Hitchcock Month - Lifeboat

Lifeboat (1944)

Starring Tallulah Bankhead, Hume Cronyn, and Walter Slezak

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Well, these can't all be winners.  And the less said about Lifeboat, the better.

A German U-boat sinks an American ship heading towards Britain.  A group of people manage to clamber aboard a lifeboat.  However, one of the group is a Nazi U-boat captain and the Americans and British are unsure whether to trust the captain even though he is the most knowledgeable about the sea.

An hour-and-forty-five minutes of the most boring stuff imaginable.  The movie takes place only on the lifeboat and one would think that tensions would inevitably rise as the group would start to turn against each other.  I was actually eagerly looking forward to viewing this flick for that very reason.  It's got to be exciting, right?  Nope.  Not in the slightest.  

This is seriously one of the most boring films I have ever seen.  It's incredibly talky when it doesn't need to be.  It's filled with some bad overacting (mainly thanks to the ridiculously over-the-top prissy character played by Tallulah Bankhead).  There's nothing good here.

I came away from my Book-a-Week Quest last year loving John Steinbeck.  Seeing as he he penned the script for this flick, I was looking forward to seeing it.  However, there isn't a single thing to recommend here.

The RyMickey Rating:  D-

Movie Review - Let Me In

Let Me In (2010)

Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins, Dylan Minette, and Elias Koteas

Directed by Matt Reeves

No need to mince words here.  Go see Let Me In.  As of now (and granted I haven't seen much this year), this is the best film released in 2010 and the best horror movie I've seen in a long while.

Twelve year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is somewhat of a recluse.  He seems to have no friends at school and is constantly being assaulted by a nasty trio headed by bully Kenny (Dylan Minette, Jack's son on Lost...which -- side note -- had me wondering the whole darn time where I recognized the kid from...I just couldn't place him while watching it).  One evening a young girl (Chloe Moretz) and a man (Richard Jenkins) move into Owen's apartment complex.  The girl named Abby, also twelve, is kind to Owen -- something he's never really experienced before.  However, over the course of a month, Owen soon begins to realize that Abby is not who she appears to be...she is, in fact, a vampire and, as is the case with most vampires, she needs blood to survive.

I had seen the Swedish film Let the Right One In (review here) and I felt that it wasn't the least bit frightening.  Director and screenwriter Matt Reeves manages to achieve an overarching sense of dread and tension, while at the same time creating an incredibly intimate character-driven horror movie.  There's no denying that the pace is a little slow, but it's a credit to Reeves (who also directed the non-stop fast-paced Cloverfield) that he manages to keep the story interesting and eerie throughout.  And it's not just his ability to keep things creepy -- he has lensed a great looking film.  There's a dark tone to everything on the screen, but he constructs some exquisite shots.  I honestly can't say enough about Reeves here.  After Cloverfield (which had its faults, but was still enjoyable) and this film, he has absolutely become a director whose future films I will highly anticipate.

He's certainly helped by a great cast of actors.  Smit-McPhee (who I liked in last year's The Road) and Chloe Moretz (who I didn't really care for in this year's Kick-Ass) are wonderful.  Neither of the pre-teens are happy in life, but they both manage to craft characters you instantly care about despite (or perhaps because of) their gloomy, depressed demeanors.  Richard Jenkins also is gripping as Abby's "father" who will do whatever necessary (even if it disgusts him) to keep his girl alive (or as alive as a vampire can be).  Throw in Elias Koteas and Dylan Minette who both manage to make the most out of what could have easily been stereotypical roles as a cop and a bully, respectively, and there's not a single performance in this film that rings false.

As I said above, the pacing in Let Me In is slow and deliberate and it will be a turn-off to some.  Despite some truly frightening moments, this isn't your typical horror film at all.  However, there's a rather beautiful story on display here about friendship and fear, and the fact that director Reeves was able to balance both of those qualities is quite a feat.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-   

Movie Review - Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole (2010)

Featuring the voices of Jim Sturgess, Helen Mirren, Sam Neill, Geoffrey Rush, Hugo Weaving, and Anthony LaPaglia

Directed by Zack Snyder

An ungainly title leads to a rather ungainly movie in The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole.  While the film looks quite lush and is beautifully animated, I was insanely bored while watching it.

First, the story seems oddly simple and convoluted at the same time.  The basis of the tale is one parliament of good owls fighting against one parliament of bad owls. [Yes, a group of owls is called a "parliament."]  However, things get much more complicated.  Soren and his brother Kludd are two owls learning how to fly.  One evening, they're essentially kidnapped by a group headed by Metalbeak who desires to create a race of "Pure Ones" by eradicating all owls that would not fit into this category -- very WWII Germany.  While Soren manages to escape, Kludd immediately begins to side with Metalbeak's gang, setting up the brother against brother storyline that's only one part of this mishmash of tales.  Once Soren flees, he meets up with some other owls who play no significant role except to be either helpful or careless depending on what the story calls for at that time.  Together, this group of owls travels to the land of Ga'Hoole where the good owls live -- the ones who will do whatever it takes to rid the world of Metalbeak and his followers.

