Michael Shannon is one hell of an actor. However, even he can’t save the bad writing of THE ICEMAN.

Here’s the deal. What they are trying to accomplish is to make “The Iceman” or Richard Kuklinski a compelling character that you feel compassion for. The story is based on Kuklinski, so he is the main focus. The murders, unfortunately, fall a bit flat. Despite focusing on his hundreds of kills, they shine more of the limelight on his love for his family. I feel that some might be disappointed with the lack of focus on the murders, but the film itself concentrates more on the man. The script feels a bit weak still. All of the compassion felt for Kuklinski comes from Michael Shannon. He is a fantastic actor who offers a complete dimension of layers. Still, the writing doesn’t begin to do justice to what they could have brought to this story.

Michael Shannon out-shadows everyone in this film. There is a kind of brutal, violent force among his many layers. The only other actors that truly impressed me are Winona Rider and Chris Evans I don’t think people utilize Rider enough. She is a terrific talent, and it can clearly be seen in this film. Evans plays a sort of peer type of character, and is almost unrecognizable. He compliments Shannon well.

Stephen Dorff and James Franco have smaller scenes that are far too overacted. They don’t feel like they belong in the film. Ray Liotta is Ray Liotta in any other film that he’s been in. Goodfellas, The Place Beyond The Pines, Hannibal, Smoking Aces, Blow. I have yet to see Ray Liotta in a character role that has been set apart from the majority of the roles he plays. He’s great at his specific, powerful, often times corrupt character, but we’ve seen it enough times to expect it. Even his stint on Hannah Montana as the principle didn’t vary much. I would like to throw out that it was nice to see David Schwimmer break out of his “Ross” from Friends role. He was almost unrecognisable at first. I’m impressed.

Director Ariel Vromen pieced the film together based on a screenplay by himself and Morgan Land. They pulled it based using a combination of sources, such as the fictionalized book by Anthony Bruno and on James Thebaut’s 1992 HBO documentary, The Iceman Tapes: Conversations With a Killer. The film takes on a Goodfellas or The Sopranos vibe, without the punch. The whole story is character driven. The direction fell flat, in my opinion. The film was fluid, and despite feeling a neo-noir edge, there was nothing that particularly stood out to me.

Overall Rating: 2 1/2 of 5 Stars

THE ICEMAN opens in St. Louis Friday, May 17th at Landmark’s Tivoli Theater and is open in select theaters now

Review by Barbara Snitzer

In the House (Dans La Maison) is a crafty, suspenseful yarn that successfully maintains the audience’s engagement throughout its entire 102 minute running time.

Ozon already has his next movie, Young And Beautiful, in the “Cannes”- it’s premiering during the festival.

5 of 5 Stars

IN THE HOUSE opens in St. Louis Friday, May 17th at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

With the season of Summer blockbusters already in full swing here in the middle of May, you may have a tough time recalling the nominees for Best Foreign Language Film from the 85th Academy Awards ceremony way back in February. We here at the website have gotten to see the winner, ARMOUR, and two other nominees, NO and A ROYAL AFFAIR (WAR WITCH has yet to screen in our neck-of-the-woods). Now we finally get to see the entry from Norway, KON-TIKI. And it turns out that this is the perfect time for this film, for this isn’t a somber, human drama like Haneke’s intimate portrait, but a rollicking, edge-of-your-seat adventure. Yes, it is a true story set in the past like NO and AFFAIR, but after the heroes set out to sea, it feels as though their exploits could be happening right now. The story of the voyage did win a 1951 Oscar for Best Feature Documentary, so it’s high time this nautical tale was given the dramatic treatment for the back story of the men at sea. Let’s set sail on one of history’s most famous rafts. Ahoy, KON-TIKI!

We first encounter young Thor Heyerdahl as a young lad crashing through a frozen lake, nearly drowning in the frigid waters. Several decades later, the 1940′s to be exact, twenty-something Thor (Pal Sverre Hagen) is a scientific researcher in Polynesia with his lovely bride Liv (Agnes Kittelsen). Something puzzles Thor. One of his books states that pineapples are indigenous to Peru. So why are they abundant  on the island, thousands of miles away? He believes that in pre-Columbian Peru sailors used the ocean currents to travel west to the tropical isle. The only way to prove this is to make the journey utilizing the materials that would’ve been available so many years ago. In 1946 he travels to New York City in order to acquire funding from book publishers and exploration magazines such as National Geographic. The editors believe such a trip would be a fatal disaster. Even members of the Manhattan version of The Explorers Club scoff at this notion. But one man takes notice.Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) sees Thor showing a drawing of the raft to a couple of skeptical sailors at a pub. Turns out Herman is a fellow Norwegian, an engineer, reduced to selling refrigerators in the US. He makes some adjustments to the design and they soon secure funding from the government of Peru. The two men gather up a crew of fellow Norwegians (and a Swede), build a raft, and set out to re-create the ancient voyage  to Polynesia before tropical storm season begins while battling the elements, some hungry sharks, and often themselves (over a hundred days on a raft can make anybody quite testy).

Directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg grab us right from the opening frames with the tense frozen pond sequence which illustrates an important fact: Thor Heyerdahl never learned how to swim! Amazing, for a man so interested in the sea. The NYC sequence has a nice nostalgic glow. It looks as though the streets were just swept of confetti after the big World War II victory celebrations. The film really kicks in with the voyage itself. The sea is a beautiful, tranquil place much like many scenes in LIFE OF PI (we even get a few flying fish on deck). But the ocean soon shows her fury in a violent storm. The film makers cut to underwater shots of miles of rope straining to hold together the massive logs of the raft to heighten the tension. Then there’s the swarming schools of shark in an amazing scene that will have you digging your fingers into the arm rests. You’ll be asking whether the finned killers are real or are they expertly made puppets or CGI. We also get a scene of the monotony as the men bake in the sun as the raft barely seems to move. They’ve got an emergency motor, but using it would invalidate the whole trek. Oh, and they’ve got a radio too, but the signal can’t get past the mountains. The actors are quite convincing as they strain to perform their duties. As a modern viewer I kept wondering what kind of lotion they could use to protect their pale Nordic flesh (were there SBFs back then?). As the time passes I did have a tough time telling them apart since they all grow thick, coarse beards and dash about only in swim trunks. Even when they spot land, danger still lays ahead in getting past the jagged rocks surrounding the shore. KON-TIKI is far from a dry history lesson. It’s a gripping action-adventure thriller headed by a fellow named Thor who’s perhaps even braver than the hammer-wielding Marvel superhero. And be sure and stick around to find out the amazing things these men accomplished after this incredible voyage. What a crew and what a film!

4.5 Out of 5 Stars

KON-TIKI screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark Theatres’ Plaza Frontenac Cinemas

Every once in a while an author becomes famous because of forces surrounding his work, rather than the work itself. Such was the case twenty-five years ago (that long!) with Salman Rushdie when his book, “The Satanic Verses” spurred Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeni to issue a fatwa against him. Well, he’s gone on to work long after the death rights and now he has adapted an earlier novel for the big screen, MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN, which arrives in theatres now, directed by Deepa Mehta. This novel and film have also generated a lot of controversy. It’s a broad overview of the history of India told through the eyes of fictional characters (much like RAGTIME). The focus is the big events of the last century. The title refers to the children born at midnight on August 15, 1947 when India became independent of England. Primarily it’s the story of one of them, a boy named Saleem. The film opens with the courtship of his grandparents in the 1920′s (he was a doctor who could only examine her through a hole in a bedsheet). We see the many armed conflicts over the years between India and its neighbor Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh, and the many religious persecutions mixed in with family subplots involving infidelity and infants switched at birth. There’s also many elements of something called “magic realism”. Saleem has a prominent nose that enables him to hear voices, and, late at night, actually see and converse with other “midnight children”. The scenes border on the fantastic with each child purporting to have special powers and abilities (why doesn’t Charles Xavier take them to his school from the X-Men film series?). We think this is a dream or hallucination by Saleem until, in his twenties, he meets with one of the ladies who is a street performer with actual magic skills. This shifts in tone don’t quite mesh and causes the film to lose most of its momentum.

The actors are mostly culled from the, I guess this term is still used, “Bollywood” cinema. Their technique varies from subtle film emoting to the wild-eyed theatrical “big” style of playing for the balcony. One anglo actor is involved: Charles Dance (ALIEN 3) as a leering, bigoted “Simon Legree”-like British colonial who sneers at the idea of Indian independence (almost a cameo role). The costumes are full of bright vivid colors and the cinematography is quite striking. Unfortunately the film’s structure with frequent detours into “fantasy-land”stop the story’s flow and curtails much of Mehta’s confident direction. It was an ambitious effort to try and compress all this history into one film, but it never really engages the viewer. When it comes in Indian history crossed with magic realism, I’d rather revisit that young man in the lifeboat with the tiger.

2 Out of 5

MIDNIGHT’S CHILDREN screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at Landmark’s Tivoli Theatre

The cutthroat world of agribusiness gets the spotlight in AT ANY PRICE, a Farmville soap opera with a curiously cynical look at Midwestern prairie life. This earnest generational drama from writer/director Ramin Bahrani never comes together to work as a whole, but some good performances and peculiar plot turns make it a more entertaining experience than perhaps it should be. AT ANY PRICE centers on the Whipple family of rural Iowa, specifically Henry Whipple (Dennis Quaid) and Dean Whipple (Zack Efron), father and son farmers with different outlooks on life.  Henry has worked hard to maintain his inherited and lucrative seed farming empire and treats his business as an aggressive capitalist enterprise. He’s introduced at a funeral, shamelessly hitting up the family of the deceased to sell him their land. Henry is being investigated for breaking his contract with corporate giant Liberty Seed (a thinly-veiled Monsanto) by reusing seeds and selling them to smaller farms, instead of buying new seeds annually, as he’s legally obligated to (a subplot based on real court cases chronicled in the documentary FOOD INC.). Meanwhile Dean, who has lived in the shadow of his favored, absent older brother, is expected to take over the family business but has dreams of a career as a race car driver. Henry spends much time covering his tracks while trying to identify find the person who betrayed his trust by squealing on him to Liberty, all the while growing more detached from his wife (Kim Dickens) and son.

