherent.  Before going into this, I heard so much about how you "really have to pay attention," but I found the film to be easily comprehensible.  Little asides that in some movies may have made the viewer feel stupid (or made the viewer feel that the filmmaker thought they were stupid) proved to be quite natural and justified in their existence.  (This was actually a very impressive aspect of the film...and the whole point of Ellen Page's character.  Her Architect was "us," the audience, and since she was an intelligent character, whenever she asked for an explanation or elucidated on a certain topic, it was never done in a manner that talked down to the viewer.)

Still, the problem with the lack of character development is that Nolan doesn't allow any of his actors to shine.  None of the actors are problematic or detrimental to the film in any way, but they're not allowed to really add anything to the final product either.  Leo and Ellen and Marion and Joseph and Tom are all fine, but never given much to work with.

Yes, yes, this "review" was perhaps overly negative, but I enjoyed Inception and the more I think about it and the more I discuss it with others, the more I appreciate the film.  Do I wish it was a little better?  Absolutely.  A little trimming of the Fischer dream storyline could've done wonders to the film as a whole.  A bit more character development for anyone beyond Cobb would've been wonderful.

Still, Inception is no nightmare...it's just not the fantastical dream of a film that others say it is.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Movie Review - The Kids Are All Right

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

Starring Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, and Josh Hutcherson

Directed by Lisa Cholodenko

The tv commercials are pitching The Kids Are All Right as an "uproarious comedy."  While the flick certainly has its humorous moments, its roots are in family drama and, after a somewhat shaky opening fifteen minutes, the film is able to balance both quite well.

The story's pretty simple -- Nic (Annette Bening) and Jules (Julianne Moore) are a lesbian couple who have been together for two decades.  They each had a child conceived by artificial insemination using the same sperm donor.  Their daughter, Joni (Mia Wasikowska), has just turned eighteen and she is convinced by her brother, Laser (Josh Hutcherson), to find out information about their donor dad.  Joni and Laser meet up with Paul (Mark Ruffalo) and a whole new dynamic is introduced to the family, affecting each member in a different way.

I'm not a huge Julianne Moore fan, but her "earth mom" hipster Jules is winning.  Bringing a comedic edge to her work that she hasn't done well since her turn in The Big Lebowski, Moore is light, breezy, and utterly charming.  Annette Bening's Nic is certainly the uptight one, masking any pain in a nice glass of Chardonnay.  The chemistry between Moore and Bening starts off a tiny bit rocky (which is more the fault of the screenplay), but they won me over soon after the movie began.  And I haven't even mentioned Mark Ruffalo yet whose Paul is a little bit aloof, but totally cool -- the dad any kid would love to call their own.  It's completely obvious why Joni and Laser instantly take a liking to him and Ruffalo nearly steals the show.

However, the film's not perfect and the problem is with the writing.  First, as I've mentioned before, the film starts out with a tone that didn't win me over in the slightest.  We get shots of Laser doing drugs, Joni being pressured to have sex, and Nic and Jules making love with male gay porn blaring on the television set.  It all seems a little spastic in the initial ten minutes.  Fortunately, things start to come down to earth soon after and once the main storyline of Laser and Joni meeting their dad surfaces, all is well from then on out.

The second (and final) issue is that the characters of Joni and Laser just weren't quite fleshed out enough for my liking.  They're each given a minor "problem" to deal with -- Joni and her aforementioned virginity and Laser dealing with a bully of a friend -- but both these issues seemed superfluous and tacked on.  Laser's issue is a little bit more developed and understandable -- his lack of a male role model forces him to want to seek out his bio-dad -- but it never seems fully realized.  Still, I will say that Mia Wasikowska (who I thought was stiff and boring as the title character in the heinous Alice in Wonderland remake) and Josh Hutcherson were both very good here.

The Kids Are All Right is a very good dramedy.  Yes, it has a few faults, but they're really just minor quibbles in the grand scheme of things.  There's a good story here and there's some wonderful acting that make this one well worth watching.

The RyMickey Rating:  B+

Finally got around to seeing Inception yesterday.  The review is forthcoming...I want it to stew a little bit longer...All I'll say right now is that I wasn't blown away...

Movie Review - Suspiria

Suspiria (1977)

Directed by Dario Argento

I've heard quite a bit about this horror film from the 1970s -- mostly from websites like Ain't It Cool News profusely praising the thing.

I didn't get it at all.

Suspiria -- the tale of an American ballerina who travels to a German ballet school only to learn that it's run by a coven of witches -- is not the least bit frightening.  It's not the least bit eerie.  It's not the least bit good.