Egads...way too much story there.  Still, despite the abundance of plot, the movie goes nowhere.  It's an oddly simple "journey tale" where the good guy meets other good guys along the way who help him defeat the bad guy.  

Adding to the ennui are characters that, while well animated, have no significant individual development.  There are scads of owls that are introduced that seriously serve no purpose whatsoever.  And when the owls themselves all look alike, adding more to the mix doesn't help matters.  

Additionally, and I'm not trying to sound overly nationalistic here, but the Australian and British accents had a way of lulling me into a sense of sleep.  I understand that owls themselves are rather regal, stoic creatures and the foreign accents may have fit the bill, but they also added an aire of pretentiousness that this movie didn't need in the slightest.

All my qualms are rather unfortunate because the film looks quite lovely.  The animation is great and, being somewhat of an animation geek, I was quite impressed with the mouth movements and facial expressions of the characters.  There was a very natural feel to the whole proceeding, so it's a real shame that the story falls tremendously flat.

The RyMickey Rating:  D+

Hitchcock Month - The Lady Vanishes

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

Starring Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, and Dame May Whitty

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
**Currently streaming on Netflix** 

Going back to the old school Hitchcock again (the "before Hitchcock was Hitchcock" era), The Lady Vanishes is an acceptable film, but one that really doesn't get a reaction from me one way or another.  It's there...it's fine...but there's really no other descriptor better suited to it.  It's just "fine."

A young American woman boards a train in Central Europe.  While there, she befriends an elderly English woman traveling in the same car as her.  The American drifts off to sleep and when she awakens she discovers the old lady as vanished.  No one on the train seems to remember her in the slightest.  Is the American going crazy or is there some conspiracy at work here?

The biggest problem with The Lady Vanishes is that it takes much too long to get started.  We don't even reach the train station until about 25 minutes in.  Prior to that, we're forced to sit through some apparent "comedy" taking place at a rather run-down hotel.  We meet the central characters here, but we just as easily could have met these characters on the train.  Whittling down this initial act would have allowed us to get into the action much sooner and would have led to a much more taut film.  That being said, the film is certainly more in the "comedic mystery" realm rather than full-on thriller, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  However, trimming of this comedy in the first act would have led to a much better film.

The acting is quite good.  Some early cinema can be filled with overacting, but the key players here are fine.

See, there's that word "fine" again. Which is all this movie is.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Hitchcock Month - Shadow of a Doubt

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Starring Teresa Wright, Joseph Cotten, and Hume Cronyn

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

I watched Shadow of a Doubt several years ago and remember being moderately disappointed even though the flick had come to be very highly regarded by film historians and it was said to be Hitch's favorite film he directed.  Fortunately, on a second viewing several years removed from my first, I've grown to greatly appreciate this little film.  It's a modest picture...a simple one with very little in the way of trickery from either the direction or the script.  But from that modesty blossoms a lovely focus on family -- something that is rarely a staple of Hitchcockian films.

The plot is fairly simple.  The Newton family lives in Santa Rosa, California in a lovely house, living a rather picturesque life.  Father works at a bank, Mother stays home, and teenager Charlotte (AKA "Charlie") is bored and angry at the world.  However, when Charlotte (Teresa Wright) receives word that her namesake, Uncle Charlie (Joseph Cotten), is coming to visit, she becomes ecstatic.  Uncle Charlie has long been a revered figure to her -- almost an idol that she looks up to and tries to imitate.  Unfortunately for little Charlie, Uncle Charlie may not be the squeaky clean man she thinks he is.  In fact, it's entirely possible that Uncle Charlie is the infamous Merry Widow serial killer who preys on unsuspecting widows, killing them and stealing their significant fortunes.  

Co-written by "Our Town" playwright Thornton Wilder, there is certainly a sense of 1940s Americana at work here.  Everyone knows everyone in Santa Rosa.  Doors are kept unlocked and it's not surprising for a neighbor to wander into the Newton home.  There's a sweet innocence on display in Shadow of a Doubt that stands in stark contrast to many of Hitch's other films.  Where he would often choose a rather alluring leading lady, Teresa Wright (while certainly attractive) doesn't have any sex appeal.  She's just your average American gal.  It's this naïveté that allows for Uncle Charlie's menacing nature to be even more frightening.

The lovely script is helped by a brilliant cast of actors.  Ms. Wright is perfectly cast as the innocent Charlie whose eyes are opened to the true cruelty of the world.  And she is matched by a superb performance from Joseph Cotten as the charming yet disarming Uncle Charlie.  His ability to believably change from ladies' man to lunatic on a dime is an admirable feat.  Add into the mix some wonderful performances from Patricia Collinge as Charlie's mother, Henry Travers as Charlie's father, and Hume Cronyn as the nosy neighbor and there's not a bad performance in the bunch.

I'm quite happy that I gave this flick another shot because I truly feel like I've found a new "classic" for me in Shadow of a Doubt.  It's a "different" kind of Hitchcock film, but the director still manages to keep me on the edge of my seat the entire time.

