Monday, April 30, 2012

Monday at the Movies - April 30, 2012

Welcome to Week Eighteen of “Monday at the Movies.” Just when you thought we were out, we’re pulled back in to the world of The Godfather!

The Godfather: Part II (1974) – There are those who say the sequel is better than the 1972 original. I don’t know about all that (I’m incredibly fond of the first Godfather), but Part II is every bit as good as the film that preceded it. Simultaneously a prequel and a sequel, Part II juxtaposes the rise of immigrant Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) with the tenure of his son Michael (Al Pacino) as he contends with moves for legitimacy in the Vegas casino industry, an assassination attempt facilitated by a betrayal from within, a Congressional inquisition, and a smiling enemy (Lee Strasberg as Hyman Roth) attempting to slide a knife in his back. For my money, the Vito chapters are stronger, although I appreciate the Michael scenes more each time I see the film for two reasons: one, I enjoy the difficult plot the more I understand it and recognize the subtlety; and two, Al Pacino’s performance here is likely his all-time career best. (Take, for example, the exchange between him and his wife when Kay tells him she’s taking the children.) As before, the supporting cast excels: Robert Duvall’s work as Tom Hagen reminds me how empty that part of Part III felt, De Niro and Bruno Kirby are spot-on as Vito and Clemenza without feeling slavishly bound to the original actors, and John Cazale absolutely steals the movie as the malleable brother Fredo. In fact, Pacino and Cazale have what I maintain is the best scene of the film, a boathouse confessional which should have netted an Oscar for both; theirs is the relationship which anchors the film, for which I find myself, as I get older, returning to the film more than for the Vito plotline, which is amusing and entertaining, a lighter counterpart to the heavy burden with which Michael finds himself saddled by the film’s end. The first film needed no sequel, but the second proved how much more could be added to the saga; having only seen the third installment once, I’ll be curious to see if it transcends this film’s sense of completion.

Stay tuned for the final Godfather review. But for now, that does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, April 23, 2012

Monday at the Movies - April 23, 2012

Welcome to Week Seventeen of “Monday at the Movies.” We take a break from The Godfather franchise, and – in honor of the impending arrival of Arrested Development, Season 4 – we join director Ron Howard for a controversial book adaptation.

The Da Vinci Code (2006) – I was a bit of a Holy Grail nut in high school, mostly because of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade marathons. I was a fan of Dan Brown’s novel, but I took it with a grain of salt because I never believed in the idea of the grail as a Christological bloodline (the cup is a more compelling and textually supported artifact). With Ron Howard directing the film adaptation, I enjoyed it immensely the first time around, appreciating the combination of Indiana Jones meets National Treasure. But on this most recent rewatch I found myself less enamored with the movie. Here we follow Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon in his move to solve the murder of a Louvre curator, which quickly embroils him in a centuries-old struggle between secret societies over the mystery of the Holy Grail; with Ian McKellen at his side and Alfred Molina against him, it’s a first-rate cast. McKellen in particular was a treat for me since I forgot he was in it, but he imbues Sir Leigh Teabing with enough eccentricity to make the character more than just a flat exposition machine. Unfortunately, the movie relies a lot on extreme leaps of logic that seem to work better in prose; I wasn’t convinced that Hanks was piecing together so much of the puzzle in his head, where the Robert Langdon in my head would have been able. My other major critique of this film is that Ron Howard isn’t an action director, as many of the “intense” action sequences fall flat; he is, however, an expert with jump scenes, as I found myself startled at several moments. But as I recall, many of these grievances are rectified by 2009’s Angels and Demons.

With one Robert Langdon feature down, stay tuned for more reviews of this franchise. But for now, that does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, April 16, 2012

Monday at the Movies - April 16, 2012

Welcome to Week Sixteen of “Monday at the Movies.” Only one film this week, one that makes me think I really ought to put up a “Top 10 Movies” list.