The first half of AT ANY PRICE illustrates how farmers battle over territory, attempting to sell genetically modified seeds from a big company to smaller farms to ensure that they’re number one in sales in the most number of counties.  What surprised me was the lack of high-minded messaging in AT ANY PRICE. Liberty Seed is a clear stand-in for Monsanto and their investigators are portrayed as jerks, yet the film doesn’t indict the agra-giant, or their genetically modified product like one would expect from a Hollywood treatment. For a while it looks like it’s going on that direction, but Liberty Seed is ultimately not the villain in AT ANY PRICE.  Henry, a grinning backstabber who cheats on his wife and has the business ethic and false modesty of a slimy used-car salesman, is. Dean, introduced shooting out an auto parts store window to steal an engine, isn’t much better.  He’s a petulant punk with a dangerous temper who treats his adoring girlfriend Cadence (Maika Monroe) like dirt. The father-son relationship drives the entire film but it’s all so dark and ethically muddy. Henry and Dean are with self-centered and ruthless characters at the  center of a story where they create their own problems.

Instead going in a political or environmental adirection, Hallie Elizabeth Newton’s script for AT ANY PRICE turns up the heat on the melodrama (at the expense of credibility) with a contrived late-act murder and hide-the-body shenanigans to bring the Whipple family closer together. Quaid, with his politician’s pasted-on smile is a pompous ass, the opposite of the noble farmer usually portrayed by Hollywood, but the actor is so good here, he elevates the spotty script. Efron is okay though his surly pretty-boy rebel shtick gets tiresome. Heather Graham shines as the town slut, a character who exists to do nothing except get boned by both father and son. A powerful Clancy Brown lends the film gravity in a small role as a grieving rival seed farmer. The racetrack scenes are gritty and exciting, and Bahrani well-captures the details of rural life with scenes of dewy summer mornings and endless fields of grain silos and bright green corn. Despite its flawed script and morally baffling conclusion (instead of comeuppance, the Whipple’s many crimes are rewarded), AT ANY PRICE is an engrossing drama and is recommended.

4 of 5 Stars

AT ANY PRICE open in St. Louis Friday, May 17th at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

Review by Dana Jung

In 2009, producer/director J.J. Abrams took the nearly impossible task of relaunching a beloved and storied franchise.  That film of course was STAR TREK, and though Abrams created an “alternate history” version of that world that both reimagined and refreshed the series, he was wise enough to recognize that the character interplay of his three leads was the most important key to the original series’ charm.

As entertaining and action-packed as it was, that first film by Abrams now seems almost a complete setup for this sequel, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS.  Here Abrams and his writers,  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, continue deconstructing the TREK mythology, and again have succeeded in creating a vastly entertaining movie, one of the best in the entire series, and one of the best films of the year so far. As the title suggests, however, this TREK has a heavier tone than the funhouse ride of the first film.  With its themes of terrorism and self-sacrifice, Abrams and his crew have simultaneously ramped up the action quotient in DARKNESS, and taken the franchise to new levels of dramatic complexity.

The story begins with a spectacular and fast-paced prologue that playfully nudges that old Trek plot device, the Prime Directive.  However, the young Enterprise captain Kirk (Chris Pine) soon discovers that his brash decisions during this exploit have not only tested his growing friendship with Spock (Zachary Quinto), but jeopardized his Starfleet career as well.  The consequences of choice and responsibilities of command are elements woven throughout DARKNESS, as Kirk matures as a Starfleet officer, and as Spock, McCoy (Karl Urban), and even Scotty (the fabulous Simon Pegg) all have moments of crisis to deal with.

The introduction of the villain played by Benedict Cumberbatch (SHERLOCK on BBC TV) brings a new level of danger to the world of TREK, and his actions have resonance to the terrorism we live with in the current day. Cumberbatch is excellent in his role, striking sinister notes while also engendering a great deal of empathy, if not for his cause, then for the passion with which he clings to the things he holds dear.  With this performance, Cumberbatch finally creates an adversary to the Enterprise crew that is worthy of STAR TREK (but which has been sorely lacking in many films of the series).

Visually, Abrams delivers the stunning vistas of different planets, future cities on Earth, and several breathtaking action sequences, just as we expect of him.  Opening up the story to show not only Starfleet HQ in San Francisco, but also futuristic London, gives Abrams the opportunity to ground the story in a more believable world filled with people going about their daily business.  The action scenes include everything from footchases to epic space battles—there’s even a (STAR WARS-inspired?) dogfight.  The 3D effects and IMAX cinematography add tremendously to these sequences, resulting in a greater sense of depth and feeling of immediacy.  Abrams keeps his camera moving constantly and edits at near light speed to give the viewer the experience of being directly caught up in these events.  In many scenes, Abrams also takes the opportunity to illustrate the size and scope of this Enterprise starship we have almost taken for granted.  In one exciting scene after another, we are able to view the incredible open spaces and sheer immensity of the ship’s engines, including the mysterious (before now) nacelles.

The cast that enlivened the first film, really delivers the goods in DARKNESS with its more somber dramatics.  Pine is even better here playing a man who begins to question some of the decisions he makes, his self-doubt even evident on his face at times.  Quinto is again perfection as the Vulcan struggling (as we all do) with how much emotion to show.  Urban is wonderfully testy as the irascible Bones McCoy, and Pegg’s Scotty is principled but loyal to the end.  Zoe Saldana gets more involved in the action this time as Uhura, while John Cho’ Sulu and Anton Yelchin’s Chekov also have their moments.  More familiar names in the Trek icon pop up (Pike, Marcus, etc.) with Peter Weller, Bruce Greenwood, and Alice Eve fitting in nicely.