The RyMickey Rating: A-

Hitchcock Month - The Birds

The Birds (1963)

Starring Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, and Suzanne Pleshette

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Before I delve into any discussion on The Birds, let me tell a little story.  The year is something like 1989 or 1990 and I'm nine or ten years old.  It's a Saturday in the second weekend of September.  My mom and aunt are out at a local arts festival and I am home with my dad and uncle.  My father heads out to a local video store and brings back the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Birds.  The movie gets put into the VCR and I am immediately frightened.  Right from the get go, there's an eeriness on display.  About halfway through the film, I run upstairs and lock myself in my parents' bathroom and refuse to come out.  My mom comes home and reassures me that it's just a movie, but this moment is my first experience with Alfred Hitchcock.  Apparently, even at a young age, I recognized the Master of Suspense was an expert at creating some of the most tense movie moments ever put to celluloid.

I haven't seen The Birds in a really long time and I must say that it truly stands the test of time.  This is perhaps the only Hitchcock film with a lack of a human enemy.  Facing an attack by groups of birds, the townsfolk of Bodega Bay, California, are at a loss to explain why these avian creatures are turning against them.  The lack of explanation is what makes the film so incredibly frightening.  Yes, it's scary enough that birds (who with their long beaks and cackling calls are kind of freaky in real life anyway)  are acting in such a menacing manner, but the lack of any viable reason for their attacks is what is so disquieting.  It's man versus beast and man is on the losing end of the battle.

Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren) is the Paris Hilton of her day.  Traveling across the globe, living off of her rich daddy's paychecks, becoming well known for jumping into fountains naked.  She meets Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) at a pet store and after he pokes fun at her socialite status, Melanie decides to play a practical joke on him.  Surely, there's an attraction there between the two of them, but Melanie attempts to brush that aside even as she travels two hours to the bayside town of Bodega Bay to deliver a pair of love birds to Mitch at his home.  Shortly after she arrives, strange things begin happening with the gulls and ravens in the town as they gradually begin to shift towards a vicious nature.

As a whole, there isn't really much of a plot beyond attacking birds.  The audience gets a small glimpse into the world of Mitch Brenner's family as we learn about his overbearing mother (Jessica Tandy) and how she doesn't seem to approve of any of Mitch's girlfriends.  The fact that we're just given tidbits of information about the Brenner household is interesting in that we are essentially in Melanie's shoes.  She's an outsider, being welcomed into the Brenner home simply because of the horrors physically going on outside of the home.  The film takes place over the course of two or three days and the lack of any true plot or character development feels incredibly natural and realistic.  And it surprisingly isn't the least bit boring.

I find Tippi Hedren's performance (which was her first movie role) quite good.  She's slightly standoffish, but I believe that's the point.  Melanie is a rich bigwig who only came to the waterfront town in order to perform a practical joke on a man she barely knew.  Used to getting everything she desired, Melanie actually becomes quite strong by the film's end, stronger than she probably ever thought she could be.  Also quite good is Jessica Tandy as Mitch's mother and Suzanne Pleshette as one of Mitch's former girlfriends.

Ultimately, what's scary about The Birds and what makes it stand out from the rest of Hitchcock's oeuvre is that there's an unknown entity wreaking havoc without the least bit of explanation to as to why.  While Hitch usually presents us with explanations as to why evil exists and often gives us a comeuppance for those evildoers, The Birds gives us no resolution.  And that's the most frightening thing of all.

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Hitchcock Month - Frenzy

Frenzy (1972)

Starring Jon Finch and Barry Foster

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock's first film to be released with an R-rating (Psycho would later also get an R-rating, but that rating didn't exist at the time of its initial release) and his only film with nudity (once again, assuming that there's no split second images of nudity in the Psycho shower scene), Frenzy was the director's second-to-last film and it marked a return to England for him.  This was his first film shot in his native land since 1950.  And the return didn't do much to get his creative juices flowing.

Frenzy is the tale of two friends.  One, Dick Blaney (Jon Finch), is a down-on-his-luck guy who just got fired from his job.  Out of money, he finds himself angry at the world.  The other, Bob Rusk (Barry Foster), is somewhat of a ladies man.  He's incredibly charming and liked by all.  One of these men is a rapist and serial killer while the other is wrongly accused of these same murders.  

Considering that this is Hitch's penultimate film, one would think that he could have culled a great deal from his illustrious career and produced a wonderful flick.  Unfortunately, there's nothing here that works in the slightest.  There's nary a bit of suspense.  Hitchcock went all out with the R-rating, including a rather disturbing rape scene, but being able to "show" everything seems to hinder what the director did best -- create suspense by leaving certain things to the viewers' imaginations.  Even Hitch's standard scenes of humor (which often enhance the tension) don't work and simply bring the flick to abrupt halts throughout.

The flick was actually very well received by critics at the time who said that this was a true return to form by the director.  For me, though, at much as I'd like to say Hitch was trying to end things on a high note, Frenzy just doesn't showcase the master at his best.