The Godfather (1972) – Forty years and one month ago, a film widely regarded the best of all time opened in American cinemas. Based on the brutally popular Mario Puzo novel, The Godfather has achieved iconic status in global pop culture, rendering any comments I might add as mere kindling to the inferno. Everyone knows the story – Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) runs one of New York’s top mob families, and as the film progresses we witness his son Michael (Al Pacino) move from war hero to father’s son. What struck me about this most recent rewatch was the way that every scene is memorable, with no moments of dry disinterest. We move from the wedding to the backroom deals to assassination plots, through a tour of Italy to rises and falls in the Corleone family, concluding with the often-imitated baptism montage and the film’s final moments, which imbue as much gravitas on a closing door as possible. The dialogue is snappy and eminently quotable, the performances are riveting, Nino Rota’s soundtrack is the ultimate in mafia music, and director Francis Ford Coppola set the standard for what every other mob movie now has to live up to. There's so much more that I could say about the film, so much that deserves mention - James Caan's hotheaded Sonny, Robert Duvall's perfectly collected Tom Hagen, Richard S. Castellano's lovable heavy Clemenza (who wouldn't want this guy at a wedding?), and even Abe Vigoda's work as Tessio, proving that he hasn't aged a day since 1972 because he's been 90 all his life. And in an era where we’re texting and multitasking to our brain’s fullest capacity, I was flabbergasted that the film’s three-hour runtime never bored me or forced me to grab my iPad to check e-mails or Facebook. So strong is the allure of this film after more than forty years that it’s as close to Italian wine as film has captured – improving with age and making us look forward to the next installment. My only regret is that I didn’t have time this week to return for the sequel, but reviewing the next films in the series is an offer I cannot refuse.

Stay tuned for more reviews of The Godfather franchise, but for now that does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, April 9, 2012

Monday at the Movies - April 9, 2012

Welcome to Week Fifteen of “Monday at the Movies.” We’re back to the three-film template with three “genre flicks”: a musical, a meta-mockumentary, and a remake.

Repo! The Genetic Opera (2008) – I have a hesitant affection for the Saw franchise (mostly redeemed by Tobin Bell’s star-marking performance), so this Darren Lynn Bousman rock opera is something I’ve orbited but to which I’ve never committed. While I’m no foe of musicals, the cast seemed a mixed bag: Paul Sorvino and Anthony Head on the one hand, Paris Hilton on the other. All told, Repo! is an odd hybrid of Sweeney Todd and the Saw franchise, with a dollop of dystopia thrown in for set dressing. Make no mistake – this is an opera, with generational rises and falls punctuated by bombastic solos and Sondheim-esque talk-singing. Sorvino is Rotti Largo, the dying organ transplant baron in search of a new heir after his brood (including Hilton as the surgery addict Amber Sweet); he finds one in Shilo (Spy Kids alum Alexa Vega), the daughter of his top organ-collecting repo man (Anthony Head). Among the film’s greatest strengths is its highly stylized look, ready-made for the Hot Topic crowd, and its rich plot, whipping between multiple threads which all tie together at the opera-within-an-opera finale. Unfortunately, though, the runtime is a little brief, and each plot thread is introduced with an exposition-heavy montage which might have been better served with a more extended flashback or musical sequence. Additionally, the film will turn off many with its gruesome violence (blood flows, intestines spill, and a face even falls off) and its musical style (more rhythmic slam poetry than melodious harmony), but I found it an enjoyable enough 90-some minutes.

Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story (2006) – Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon (best known as “those guys in the Michael Caine impressions video”) star in this metafictional adaptation of Laurence Sterne’s famously sprawling proto-postmodern novel, at once a filming of the book and a mockumentary on the making of said filming. After finally reading Tristram Shandy, I went back to the film, and my suspicions were confirmed – the film has many more jokes for those in the know, but it’s at its best when Coogan and Brydon are turned loose upon each other in a battle of one-ups-manship and celebrity impersonations. We begin with a riveting conversation in the makeup chairs, move to a half-hour adaptation of the first few volumes of the novel, and conclude with a failed preview screening of the failed film. There’s about 45 minutes that are almost entirely negligible, dwelling on Coogan’s self-caricature and ruminating a bit too much on the unfilmability of the novel. As a result, it’s easy to get distracted once the film stops showing the straight adaptation segments, especially in the moments when Coogan and Brydon are kept apart. There are a few clever bits, as when Gillian Anderson is cast to play the Widow Wadman, but this is a plot that doesn’t get as much attention as it ought. I’ll say this, though; rewatching Tristram Shandy has reminded me how much I still need to see The Trip, in which Coogan and Brydon team up for a restaurant road trip.

12 Angry Men (1997) – Having glowingly reviewed the Sidney Lumet original last week, I was delighted to see that the remake is available on YouTube. I was even more delighted by the all-star cast – Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Ossie Davis, and James Gandolfini, among others. But almost immediately I realized this was a case of a remake which doesn’t do enough to distance itself from the original, nor does it remain slavishly loyal in apparent devotion. Instead, it’s an indistinct reflection of the original, right down to imitative line readings (especially from Tony Danza as Juror #7). While Lemmon does gravitas without even thinking about it, he’s a far cry from Henry Fonda, and even Scott doesn’t improve upon the performance of Lee J. Cobb. Indeed, the only performance which adds something to the film is Mykelti Williamson’s turn as Juror #10; here the white supremacist Ed Begley is replaced by a lapsed member of the Nation of Islam, spouting bigotry against the Hispanic defendant. This clever update, however, is overshadowed by the fact that the film frequently oversimplifies itself, telling instead of showing, as when Juror #3’s bias against the defendant is verbalized instead of implied (as in the original). While it’s in theory a good idea to put contemporary actors into an old classic, when they don’t turn in a new or interesting product, even Juror #12 – straight out of Mad Men – couldn’t sell it to an audience. Stick with the original; this one’s guilty of stagnation.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, April 2, 2012

Monday at the Movies - April 2, 2012

Welcome to Week Fourteen of “Monday at the Movies.” Only one film this week, but it’s a heck of a film – easily one of the best films of all time.

12 Angry Men (1957) – It’s always difficult to write reviews for excellent films, because what is there to be said beyond how perfect the film is? I’ve been a fan of Sidney Lumet for many years now, and going back to his first theatrical film is one of the greatest pleasures I have when I teach this film every semester. This is a story that’s frequently referenced (and even remade in 1997), its account of one man’s holdout for justice by now legendary. Henry Fonda is Juror #8, a brilliant rhetorician thirsty for the truth; #3, Lee J. Cobb, is the loudest voice in favor of the defendant’s guilt, and a cast of all-stars – each of whom gets their moment to shine – fills the deliberation room. Lumet is as always the master of tension, as best demonstrated by the fact that the camera never leaves the room and we never learn the characters’ names. These performances are among the top in any movie I’ve seen: dynamic, exciting, and memorable. Fonda’s is, of course, rightly the most important role in the film, and he bears the weight with aplomb, light when needed but continually imbued with the gravitas we have come to expect from him. The script, adapted from Reginald Rose’s play, retains the style of the theatrical play, but the work of Lumet and his cast never allow the film to feel stagey. Instead we have the best of what cinema can do – 12 Angry Men is affective, dramatic, engaging, and thought-provoking.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, March 26, 2012

Monday at the Movies - March 26, 2012

Welcome to Week Thirteen of “Monday at the Movies.” This week, we continue a trend that began on this blog three weeks ago and finally conclude a journey nearly a decade in the making.