From start to finish, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is full to the brim with danger, excitement, laughs, and that timeless camaraderie we as an audience have come to know and love.  The question is, can Abrams keep up this pace, and deliver yet again with what will surely be the third installment of this saga?  As fans of the original series know, this film leaves many plotlines yet to be developed and is perfectly set up for another sequel.  If Abrams can fill that film with as much sense of drama, as much sense of humor, and as much sense of wonder that he has with STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, we’ll all be a happy audience indeed.

One of the great obstacles for young couples, even in this modern age, is the big meet, or reveal, to the family of the romantic partner. The women are often not “good enough” for Mother’s “perfect son”. And then there’s the woman’s father, armed with withering stares and sometimes physical aggression (as part of protecting “Daddy’s lil’ girl”). Certainly this has been the subject of movie dramas and thrillers, but recently it has become a comedy staple thanks to the box office smash MEET THE PARENTS and its two follow-ups. Well, now movie mogul Tyler Perry is jumping in, this time as producer, and gives us an African-American spin on this awkward part of the mating ritual. It’s time to meet the PEEPLES.

We first meet Wade (Craig Robinson) on the job entertaining and educating preschoolers with song. It’s not quite his dream job, but that’ll come along soon. Right now he’s happy to be sharing a lush NYC apartment with his gorgeous lawyer girlfriend Grace (Kerry Washington). She’s headed out to see her family at their home on the Hamptons this weekend. Wade wants to join her, but Grace insists on going solo. Seems it’s the annual “Moby Dick” festival and she wants to save Wade from the boredom of non-stop Melville readings. After Wade drops Grace off at the jitney bus, he confers with his toy shop/doll doctor brother Chris (Malcom Barrett), and makes a decision. Wade’s got the ring and has been waiting for the right moment to pop the question to Grace. Why not surprise her at the Peeples family home, and propose there. After a long trip, Wade arrives at stately Peeples manor. And the family has no idea who he is. Grace has never mentioned Wade to them. Aaakwaard! Over the course of the tense weekend, Wade works tirelessly to impress them, particularly the stern father Judge Virgil (David Alan Grier), and find the perfect moment to ask Grave that very important question

These fairly uncomfortable situations requires a good cast in order to keep our interest. Luckily the film is anchored by the likable, talented Robinson as the good-natured, put-upon everyman. Here he expands on the persona he’s developed on the big screen (HOT TUB TIME MACHINE) and small (“The Office”). We’re rooting for him even when the script requires him to do some ridiculous things (would his character really prance about in disco diva attire?). It’s easy to see why his Wade would be smitten by Grace when she’s played by the lovely Ms. Washington. Unfortunately this film doesn’t showcase her considerable acting chops as did last year’s DJANGO UNCHAINED or on her hit TV drama “Scandal”. She’s either embarrassed or flustered at Wade’s antics or tis rying to calm down her “daddy”. Said character is a mostly one-note, up-tight stiff , until he needs to soften by the film’s group-hug finale, so it’s not much of a challenge to the comic talents of Grier who dashed off so many characters during his long stint on TV’s “In Living Color”. The Judge is tempered by his more enlightened wife played by S. Epatha Merkerson (forever Reba the mail lady on “Pee Wee’s Playhouse”). She’s warm and nurturing, so it’s no surprise that she needs a little something extra in order to deal with her hubby. Tyler James Williams plays with his “Everybody Hates Chris” TV role as the Peeples kid brother, a braniac who yearns to be a “playa” (and has his own lil’ secret). Too often he’s just required to either fawn over Wade or bounce about in wide-eyed exasperation. Kali Hawk is quite fetching as CNN reporter sis Gloria, but can her folks really be that clueless about her romantic life, especially after spending time with Kimrie Lewis-Davis as her camera-woman “bestie” Meg (my sympathies for an cringe-inducing dinner table aria)? Barrett gives some fast-talking wiseguy charm and energy to Wade’s horndog brother Chris. Icons Diahann Carroll and Melvin Van Peebles appear very briefly for a scene, but don’t have much to do as does SNL vet Ana Gasteyer as the town Mayor (who also has secrets, of course).

First time feature director Tina Gordon Chism does a good job pacing the proceedings based on her own screenplay. The Hamptons locations are quite lovely, but we can’t escape the sitcom feel of the film. It seems as though three or four half hour episodes have been stitched together ( “The Sweatlodge Incident” ” Papa’s Saxophone Gig”, etc.). The same problem befell the PARENTS series as they wore out their multiplex welcome. Too many situations are placed to grab the big laughs with little character consideration (Washington is a schoolgirl outfit is quite, uh, diverting, but would Grace do that mere feet away from the folks?). A scene where Wade encounters several Hamptons ex-beaus of Grace seems very contrived. A romantic encounter that goes quickly to black seems as though the film makers are too concerned about offending anyone. This contributes to the general blandness of the film. If you’re a fan of the actors then you’ll want to take this East Coast trip. Let’s hope much better, original, edgier fare is in their film future.

2 Out of 5

Review by Barbara Snitzer

The most surprising detail I noticed while watching this movie is that Kate Hudson gets top billing. Fortunately, her locks and silliness are somehow tamed by her being brunette.

The more surprising detail I learned after having watched the movie is that The Reluctant Fundamentalist is fiction, based on the novel of the same name by Mohsin Hamid.

An even more surprising post-viewing detail I learned was that while the movie globe-trots, the book takes place in only one location, that of the café in Lahore, Pakistan where Changez (Riz Ahmed) meets with American journalist Bobby (Liev Schreiber). At the beginning of their meeting in the café, Changez insists that Bobby listen to Changez’ story in its entirety lest he fail to understand why Changez’ fundamentalist activities are indeed, reluctant.