The only saving grace -- which is apparently a staple of horror director Dario Argento's films -- is that the film has some interesting shots.  Colors and sets are oddly utilized and it's something that I can moderately appreciate.  

However, the rest of the film is a mess.  It honestly was something that could have shown up on any Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode and be poked fun at without any problems at all.  In fact, talking back to the tv was the only way that my brother and I made it through this thing.

The RyMickey Rating:  D-

Movie Review - The Bounty Hunter

The Bounty Hunter (2010)

Starring Jennifer Aniston, Gerard Butler, and Jason Sudeikis

Directed by Andy Tennant

There's a minute-long scene at the very beginning of The Bounty Hunter that had my hopes raised for the flick right from the start.  We see Milo (Gerard Butler) driving down a highway with a smirk on his face when suddenly smoke begins to billow out of the car's trunk.  He pulls over, opens the trunk, and out pops Nikki (Jennifer Aniston) with one of those emergency highway light sticks.  She starts to run, he chases after her, and the screen pauses.  Up pops some arrows pointing to the characters, cleverly explaining what's going on, telling us that these two folks were previously married and Milo, a bounty hunter, has picked up Nikki, a news reporter, who skipped a court date because she was hot on the trail of a story.  All this was actually rather amusing...

...Then the title card popped up and it all went downhill from there.  I don't think I laughed once during this flick's overly long 110 minutes.  Aniston (who I could watch for hours on end) and Butler (who is certainly engaging in these "comedic" roles) do the best they can with what they're given, but they aren't given much.  I was hoping that at the very least this movie wouldn't go down the stereotypical route that these two exes would end up together in the end, but, lo and behold, the final shot finds our two lovebirds making out.

There's nothing to recommend in this one.  Not a thing.

The RyMickey Rating:  D-

Movie Review - The Oxford Murders

The Oxford Murders (2010)

Starring Elijah Wood and William Hurt

Directed by Álex de la Iglesia

There's a reason this film has been sitting on the shelf for over two years now.  Finally getting a US release in a very few select theaters this upcoming Friday, The Oxford Murders is a ridiculous philosophy lesson wrapped up in a insanely dull murder mystery.

The flick is based off a book by a guy who is both a mathematician and a murder mystery writer and this movie is ridiculously heavy-handed when it comes to mathematical theorems.  Seriously, at least a third of the film is filled with discussions about pi, Fermat's Last Theorem, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Pythagorus.  In case you were wondering, feeling like you're sitting in a physics class while watching a film isn't a good thing and The Oxford Murders is proof of that.  In its attempt to create a serial killer who leaves clues based on mathematical prinicples, the film just falls completely flat.

I haven't seen Elijah Wood in much of anything lately and maybe it's because the blue in his eyes was freakishly bright.  Honestly, though, it was better to look at the eyes because then I could stop focusing on his incredibly wooden acting.  Granted, he wasn't given much to work with, but he certainly doesn't bring anything to the table.  

Just avoid.

The RyMickey Rating:  D-

Book Review - Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go (2005)

by Kazuo Ishiguro

Never Let Me Go is a science fiction novel in the loosest sense of the word.  There's not a hint of apocalyptic tones, nor does it take place in a future overrun by new technologies.  It actually takes place in Britain from the late 1960s-1990s and it's really a world similar to what we live in today.

The only real difference revolves around the young students at Hailsham, a private school that keeps its students far away from the outside world.  The students, including our narrator, Kathy, and her friends Ruth and Tommy, are told right from the start of their schooling that they are "special" and will hold an important place in society as they grow older.  While they live a seemingly happy existence, as they head into their teen years and early twenties, they begin to realize their true purpose in life which leads to some students longing for a little something more.

It's quite difficult to describe this book without inherently spoiling it...even though the school's secret is nearly blatantly told to us about a third of the way through.  The author never attempts to "hide" the secret, it just unfurls naturally in time as Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy grow older.  And it's not even that spoiling it would ruin it, but I simply feel it would be better to experience this book on one's own knowing as little as possible.

And it's not like there are shocking revelations here -- in fact, the book is utterly mundane in the way that it's told.  Ishiguro chooses to have Kathy narrate the story in such an easy-going manner that oftentimes, it feels like it reads like a children's book (or like this blog, perhaps).  It's this inherent simplicity, however, that makes Kathy's story -- and the sad story of all Hailsham students -- all that much more poignant.

Side Note: This will soon be an upcoming movie starring Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley which looks quite good.