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Hitchcock Month - Rope

Rope (1948)

Starring Jimmy Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger, and Joan Chandler

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

I'm a sucker for the cinematic set pieces known as "the long take" and "real time" and Hitchcock's Rope (his first film in shot in Technicolor) utilizes both of these film techniques.  An experiment for the director, Rope is told without any edits...sort of.  Because there was no way that cameras in the 1940s could hold more than ten minutes of film, Hitch had to find creative ways to make it "appear" as if everything was shot in one take.  While it's certainly obvious what he was doing (zooming into close-ups of the back of someone's sportscoat isn't exactly something we see or like to see in films), the long takes are still impressive feats.

Oddly enough, though, the long takes, at times, decrease the tension.  Hitchcock is so deft at creating suspense through editing that the continuous shots don't allow him to be the genius that he is.  That's not to say there aren't moments of excitement (one rather innocent scene in particular of a maid cleaning up after dinner seems so "normal" but is incredibly nerve-wracking), but they're not as prevalent as in some of his other films.

Rope tells the simple story of two young twentysomethings Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) who decide to murder their friend.  They hide the body in a chest in their apartment and decide to test their luck by having a party.  In addition to inviting the murdered boy's father, they also invite their former prep school teacher Rupert Cadell (Jimmy Stewart) who suspects something is awry with his students.  

The film is a bit too talky for its own good.  It feels like a play and there are reasons plays aren't filmed.  I could almost overlook the talkiness if the acting was a bit more natural as opposed to feeling over-the-top.  Farley Granger, in particular, who also starred in Strangers on a Train, is pretty awful.  Overacting to the nth degree, Granger's character, that of nervous nelly Phillip, is close to laughably bad. 

Still, Rope is a good film, just not a great one.  The above may seem riddled with complaints, but I absolutely enjoyed viewing the flick.  It's a fun experiment, but sometimes when experimenting you don't always get the results you desire.

The RyMickey Rating:  B-

Hitchcock Month - Sabotage

Sabotage (1936)

Starring Sylvia Sidney, Oskar Homolka, John Loder, and Desmond Tester

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
***Currently streaming on Netflix*** 

Sabotage is one of Hitchcock's earlier films produced before the big man made the move to Hollywood.  I'll be honest.  I wasn't expecting much.  I must say I was pleasantly surprised.

Taking place in London in (I'd assume) the 1930s, there is a gang of criminals -- saboteurs, if you will -- on the loose and the police want to catch them before they wreak havoc on the government and its people.  One of their suspects (and rightly so as we discover in the first scene of the film) is the owner of the local cinema named Karl Verloc.  Verloc is married to the lovely young American, Sylvia, who lives in a house behind the theater with her younger brother, Stevie.  Sylvia and Stevie suspect nothing of Verloc.  However, she and her husband soon discover that Sylvia's friend, Ted, is actually a detective keeping a watchful eye over the supposed threat.

Right from the get-go, the audience knows that Verloc is a bad guy.  We see him sabotaging the electric supply of the city causing the town to go dark for several hours.  When his bosses deem that crime too simple, he is given the task of setting off a bomb in a train station.  Will he be able to carry out the task?  Will Ted be able to convince Sylvia of her husband's wrongdoings?

I was quite surprised at how suspenseful this little flick is.  Running at a taut 75 minutes, little time is spent on fleshing out the characters.  In the end, that's a little bit of a detriment (the burgeoning love affair between Sylvia and Ted is presented much too instantaneously to be the least bit believable), but I'm amazed at Hitch's deft hand at work here.  From camera angles to the use of shadows, Hitch proves he was a master even in his early years.  There's a set piece with Stevie riding a bus that is quite nerve-wracking and Hitch knows just the right cuts and set-ups to elevate the tension.

Overall, I was quite impressed with this little flick.  Granted, it's nothing overly special, but it was much better than I ever expected it to be and proves to be a good start to this month-long excursion.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

It's Hitchcock Month on the Blog

Instead of watching crappy horror movies every day in October (which was a thought that crossed my mind), I'm delving into the oeuvre of a director whom I greatly admire.  The thriller is probably my favorite movie genre and Hitchcock earned the nickname "The Master of Suspense" for a reason.

This month, I'll be delving into a bunch of flicks that I haven't seen before (and many that I have) and I'll be dusting off my two Hitchcock dvd collections...time to actually watch them rather than just have them sit on the shelf.

As far as that Disney Discussion goes, I wholeheartedly plan to attack that one again at the start of the year.

But, for now, let's learn about the art of suspense from the guy who did it best.