This might be the first time a great movie made me not want to read the book. One critic even noted that this movie should be the textbook example of how to adapt an “unadaptable novel” for the screen.

While the question of whether the story was true or not didn’t preoccupy me while I was watching, I did believe it was a real story- this is intended as a compliment. The story is compelling, believable, and challenging.

A minor surprising detail I learned after seeing the movie is that the movie’s lead actor, Riz Ahmed, had also starred in 2010′s Four Lions, the funniest movie about religion since Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

Although born in England, Ahmed is of Pakistani origin and he should be proud that he capably carries the entire movie playing a sympathetic complex character; his performance should challenge Hollywood’s habit of casting Arab actors as only evil terrorists. It does help that he’s hot.

Changez is the namesake reluctant fundamentalist, and the movie portrays just how such an oxymoronic characterization can take place. Changez is a graduate of Princeton whose talents earn him a job at an elite Wall Street Firm and the special attention of his boss and mentor Jim Cross, (Kiefer Sutherland).

With Wall Street money, a hot faux-bohemian girlfriend,Erica (Kate Hudson), and acceptance into elite society, Changez is living the American dream. Changez lacks the cynicism to be cautious as his life keeps getting better and better.

This quality is part of Changez’ successful personality, and had be been less naïve, it wouldn’t have protected him against the actions of his fellow countrymen that ultimately robbed him of that perfect life.

9-11 occurs while Changez is on a business trip with his colleagues in the Philippines. His departure location and nationality cause him to separated from his peers upon their arrival at the airport in New York; this is the first crack in a separation that will become psychological and physical.

The movie shows Changez watching 9-11 unfold in horror. However, when he recounts this part of his story to Bobby he speaks of his “awe” of “arrogance brought low.” Perhaps Changez has chosen his words carefully, intending to offend Bobby who works to restrain his rage at hearing this.

From what I’ve read about the movie’s Indian director Mira Nair sharing a similar opinion, her strength as a storyteller is more dominant than her political views: Changez makes the offensive remarks in hindsight, the events taking on a different meaning in his current circumstances. There is no indication of this opinion as we see Changez watching the tragedy unfold on TV while in the Philippines. His reaction is simple horror, and interestingly, he doesn’t even anticipate the discrimination he incurs upon his return to the US.

I was surprised when his business group, led by Jim, treated Changez’ seizure by airport authorities so casually. Perhaps they were as naïve about the consequences of 9-11 as Changez or perhaps this was just the first example of Changez’ involuntary disposession of the privileged life he knew.

In the wake of 9-11, Changez has become a target for the fear and anxiety for those citizens who need a stand-in for the revenge they can’t take out on the dead terrorists. The movie smartly reflects a mirror on we Americans and forces us to examine our reaction to that event without promoting any specific agenda. This accomplishment is laudatory.

Just as Changez insists Bobby listen to the entire story, so must you watch the entire movie rather than read a summary.

The movie is excellent and I highly recommend it, but I am obligated to deduct from its rating for the very last moment of the movie- not the ending, just the last image of the movie. It feels very Hollywood and demeaning to the gravity of injustices endured by Changez.

4 1/2 of 5 Stars

Review by Dane Marti

At first, the idea of making a 3D film out of ‘The Great Gatsby’ seemed to border on the surreal. However, there have been stranger things in cinema, which have ended up working out, and I wisely withheld judgment.

As most of you are aware, ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a book written in the 1920’s by the author F. Scott Fitzgerald. Along with the work of Ernest Hemingway, it is a novel highly regarded by literature professors, scholars, authors and folks that just like to read a good book. In lists of great 20th Century literature, it normally is near the top of the heap, either number one or two, sometimes right behind another seminal novel by James Joyce.

For me, one of the strengths of the novel is that the prose is spectacular in a poetic way.

Narrated by Nick Carraway—a Midwesterner, WWI Veteran and New York Bond Salesman who looks on the events from the point of view that presumably Fitzgerald would have had. He lives in a small house on Long Island—an imaginary area called ‘West Egg’ in the book.

Next door to his cottage is an awesome, magnificent structure owned by a Jay Gatsby. Even when Nick finds himself as a guest at his neighbor’s party, he finds out that absolutely no one has seen or met the mysterious Gatsby.

However, Gatsby knows who Nick is: they’d served in the same division in the war. For this review, I don’t think I need to elaborate on too much more.

Basically, Gatsby has made money through illegal bootlegging, but he’s at heart a man with qualities that set him apart from the other wealthy riffraff– the novel’s other characters. As a young boy, he had struggled to make something of himself—to become wealthy. He is a person with a dream, a dream to survive, to achieve, to grasp a ‘jewel’ just out of reach. As Carraway observes, he is a man with a lot of ‘hope.’

The conflict of the novel centers on the love affair and obsession that Jay Gatsby has for the lovely young woman, Daisy. Once, Jay and Daisy had been romantically involved, but presently she is married to Tom Buchanan, her husband who attended Yale with Nick. He is ‘old money.’ He is also an unmitigated racist ass. He’s also having an affair….