The Jazz Singer (1927) – First up, another silent film, the third in as many weeks on this site; again, an unintended and unofficial “series” within this series of weekly reviews. While I didn’t enjoy The Jazz Singer as much as The Artist, it was a bit more fast-paced than The Italian and contains a lot of formal innovation on which I can now tell The Artist was riffing. Al Jolson stars as cantor-in-training Jakie Rabinowitz, who reinvents himself as ragtime performer Jack Robin against the wishes of his traditional father (Warner Oland, before his stint as Charlie Chan). But most don’t remember the film for the story, instead focusing on the technical novelty of lip-synchronized audio and the absolutely brilliant self-conscious meta-commentary of Jolson’s big line, “Wait a minute, wait a minute – you ain’t heard nothin’ yet!” I’ll voice the same complaint that I’ve had about all three silent flicks thus far; they’re a bit slower than what I’m used to, and in this one especially the conflict between personal success and familial obligation is dragged out a little too long for my tastes. But The Jazz Singer wins points for continually surprising me with the ways it uses audio; while a few moments are obviously just showing off and flexing muscles, most of them seem to be deployed cleverly and with just the right amount of self-reflexivity. And I have to comment on the blackface scenes, since they seem to be the most widely discussed; it’s controversial, sure, but what’s most distressing for me is that the film doesn’t provide a reason for Jack to don the burned cork, leading to a controversy which could distract from what the film seems truly to be about – moving forward.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) – Finally, we come to the end of a long road, more than nine hours long and ten years of doubts and procrastination. The first two of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings films were among the inaugural reviews in this series; I was surprised to enjoy Fellowship of the Ring but retained my position that The Two Towers was dull and overlong. With this third installment, Lord of the Rings finishes two and one... in the films’ favor. The Return of the King is exciting and fast-paced, with a lot of plotlines coming to satisfying fruition amid a sense of impending danger, something most action films don’t pull off successfully. The film is, admittedly, overlong, a fact of which it seems to be aware, what with the widely-lampooned “multiple endings” in which the film seems to conclude with a meditation on the nature of endings before starting up again. What comes before, though, is high action, easily the equivalent of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End for this franchise and most likely my favorite installment of this trilogy. The ensemble cast is successful, perhaps more so than in The Two Towers, but the inclusion of characters like Theobard and Faramir even redeem the middle film a bit by validating those plotlines which seemed to meander away from what really mattered. Again, the star performance is from Sean Astin, whose devotion to his friend and to the mission even might moisten a few otherwise dry eyes. All told, I’m glad I saw this thing through, and I’m happy to have been there and back again.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, March 19, 2012

Monday at the Movies - March 19, 2012

Welcome to Week Twelve of “Monday at the Movies.” On the docket this week, an Oscar winning movie, a movie as good as The Wicker Man (2006), and a trip between worlds: in other words, two hits and a miss this week – but oh, what a miss!

The Artist (2011) – This is the second silent film in as many weeks here on The Cinema King, although it might be unfair to label Michel Hazanavicius’s Best Picture winner as such, since the film does feature diegetic sound in several important scenes. While the revisiting of the silent film is a bit of a gimmick, the ways in which Hazanavicius and company subvert the expectations that come along with the genre redeem the film from being merely “that silent film.” I remain unconvinced that The Artist is better than fellow nominee Hugo, but it’s an equally compelling love letter to the cinema and its magic. The acting is, predictably, over-the-top, as all silent performances must be, and lead actor Jean Dujardin has no compunctions about chewing the scenery as necessary while portraying the actor George Valentin and his fall from fame. More restrained, mercifully, is his leading lady Bérénice Bejo, who plays talkies flapper Peppy Miller and can convey more with a wink than a lot of today’s crop of actresses. A few familiar faces round out the supporting cast – James Cromwell, John Goodman, and Malcolm McDowell among them – but all ears must necessarily be on Ludovic Bource’s score, which flounces through the highs and wallows in the lows of George Valentin’s descent. I enjoyed the film and was glad to finally start to catch up on last year’s Oscar frontrunners, although I must confess that there are parts where the film drags and most conventional filmgoers will lose interest. But stick with it; the ending is among the best I’ve seen in recent years.