Hitchcock Month Line-Up

(Movies that are starred are available on Netflix's Instant Queue...Join in the discussion!) 
(Line-Up subject to change) 

October 1:  Sabotage (1936)***

October 2:  Rope (1948)

October 3:  Frenzy (1972)

October 4:  The Birds (1963)

October 5:  Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

October 6:  The Lady Vanishes (1938)***

October 7:  Lifeboat (1944)

October 8:  Dial M for Murder (1954)

October 9:   The 39 Steps (1935)***

October 10:   Topaz (1969)

October 11:  North by Northwest (1959)

October 12:   Rebecca (1940)

October 13:  Foreign Correspondent (1940)

October 14:  The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)***

October 15:  The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
October 16:   Notorious (1946)

October 17:  Mr. and Mrs. Smith (1941)

October 18:  Rear Window (1954)

October 19:  Stage Fright (1950)***

October 20:  The Wrong Man (1956)

October 21:  Spellbound (1945)

October 22:  Marnie (1964)

October 23:  The Trouble with Harry (1955)***

October 24:  Vertigo (1958)

October 25:  I Confess (1953)***

October 26:  The Paradine Case (1947)

October 27:  Torn Curtain (1966)

October 28:  Suspicion (1941)

October 29:  To Catch a Thief (1955)

October 30:  Family Plot (1976)***

October 31:  Psycho (1960)

Theater Review - The Homecoming

The Homecoming

Written by Harold Pinter

Directed by Leslie Reidel 

When: Wednesday, September 29, 7:30pm

Where: Hartshorn Theater

(University of Delaware, Newark, DE)

What: Play, Professional/Conservatory

The University of Delaware's Professional Theater Training Program/Resident Ensemble Players opens up their 2010-11 theater season with Harold Pinter's 1964 play The Homecoming.  Rather than start out with a bang, the college opens with an unfortunate whimper.   Admittedly, I'm a day removed from the play and I'm still thinking about what exactly I saw yesterday evening, but I still wonder if this isn't one of those "artsy" things that's loved simply because people don't understand it, don't want to look stupid, and say they adore it to appear high-brow.


The year is 1965 and we're taken into the living room of a house in North London.  Living in the home is the patriarch, Max, a curmudgeonly old man.  Alongside Max is his brother, Sam, and his two sons, Lenny and Joey.  Max doesn't make it easy to live with him, always harping on the past (both fondly and not-so-fondly), recalling life when his wife was still around to help him raise his boys.


One evening, Max's other son, Teddy, returns home in the middle of the night with his wife of nine years, Ruth.  Rather than be pleased at the return of his son (whom he hasn't seen or heard from in nearly a decade), Max is extremely irritated that Teddy would allow a "bitch" in the house since no woman has stepped in his domain since the death of his wife.  Little does Max know that when he bandies about the words "whore" and "slut" when referring to Ruth that those may be apt descriptors.  Ruth, a mother of three sons, turns out to be quite sexually charged and may be more than willing to do things that could cause a rift in her marriage.


The major problem with the play is the character of Ruth.  I believe that Pinter looks at Ruth as "WOMAN" -- as the only female amongst a group of men, she is a symbol of womankind.  If that's the case, what is "woman?"  Is she the head of the household?  When Max's wife died, it seems that even if he didn't respect her, he missed the fact that she kept the house together.  Is "woman" simply a sex object?  Yes, one could say Ruth takes control of her sexuality by the play's end and is able to control men like puppets.  But one could also say that Ruth is simply debasing herself to the lowest possible level to which a woman could stoop.  Ultimately, the play is open-ended, but I would have liked a little more conclusive evidence as to what Pinter was attempting to say.


Then again, Pinter has a difficult time trying to get anything across it seems.  While watching, I couldn't help but be distracted by the incredibly odd pause-filled dialog and the rather off-putting abrupt changes in conversation.  At first, I was blaming the actors and the director for creating this type of atmosphere.  Little did I know that this is what Pinter is relatively famous for.  On another website, I came across the idea that Pinter uses these pauses to describe the "noncommunication" between the characters.  "Noncommunication" is certainly correct -- there's a lack of information presented in the words which causes the audience to attempt to fill in the gaps, but there's just too much left unsaid.  To me, the cadence of the words (and sometimes the words themselves) just don't work in the slightest.


As far as the production goes, The Homecoming is by far the least interesting I've seen by the college group.  The set is incredibly minimal and there's nothing overly special done with the lighting, sound design, costumes, or even the acting.  I understand that in every subscription series, there's going to be those one or two plays that are minimalist in order to help a troupe save the dough for another show.  I just found it quite odd that the REP/PTTP decided to open their season with this play.  Had this been my first experience with the group, I must say that I would not have been impressed (moreso with the choice of the play than anything else).  Still, this is the first production by the group that I haven't liked in one way or another.  I certainly have faith that the remainder of the season will be filled with better plays.

Movie Review - Freakonomics

Freakonomics (2010)

Directed by Heidi Ewing, Alex Gibney, Seth Gordon, Rachel Grady, Eugene Jarecki, and Morgan Spurlock

**An early review...in theaters Friday**

Based off the best-selling book of the same name, Freakonomics takes economics on a pop culture spin by allowing a variety of documentary filmmakers an opportunity to explore chapters from the book in the cinematic medium.  Broken up into four main segments, Freakonomics is an enjoyable watch, but it never goes deep enough to seem completely engrossing, showcasing topics in the broadest strokes possible rather than getting to the core of the issues.