Daisy and Jay meet once again at Nick’s cottage! Their ‘affair’ begins again, fresh and vibrant and sexy! How will her husband, Tom react? For all you non-lit majors out there reading this, I really don’t think it’s important to know anything else: It’s a love triangle’ set on Long Island and New York in 1922. The story isn’t very complex, but the thematic underpinnings have impressed people for decades. I don’t think a review of the film needs to analyze these elements, but the reader might have many interesting conversations with friends after viewing the movie!

Having seen previews for the film, I wrongly thought that he movie would be similar to ‘Moulin Rouge’, another film directed by Baz Luhrmann. ‘Rouge,’ which took place in Paris around 1900 was a fantastic explosion of fun, but as far as The Great Gatsby was concerned, I felt that the idea of utilizing new music for a film which takes place back in the 1920’s would damage the quality and story ‘ Gatsby.’ Basically, the original novel was powerful enough and a film treatment didn’t need pop-music icing on the cake. Besides, I love the old 1920’s jazz and show tunes.

However, it turns out that I was wrong! The film does use new music, but it is cleverly embedded within the scenes. Through the use of more modern instruments, the film takes on a slightly surreal tinge, with the music enhancing, and modernizing the storyline, but never twisting or mutating the story into something unpleasant.

One of the highlights of the first third of the movie is that Computer Generated imagery of the mansions and parties around long island. Some of the imagery in this section of the movie is stunning and groundbreaking. The compositions, framing jazz babies, trumpets, confetti, art deco architecture and design are really quite impressive and deserve being seen more than once. This is all enlivened by the 3D, as in Scorsese’s ‘Hugo,’ using 3D in an artistic manner.

When the main storyline (the obsession and love triangle) begins, I felt that the actors didn’t seem to inhabit their roles convincingly. It was as if they were superficial cartoon caricatures, and not flesh, bone and sinew.

By the last half of the film, the movie’s acting improves and, when it came to the climactic moments in the film, dynamic and impressive. I was impressed and locked into what was happening on the screen!

One of the wonderful aspects of the novel is its poetic and romantic prose, and at certain crucial moments in the film, moments in which we see author Nick Carraway typing the story that later become ‘The Great Gatsby, ‘ the evocative sentences are artistically superimposed on the screen.

As Jay Gatsby, Leonardo DiCaprio is superb. It’s probably his most impressive role since ‘The Aviator.’ Tobey Maguire is perfectly bland and pleasant as Nick Carraway. I’m not putting his performance down, but he is perfect for the role. Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan actually resembles a jazzy flapper from that era. It might help the viewer to imagine someone whom they have loved and lost. Carey is very cute, and her acting is excellent—especially during the climactic scenes in a New York Hotel Room. At that point, her performance is first-rate.

When it gets going, ‘Great Gatsby’ is a compelling film, a well-made version of the famous ‘ Great American Novel.’ It has flaws, but the overall theme of the film, like the green light over the Bay, is there for anyone who wants to try and grasp it. I won’t attempt to give a long dissertation about the novel/film’s meaning, but this film certainly makes it clear for anyone interested in the thematic meaning behind the tale. For everyone else, it is an entertaining and visually striking motion picture.

4 of 5 Stars

Review by Sam Moffitt

After seeing the wonderful new movie Hitchcock in a theater and now seeing it again on Blu-Ray I thought it might be nice to revisit one of the Master of Suspense’s own films, preferably one I had not seen in some time.  Family Plot was Sir Alfred’s last film and a pretty good finale to an amazing career that started in the silent era, an apprentice ship at UFA Studio’s in Germany, watching no less a master film maker than Fritz Lang and ended in the 70’s when all the rules of film making were being broken by a bunch of young mavericks who changed the language of film altogether.

When I was a kid I loved everything about Hitchcock.  I read his mystery magazine avidly, often in high school study hall instead of reading from a text book.  My Mother would let me stay up late on school nights to watch reruns of his television show on Channel 11.  It was on Channel 11 that I first got to see Psycho.  After the networks chickened out of broadcasting Hitchcock’s game breaker channel 11 got the rights to broadcast Psycho, and they showed it five nights in a row, in, if I remember correctly 1969 or 70.  I got to see To Catch a Thief and Dial M for Murder at the Naro Theater in Norfolk, Virginia during my Navy days.  And I made certain to watch the five restorations (Rear Window, Vertigo, Rope, Trouble With Harry and Dial M for Murder in 3-D at the Hi-Pointe and the Tivoli in the 1980s.

The last time I had seen Family Plot was when I ran my tv station on board the USS AMERICA, around 1977.  I remember liking it and it having something to do with stolen jewels, kidnapping and  two very different couples.

Madame Blanche, a bogus medium, played wonderfully by Barbara Harris, is asked to locate the heir to an estate with the promise of $10,000.00 as a reward, serious money in the 1970s.  Blanche’s boyfriend, George, a cab driver no less, also played wonderfully by Bruce Dern , ends up acting as a private detective in order to locate the missing heir.  Meanwhile William Devane and Karen black are kidnapping high profile people and holding them for ransom, to be paid in jewels.  Both couples appear to have no relationship to each other but, in classic Hitchcock fashion all is revealed by the final curtain.

First,  all of the actors are terrific.  Family Plot features four very prominent actors who were busy during the 1970s. Bruce Dern is one of the more likeable actors to come to prominence in that decade. Likeable, but also, much like John Cassavettes, even when he plays a decent guy, as in Family Plot, he still looks like he’d rather punch your lights out as talk over the situation.  Dern was in everything from some of Roger Corman’s biker films and the Two Headed Transplant to high profile big budget projects like Silent Running and The Great Gatsby.  In the Cowboys he actually got to shoot and kill John Wayne!