Drive Angry (2011) – You can always count on Nicolas Cage for a really bad movie, but whether it’ll be an enjoyably bad movie or just a waste of film is always up for grabs. It’s been said that you can judge a Nic Cage flick by how far back his hairline goes, and in Drive Angry we’re getting a lot of forehead. And yes, it’s as bad as all that. In fact, the only thing that redeems Drive Angry from being completely unwatchable is that it seems to be in on its own joke, recognizing how absurd it is and reveling in its own ridiculousness. Nic overacts at level red as John Milton, late of hell, walking – nay, driving – the earth in search of his granddaughter, who’s about to be sacrificed by a satanic cult. Riding shotgun is Amber Heard as ex-waitress Piper, a pretty face who doesn’t do much aside from a fight scene near the middle of the film, and the villainous William Fichtner (recognizable as the bank manager in every film you’ve ever seen) plays The Accountant, who’s looking to return Milton to hell. I didn’t see the film in 3-D, and it’s apparently lost a bit of extravagance in the translation to two dimensions, but one thing the movie isn’t missing is explosions. A credible plot, realistic dialogue, meaningful character interactions, and narrative creativity – all of these are nowhere to be seen in Drive Angry, but at least (to borrow a line from Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok) it blowed up real good.

John Carter (2012) – It’s a major science fiction franchise, backed by arguably the biggest studio in town and a story by a major author of the twentieth century. Why, then, did it underperform? Taylor Kitsch stars as Civil War vet John Carter, who finds himself transported to Mars, where he’s quickly embroiled in a planetary conflict between the Tharks (led by Willem Dafoe’s voice in the body of a Green Martian), the Red Martians (with their king Ciarán Hinds), evil Sab Than (Dominic “McNulty” West), and the mystical Therns (headed by Mark Strong’s menacing Matai Shang) over the hand of Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Director Andrew Stanton has lent a hand on nearly every Pixar film, but for his first live-action solo outing John Carter is surprisingly good. Critical response has not been kind, and I’m not quite sure why. Granted, John Carter is not the best film you’ll see all year (wait until July for that), but it’s more than diverting; the effects are solid (although the Tharks recall the dismal Na’vi), the cast is strong, and the story is involving (if comprised of several infodumps). The best I can come up with is that John Carter’s biggest detriment is a weak marketing campaign; this ought to be a summer blockbuster, but it’s dumped ignominiously into the middle of March with not a single action figure on the shelves. I’d like to see a sequel, because it seems that the creative team is working very hard to introduce a lot of factions in an uncomplicated manner; I only hope they get a franchise out of it, because the last trilogy with which Andrew Stanton worked on made us all cry over a sheriff doll and a space ranger action figure.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, March 12, 2012

Monday at the Movies - March 12, 2012

Welcome to Week Eleven of “Monday at the Movies.” We return to our unthemed format this week, with three movies with almost nothing in common.

The Italian (1915) – If memory serves, this is the first silent film reviewed on this blog, and perhaps it deserves more fanfare than inclusion as one of three “Monday at the Movies” review, and such likely would have been the case if The Italian had made a bigger impact on me. And it’s not that I don’t like silent films; I’m a big fan of Lon Cheney’s Phantom of the Opera, and Buster Keaton still makes me lose it every time. Here we have George Beban as the eponymous immigrant who finds little of the American Dream after crossing the Atlantic. The pacing in this one is a little slow, with the emphasis on set pieces rather than plot; when the plot kicks off, it’s a bit exciting, but usually the focus is on motion and crowd scenes. Beban’s performance is surprisingly good, if a little overwrought (like every silent film’s stars), and the close-ups innovated by director Reginald Barker help us understand the emotions each character feels. The Italian is more a film to be appreciated than enjoyed; it’s well-made but ought to be regarded more technically than aesthetically.