In the first segment, Morgan Spurlock poses the question "What's in a name?" and does it play any role in a person's life?  Is an Emily much more likely to get a job than a Lakisha?  Will a Jashawn or a John do better in school?  While an interesting question, the consensus is that it doesn't really make much of a difference at all.  What matters is a child's economic situation and parental guidance.  Is that supposed to be a surprise?  There's no in depth analysis here and this middle school level lab result analysis carries over into two other segments -- one concerning cheating in the world of sumo wrestling (a segment which goes on for much too long) and one detailing the bribing of high schoolers with cash to get better grades.

The only segment presents any type of shocking conclusion (or at least one that can be cause for discussion or debate) concerns the decrease in crime across the United States during the 1990s.  While trying to discover the root causes, Freakonomics writer Stephen Levitt linked the decline to the passing of Roe vs. Wade in 1973.  In the simplest form, with mothers being able to choose whether or not they could effectively raise a child, when they opted to abort, it put less underpriviliged youth into the crime scene.  It's certainly an interesting observation and one which is open for debate.  Shockingly, however, the film presents this segment -- the most powerful in terms of subject matter -- in the form of a cartoon.  I just don't get it.  It certainly fits with the otherwise lighthearted tone of the rest of the film, but it does nothing but lessen the gravitas of the concept being debated.

Despite the "pop culture economics for dummies" feel that is on display here, I wasn't the least bit bored watching Freakonomics.  That being said, the underlying concepts don't seem suited for film...at least not in the manner presented here  Perhaps an hour-long weekly tv series on PBS would better suit the format.  It would certainly be something I would watch.  But doling out these ideas in 20-30 minute blips doesn't allow for the kind of thorough examination I'd like to see.

The RyMickey Rating:  C

Movie Review - The Joneses

The Joneses (2010)

Starring David Duchovny, Demi Moore, Amber Heard, Ben Hollingsworth, Gary Cole, and Lauren Hutton 

Directed by Derrick Borte

The expensive cars.  The latest electronics.  The hippest clothing.  It takes a lot of cash to keep up with the trendsetting Joneses.  And in first time writer-director Derrick Borte's satire on the popular catchphrase, he attempts to showcase the ridiculousness of our consumer-driven society.  Unfortunately, he doesn't quite succeed, but it's an admirable attempt that might have worked a little better if only it had gotten a little dirtier and grittier rather than playing things so light-heartedly. 

When the Joneses move into a ritzy suburban neighborhood, they're immediately fawned over by the neighbors.  Steve and Kate Jones (David Duchovny and Demi Moore) and their son and daughter (Ben Hollingsworth and Amber Heard) seem to be the perfect family.  They have it all and they're not afraid to flaunt it.  Little do the neighbors know that this foursome isn't a family at all -- they've been hired by a consumer products company to sell items to the unwitting neighbors.  As is to be expected, the best laid plans don't go so well for the Joneses and their scheme soon runs a risk of being uncovered.

The premise in The Joneses is quite promising.  It's an intriguing idea and one that actually (and surprisingly) doesn't seem too inconceivable when it appears onscreen.  The problem lies in everything else going on outside of the premise.  Side stories involving the sex lives of the two kids seem superfluous and completely unnecessary and certainly take away from the driving force of the satire.  A focus on the Joneses next-door neighbors, the Symonds (Gary Cole and Glenne Headley), seems too jokey and farcical, lacking any sense of realism.  These tangents that writer Borte takes certainly impede his true focus -- his taking on of our materialistic society -- and it really causes the film to seriously falter.

The film looks good which is certainly commendable seeing as how this is Borte's debut.  And he absolutely culls some decent performances from Duchovny and Moore.  However, the flaws mentioned above greatly outweigh the strengths.  I was, for the most part, very bored watching The Joneses and with as interesting a premise as it could have been, it is an unfortunate disappointment.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

Movie Review - The Witches

The Witches (1990)

Starring Angelica Huston

Directed by Nicolas Roeg

Roald Dahl was probably my favorite author when I was a kid.  There was a sense of whimsy in his books, but he wasn't afraid to depict the scarier side of life.  Things weren't always sunshine and lollipops in his novels and, as the title of this flick suggests, The Witches certainly isn't a fairytale fantasy.

The film starts out with young Luke (Jasen Fisher) being told a tale by his grandmother about witches.  While Luke initially thinks his grandmother is talking rubbish, he soon begins to spot witch-like characteristics in some women around his town.  When he and his grandmother take a holiday (and it is a "holiday" and not a vacation since this takes place in England) to a nice hotel by the sea, Luke inadvertently sneaks into a witch convention headed by the Grand High Witch (played wonderfully by Angelica Huston) and finds himself in a little bit of trouble when the coven of witches turns the young boy into a mouse.