Dern is excellent at playing a character who is too smart to be driving a cab, and he knows it, and shows how smart he is by doing a very thorough, and believable,  investigation into the missing heir’s whereabouts.  Who wouldn’t identify with such a character?  Don’t we all think we’re too smart for the jobs we are doing?

Barbara Harris, who plays Blanche the phony psychic (and turns out to have some real ability in that area), was also featured in one of Disney’s best films from the 70s, Freaky Friday.  Her ability to play a 13 year old tomboy in a grown woman’s body absolutely makes that film.  Here she is wonderful goading George into helping her find the missing heir so they can collect the reward money and pestering him for sex.  The double entendres between the two of them are priceless.  It’s interesting to see Hitchcock feature characters who are working class.  George has to keep reminding Blanch that he has to drive his cab or they won’t eat.  In one delightful scene George fixes hamburgers for the two of them in her modest apartment.   Blanche tears into her burger like she hasn’t eaten in days.

The opposite extreme to George and Blanche are played by William Devane as Arthur Adamson and Karen Black as Fran, who somehow manage to make a kidnapping for ransom scheme work, not once but apparently as a career.  There are at least a dozen reasons why their scam would not work out, watch the movie and you’ll see what I mean.

Hitchcock’s direction is the real scam, his shell game with the characters doesn’t really give you much time to think about the implausibility of it.

Blanche and George are the light to Arthur and Fran’s dark.  They work for a living while Arthur and Fran are living the good life with their  ill gotten gains.  They even have a hidden room in their luxury town house where they keep their kidnapped victims until it’s time to make the switch.  A hidden room that looms large in the finale.

Devane did some seriously great work in the 70s.  A strange actor whose voice sounds exactly like Jack Nicholson he looks way too much like John Kennedy.  He even played Kennedy in a television production called the Missiles of October.   He hit a high water mark in a seriously intense revenge action picture called Rolling Thunder.

But the top star in the cast of Family Plot has to be Karen Black.  Here was another actor closely associated with the “New Hollywood” of the 1970s, who appeared in break out parts in Five Easy Pieces, Drive, He Said and Portnoy’s Complaint.  She also appeared in high profile films like Day of the Locust and Airport 1975.  And she appeared in memorable horror films like Burnt Offerings and the legendary Trilogy of Terror, as well as low budget weirdness like Killer Fish.

Her first scene in Family Plot has her looking absolutely killer dressed in all black with a blonde wig and brandishing a pistol.  Throughout the film she looks terrific and is a great counterpoint to Devane’s toothy grin.

In true thriller fashion these two couples would seem to have no connection.  But Hitchcock’s mastery of storytelling never falters.  The final showdown is a text book example of the Hitchcock style of suspense.

Supporting characters include Ed Lauter as a flunky willing to do Devane’s dirty work and Katherine Helmond providing a valuable clue to the mystery.

Like all the Universal Hitchcock Masterpiece series there is a wonderful making of documentary where we get to hear from three out of the four major players.  Bruce Dern, Karen Black and William Devane all tell their recollections of working with a master film maker .

Devane  informs us that his part was originally played by Roy Thinnes, probably best known for the Quinn Martin television series The Invaders.  For reasons he never made clear to anybody Hitchcock fired Thinnes, scrapped most of his footage and started over with Devane.  Thinnes apparently never got over the firing and made a public scene with Hitchcock demanding an explanation, which he never received.

Hitchcock could be loyal to actors that he really liked.  In a recent interview in Shock Cinema, Ed Lauter reveals that Hitchcock apparently loved him and wanted to use him as often as possible.  Dern was also a favorite of Hitchcock’s, appearing several times on the television show and playing a small but key part in Marnie.  Dern is proud of this, and justifiably so, I’d brag about it too if I were a pro of his caliber.

The really interesting points are brought up by Karen Black, who still looks terrific by the way.  Having started her career in the Sixties and working in the “New Hollywood” of the Seventies she was used to improvisation, sloppy camera work,  group dynamics, what have you, in the film making process.  She soon realized working with the Master of Suspense was a whole new ball game.  She still expresses amazement that Hitchcock would shoot and edit the film in his head before the camera would roll.  He then would have his camera man shoot exactly the material he wanted, no more, no less.  And the whole thing would come together in the editing room perfectly,  shot after shot, sequence after sequence, picture after picture, for his entire career.  From her vantage as a seasoned Hollywood professional  Karen Black assures us that no other director she ever worked with or heard of worked that way.  Most directors shoot way more footage than will ever be used, coverage they call it, shoot from every angle imaginable and let the editor figure it out.  This is the kind of information  I love to get from a DVD extra, priceless!

We also learn that Hitchcock felt personally responsible for all the craft people it takes to make a motion picture.  He was independently wealthy from the box office receipts of Psycho alone and could have retired at any time.  No, he kept working to keep the makeup people, electricians, ward robe, studio drivers, craft services, everybody, receiving a weekly paycheck.

The DVD also features the original theatrical trailer and some photos and press material.

Not a masterpiece by any means, this is certainly no Vertigo or Psycho, but then even Sir Alfred could only produce so many masterpieces.  Family Plot is a solid work of craftsmanship from a director in the twilight of his career, ailing from numerous health problems, yet still at the top of his game, in full control of his craft, his art and most of all, his story telling ability and wit.