Kick-Ass (2010) – Here’s a film that’s a bit more my speed. Inspired by comics, high schooler Dave Liziewski (Aaron Johnson) gets the bright idea to become a superhero, but he finds that there are already professionals at work – the father-daughter duo Big Daddy (Nic Cage at his hammy best) and Hit Girl (the endearingly foul-mouthed Chloe Moretz), who are gunning for local mob boss Frank D’Amico (rising star Mark Strong). The movie diverges from the Mark Millar/John Romita Jr. comic source material by putting an optimistic sheen on the comic’s cynical outlook, but it’s not an unwelcome change; the film gets us so invested in the characters that anything less than an exuberantly happy ending would feel like a cheat. Chief among these is scene-stealer Moretz, whose turn as Hit Girl is unforgettable, simultaneously menacing and adorable. And even though I’m on record as holding Nic Cage as one of the worst actors ever, his turn as Big Daddy fits perfectly with the film’s self-consciously over-the-top mentality, as he gives Big Daddy a few moments where control’s lost and others where he channels Adam West circa Batman ’66. What’s great about this film is how it suspends disbelief and then reinvents the rules of its own reality, and the result is a highly enjoyable romp through satirizing superhero conventions by way of one of the best superhero movies in recent memory.

Safe House (2012) – One word guarantees my attendance: Denzel. He stars as rogue CIA agent Tobin Frost, who surrenders to safehouse agent Ryan Reynolds after an intelligence swap goes sour, and soon our two leads are dashing through Cape Town until a new safe house can be prepped. The reason I’m an easy mark for any Denzel Washington vehicle is because Denzel always brings his A-game and can usually save any movie from ignominy. It’s a combination of an engaging on-screen personality, off-screen ethos, and perfect timing as far as pauses or repeated words go. There’s such a scene in Safe House, when he tells Reynolds, “I like this, you and me figuring s--t out. Like the Hardy Boys.” But it’s one of the only scenes in which Denzel really gets to shine; don’t let the billing on the movie posters fool you, because this is a Ryan Reynolds vehicle top to bottom. In a nutshell, this is a good and entertaining movie, but it’s not one I’m rushing out to purchase on DVD, mostly due to the Denzel deficit. The action scenes are exciting – including a few great jump moments – and there’s nothing specifically flawed about the movie (save for a slightly predictable who’s-the-traitor subplot), but it’s what I’ve come to call “Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland syndrome” – good, but not as good as it ought to be.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, March 5, 2012

Monday at the Movies - March 5, 2012

Welcome to Week Ten of “Monday at the Movies.” While I had never intended this series to be themed each week, it seems that it’s worked out that way so far. And so in that spirit, here are “Movies You Might Have to Watch in School!”

Persepolis (2007) – Adapted from Marjane Satrapi’s much-loved graphic novel, Persepolis is the memoiristic story of Marji’s coming of age during the events of the Iranian Revolution. The film captures the tone of the original perfectly, blending hilarious humor with profoundly moving pathos, and the unique visual style of the comic is not lost in translation to motion. There are a few interpolations – several color sequences and a delightful scene in which Grandma and Marji go to the movies to see Godzilla – which enhance the visual experience. While I haven’t watched the French language original, I can vouch for the English language track, featuring (among others) Chiara Mastroianni as Marji, Sean Penn as her father, Gena Rowlands as the wise yet witty Grandma, and Iggy Pop as the brave and heroic Uncle Anoosh. While there are moments when Penn seems to be phoning it in, Rowlands and Iggy Pop are perfect choices, as is Amethyste Frezignac, who voices young Marji with just the right amount of joie de vivre. The story is deeply affecting, nuanced without reducing the story to an endorsement or rejection of the Revolution, and it hits the audience on several important emotional levels – humor, tragedy, sympathy, love. The film lost “Best Animated Feature” to Ratatouille, but in this case I’m not convinced that Pixar made the better film that year (as much as I love Ratatouille and the idea of a red-headed protagonist).