First things first, this is Angelica Huston's movie and no one else's.  She chews up the scenery and does so to such great effect that it's a real joy to watch her.  Deliciously over-the-top in her evilness, Huston knew that this role required a tongue-in-cheek mindset and she truly shines.  She's certainly helped by some amazing make-up effects from the folks at the Jim Henson Creature Shop, but she really made this character one that stayed with me ever since I first saw this movie some two decades ago.  As a kid, I remember being truly scared of her.  As an adult, I appreciated everything she brings to the screen as an actress.

There's an acting innocence to young Jasen Fisher (who starred in three fairly big movies -- this, Parenthood, and Hook -- and then disappeared from the entertainment scene) that isn't often seen in films.  It's as if you're watching a "real" kid onscreen and not an actor and it's quite refreshing.  It had been a long time since I'd seen The Witches and in my cynical older years, I'm surprised that Fisher's acting held up as well as it did.

What didn't work quite so well for me this time around was the film's final act.  Once Luke turns into a mouse, the charm of the flick vanishes.  Don't get me wrong, the creature effects are strong, but when the film focuses on these robotic mice, I couldn't help but wish it went back to focusing on the witches.

Nicolas Roeg who directed the absolutely awful Don't Look Now which I reviewed just a few weeks ago certainly redeems himself with this flick.  And it's nice to see that it holds up so well so many years later.

The RyMickey Rating:  B

Movie Review - Dead Calm

Dead Calm (1989)

Starring Nicole Kidman, Sam Neill, and Billy Zane

Directed by Philip Noyce

 **Currently streaming on Netflix**

This is one of those flicks that I've wanted to see forever and thanks to Netflix streaming, I've now got my chance.  Unfortunately, once again (as is often the case), the flick just isn't all that good.

Dead Calm is actually fairly promising for its first half.  A couple, John and Rae (Sam Neill and Nicole Kidman), who just went through the tragedy of losing their toddler son decide to take a sailboat trip in the Pacific.  While out at sea, they come across another sailboat with a single passenger named Hughie (Billy Zane).  With Hughie's boat sinking, they decide to take him aboard.  Unbeknown to them, however, Hughie is a psychopathic killer who murdered his fellow crew members and may likely to the same to them.

This initial set-up is well-paced and well-shot.  However, the problem with the film comes in the second half when Hughie's true colors begin to show.  This is one of those movies where the screenwriters got together and said, "Our bad guy's crazy, so whatever he does really doesn't have to make any sense."  Unfortunately, using the guy's insanity as an "out," they also negate any sense of realism that was here in the first place.  Any moments of tension are simply laughed off by the viewer because the bad guy simply isn't making any sense. 

Philip Noyce certainly does an admirable job directing -- the film takes place, for the most part, on the confined quarters of a sailboat and Noyce creates a feeling of entrapment for his characters.  Nicole Kidman is also quite good in what was one of first starring roles.  

But in the end, the film really fails in its second half and it just can't garner a recommendation from me.  

The RyMickey Rating: C-

Movie Review - The Square

The Square (2010)

Starring David Roberts and Claire van der Boom

Directed by Nash Edgerton

A film noir in the best possible sense of the word, The Square is taut, suspenseful, and completely engaging -- a flick you should add to your rental list right away.

Raymond (David Roberts) and Carla (Claire van der Boom) are having an affair.  Both are married, but neither are happy.  In typical noir fashion, the dame convinces her honey to commit a nefarious deed.  In this case, Carla discovers that her husband is involved in some shady dealings and is hiding a large stash of money in their home.  She and Raymond concoct a plan to steal the money, hire an arsonist to set her house on fire to make it appear that the cash has gone up in smoke, and run away together.  As is the case in most movies like this, the best laid plans always tend to go a little (or a lot) awry.

As the events around him begin snowballing out of control at an increasingly rapid rate, Raymond soon begins to realize that he's gotten himself into something way over his head.  As played by the somber David Roberts, Raymond is a character who starts with perhaps a mild guilt for cheating on his wife.  This guilt then balloons into a fear of being caught for the crimes he's committed and a genuine shock at the levels to which he will stoop in order to keep things hidden.  Some may say that Roberts is playing Raymond as a one-note lummox or a push-over, but I see him as a man who is more frightened of himself than anything else -- a man angry that he could descend to the depths to which he has.

Director Nash Edgerton, working from a script co-written by his brother Joel Edgerton, keeps things moving at a great clip.  The brothers have a real sense of what makes classic noirs like Double Indemnity work.  While somewhat abandoning the dark shadows and witty and suggestive banter that are so characteristic of noirs of yore, the Edgartons focus on a man being pushed to do things outside of his moral code simply to earn the affections of a woman.  It's a simple idea, but one that works over and over again.

If you happen to rent the Blu-Ray, be sure to check out the short film Spider.  It'll only take up nine minutes of your time, but it, along with The Square, give us an idea of the kind of filmmakers the Edgarton brothers will be -- and I can't wait to see more from them. 

The RyMickey Rating:  A-

Movie Review - Date Night

Date Night (2010)

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg, Taraji P. Henson, James Franco, Mila Kunis, Common, and Ray Liotta

Directed by Shawn Levy

Oh, Tina Fey.  I truly enjoy 30 Rock where you play the quick-witted Liz Lemon.  Your writing on that show is spot-on and makes me laugh out loud.

And Steve Carell.  While I haven't watched The Office on a regular basis, whenever I catch it in syndication, I find the whole thing incredibly amusing.  Your character Michael Scott creates a hilariously uncomfortable atmosphere that has put the series on my Netflix Instant Queue.

And yet, when the two of you comedians combine in the film Date Night, it's amazing how absolutely unfunny you both are.  When given an opportunity, you certainly can elicit laughs.  Just look at the scene where you both pretend to be strippers in a seedy club.  Who knew sexy robot dancing would make me crack up as much as I did?  But beyond the sexy robot, I hardly cracked a smile while watching this flick in which the two of you play a homely married couple from New Jersey who are mistaken for another couple on the run from some corrupt cops, local politicians, and mobsters.  While watching, I couldn't help but think of childhood film favorite with a similar plot -- Adventures in Babysitting -- and wishing I was watching that instead.

Granted, it's not really all your fault, Tina and Steve.  Director Shawn Levy (whose previous claim to fame are the godawful Night at the Museum films) doesn't exactly have a great eye for comedy.  Sometimes (as in the aforementioned strip club scene) he lets the two of you run wild to great effect.  However, at other times, he doesn't reel you in enough.  There seemed to be many moments where he let you run free which caused some scenes to go on for what felt like an eternity -- an eternity devoid of any laughter.

The plot is ridiculously convoluted, too, which I realize might have restrained you both from your full potential.  That being said, Tina and Steve, take my advice and stick to your day jobs.

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Movie Review - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

Starring Logan Lerman, Brandon T. Jackson, Sean Bean, Pierce Brosnan, Rosario Dawson, Uma Thurman, and Catherine Keener

Directed by Chris Columbus

Low-rent Harry Potter is what this one is.  Director Chris Columbus (who also directed the first two Potter pics) manages to actually craft a decent looking film filled with moderately nifty special effects sequences, but the story itself here is pretty dismal.

High schooler Percy Jackson (a one-note Logan Lerman) discovers on a school field trip one day that he is the son of the Greek god Poseidon.  It turns out that Zeus believes that Percy (for some ridiculous reason or another) stole his lightning bolt and unless he returns it in two weeks, humans will have hell to pay.  Why?  I don't know.  Maybe because Percy's a half human-half god or maybe because Zeus is just one angry dude with a superiority complex.  It doesn't really matter because the story itself is ridiculous and it makes this film fail miserably.

The books that this flick is based on are apparently quite popular, but the fantasy realm presented here can't compare to the whimsy of Hogwarts, for example (and I'm not even a huge fan of the Potter films).  Like I said, Columbus actually does a fairly admirable job in the direction, but this was painful to sit through.

The RyMickey Rating:  D

Movie Review - Devil

Devil (2010)

Starring Chris Messina and Five People Trapped in an Elevator

Directed by John Erick Dowdle

I'm not someone that finds M. Night Shyamalan laughable.  Reports spread that the trailer for Devil was receiving more than its share of chuckles when "From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan" popped up on the screen.  Yes, he's had his share of failures, but The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, and Signs are a mighty successful one-two-three punch.  So, I actually kind of wanted to see Devil simply because of Shyamalan's name.  Maybe what the famous director needs is to do exactly what he does in this film -- simply think up a story and have someone else flesh it out and direct it.

Unfortunately, Devil falls a flat, but not because of the premise, so in that regard, Mr. Shyamalan has redeemed himself.  It's the screenplay, actors, and direction that cause this piece to disappoint.

This is a story that would have been incredibly successful as a Twilight Zone episode -- five people are trapped on an elevator.  One by one, the passengers are killed.  Who is the murderer?  Is it possible that some supernatural forces are involved?  Yes, it all sounds a bit insubstantial, but as a 30-minute tv show, I have no doubt it would have worked.  Stretching it out to a still fairly short 80 minutes, some silly backstories are thrown into the mix (including one very reminiscent of what Mel Gibson's character was going through in Signs) and none of them really stick.

Director John Erick Dowdle isnt' able to really build any suspense.  Granted, I will say that there is a good sense of claustrophobia as Dowdle is quite successful at bringing the audience right into the elevator with the five passengers.  However, there was never a moment where I felt tense or worried for any of these characters...and in a thriller that's a bit of a problem.

Dowdle also wasn't able to draw good performances from his actors.  I've seen Chris Messina in quite a bit over the past year (he took spot #4 in my Best Supporting Actor list and spot #5 on my Breakthrough  list in the 2009 RyMickey Awards), but he was just passable here as a cop trying to figure out what the hell is going on in the elevator.  It's more the fault of the silly lines he's forced to spout than anything else.  While Messina may be adequate, some of the passengers on the elevator didn't fare so well.  I understand the desire to not use any "stars" here, but you need believable actors that can spike up the tension in a film like this and none of the people stuck in the elevator were successful in that regard.

The RyMickey Rating:  C-

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.