The Tempest (2010) – If there’s one thing I’m a sucker for, it’s Shakespeare at the movies, and this film had enough to lure my butt to a seat: director Julie Taymor at the helm (I loved Across the Universe and especially her other Shakespeare flick, Titus, with Anthony Hopkins), striking visuals, great source material, and an intriguing gender reversal with Helen Mirren as Prospera in place of old wizard Prospero. I love Titus and could watch it many times over, but I’m less impressed with The Tempest; it’s a perfectly adequate adaptation, but it seems to rely too much on the Prospera gimmick without doing anything inventive with the rest of the material – especially when it comes to the setting, which is lifeless and uninspiring. It’s a classic case of “nothing wrong” – even Russell Brand as one of the drunken clowns (with Alfred Molina) isn’t irritating or offensive. Perhaps worse, the film doesn’t weigh in at all on the Caliban controversy, arguably the current focal point of the play’s cultural significance. While I admit to being bored to tears with postcolonial readings of this play in particular (there seem to be other things going on, as well), the fact that Taymor almost ignores Caliban, especially when Djimon Hounsou is doing such fascinating work. But she handles the comic scenes well, with sufficient clowning in abundance, although the effect is that one wishes more for a “Stefano and Trinculo” sitcom than for the rest of this adaptation.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!

Monday, February 27, 2012

Monday at the Movies - February 27, 2012

Welcome to Week Nine of “Monday at the Movies.” Last night was Oscar night, and I realized I only saw one out of the nine nominated Best Picture films, but there seemed to be a few other films that cropped up in the acting categories. I’ve already reviewed The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Rango, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, so here are two more Oscar-nominated films from the past year.

Bridesmaids (2011) – Touted as “The Hangover for ladies,” Bridesmaids is something more than that because, rather than repeat a line of gags (as funny as those are in The Hangover), the film goes for an actual story anchored by a series of absurdly escalating vignettes around wedding planning. Because it was billed as “for ladies,” I was surprised by how much bathroom humor was present (saying something, I think, about gender politics in 2011) – not that I don’t find that kind of humor extremely funny, as when bad Brazilian food induces Maya Rudolph to defecate in the middle of the street (beneath the folds of a wedding dress, for those who have delicate constitutions). Melissa McCarthy snagged a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her outgoing and outrageous performance as raunchy bridesmaid Megan, although I’m not sure that anyone expected the nomination; it’s certainly strong acting, but nothing about it screamed “Oscar!” for me. In part, that’s because the ensemble cast in the movie is also strong – Jon Hamm as a sleazy beau, Rose Byrne as the one-upping aspirant to the “maid of honor” title, and the sweet and clean-cut Ellie Kemper who doesn’t quite get enough screen time. It’s ultimately not as rewatchable as The Hangover, but it’s not two hours that I regret spending in the first place.

Hugo (2011) – I’ve made no bones about the fact that I’m a huge Martin Scorsese fan, and the promise of his first 3-D movie was enough for me to give the entire visual gimmick a second try. Here’s another case of a film being billed as something it isn’t – I was told this was Scorsese’s “children’s film” made for all-ages as distinct from his other, more violent work. But the film is actually Scorsese’s love song to the work of early cinema pioneers like Georges Méliès, whose Voyage to the Moon plays a pivotal role in the film. Young orphan Hugo (Asa Butterfield) lives in a train station with his late father’s few belongings, including a mysterious key-operated automaton. The key comes into his life around the neck of Isabelle (Chloe “Hit Girl” Moretz), leading Hugo into a brave new world populated by cinematic dreams and hope for a magical future. I don’t want to spoil many of the little delightful surprises tucked into this deceptively complex film, but beyond the remarkable ensemble cast (including Sacha Baron Cohen as the sneaky station security, Michael Stuhlbarg as film historian René Tabard, and Sir Ben Kingsley as a train station toymaker) there’s a particularly strong soundtrack offered by Howard Shore, catchy and whimsical without losing sight (or sound?) of the powerful emotions the film elicits. As a meta-reflection on the magic of the movies, Hugo doesn’t disappoint and will leave audiences wistfully and blissfully satisfied.

That does it for this week’s edition of “Monday at the Movies.” We’ll see you here next week!