A fine valedictory and a fond farewell from one of the greatest directors of motion pictures in the history of the medium.

To reference the old song from TV’s “Schoolhouse Rock”, for superhero flicks three is usually not a “magic number”. Going back 30 years (wow!), the Christopher Reeve Superman blockbusters started their full downward slide with SUPERMAN III (the idea of Supes fighting himself is cool, but Richard Pryor as a master computer-hacker?). SPIDER-MAN 3 was certainly the weakest of the Raimi trilogy with super-villain overload and a dancing black-clad Peter Parker (ugh!). BATMAN FOREVER had Tim Burton handing over the directorial reins to Joel Schumacher with disastrous results (the same is true when Brett Ratner replaced Brian Singer on X MEN: THE LAST STAND). Some fans may cite the change in film makers for the faults of those part threes. Well our favorite “billionaire genius playboy philanthropist” is back with IRON MAN 3, but with a new addition calling the shots. Director of the first two flicks, Jon Favreau, is a producer ( and suits up once again to portray the loveable “Happy” Hogan), but this one’s in the hands of Shane Black, a screenwriter with one directing gig (KISS, KISS, BANG, BANG) on his resume. Can he buck the trend with third movie appearances (not counting last Summer’s smash MARVEL’S AVENGERS) and make our armored hero soar at the box office?

IRON MAN 3 actually begins with a sequence set years before his first adventure. It’s New Year’s Eve 1999 and Tony Stark (Robert Downey,Jr.) is taking Prince’s song about that year to heart. He’s at a science conference in Switzerland, sloshed to the gills, and trying to get botanist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) alone, with the help of his trusted bodyguard (Favreau). An over-eager fledging tech guru, the nerdy, limping Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), head of Advanced Ideas Mechanics intrudes on the duo’s amorous plans. Tony’s casual cruelty with Killian will come back to haunt him. Zip ahead to now. Colonel James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) AKA War Machine has been given a stars and stripes paint job and renamed the Iron Patriot, and is the President’s personal enforcer. Tony’s not sleeping after the traumatic events in NYC last year, so he spends his long nights tinkering in his lab. Thanks to some tiny gadgets embedded just under the skin of his arms, he can summon pieces of his new armor to locate him and form around him like an iron cocoon. He’ll need this new upgrade because a global terrorist titan, the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) hijacks the media in order to broadcast his threatening video messages. Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is still running Stark Industries with Happy as head of security. One day she gets a visit from the now sophisticated and successful Killian, who tells her of his new human enhancement invention, Extremis, which can repair tissue. Something about Killian and his driver Savin (James Badge Dale) sounds an alarm in Happy’s noggin. His sleuthing leads him to a tragedy, which puts Tony on a collision course with the Mandarin. After an attack on his home, Tony’s separated from Pepper, and is without his tech and forced to learn the truth about the Mandarin’s operation before his super-powered goons find and eliminate the now un-armoured genius.

Sure, all the CGI bells and whistles make the golden avenger one of the coolest heroes around, but he wouldn’t be here for a third blockbuster if not for the man inside the suit. Downey gets to stretch his acting more than in the second installment (and the Holmes flicks for that matter). Yes Stark is not the cruel jerk before donning the amour (although it’s great to revisit him in the movie’s opening minutes), but his decision to better the world has taken a toll on his psyche. We can almost smell his ‘flop-sweat’ as he endures constant panic attacks. But that snarky sense of humor is still there particularly when Tony is temporarily teamed with a wiley ten year-old boy played by Ty Simpkins (a wonderful dynamic). Tony has to use his high-tech wizardry, even as his state of the art lab/workshop is thousands of miles away, His courage doesn’t come from the gadgets, but from his damaged heart. Said heart belonging to Paltrow whose Pepper continues to be one of the strongest love interests in superhero movies. The chemistry between the two actors is the film’s real emotional weight. Downey also has a great rapport with Cheadle as the highly-trained military man tries to guide the cocky, often physically inept, techie. But what’s an action flick without a great villain? Kingsley has a real dead-eyed banal menace as the Mandarin, who shows a different side in the film’s final confrontations. He’s matched by the cold, calculating Pierce, who’s much more than a science geek who has made good. Hall’s sexy scientist also has lots of secrets, but the talented actress doesn’t get enough screen time to flesh out this role. Terrific character actors William Sadler and Miguel Ferrer round out the film’s exceptional cast.

Shane Black has avoided the part 3 and new director jinx, by giving this film a much darker, sinister feel. He has Tony get into an intense cat and mouse, hand to hand fight scene with the scary enhanced henchmen (and women) who seem to have molten lava pulsing through the veins. They’re certainly more deadly than the Iron Monger (Jeff Bridges in the first flick) and Mickey Roarke’s Whiplash from the previous entry. Black keeps the film rolling at a good pace in between the many effects-laden battle scenes. The attack on Casa de Stark is impressive, but a tense, mid-air rescue is even better. The final fight sequence does go on a tad too long with a main baddie that just can’t seem to stay down, but it’s a minor quibble. When things are wrapped up, the film almost feels like it’s saying goodbye to ole ”shell-head”, but we do get a “Bond”-style end title card before another entertaining post credits bonus scene (worth sticking around for). IRON MAN 3 can’t quite much the discovery fun of the first flick, but it’s more consistent than the 2010 follow-up. I hope we’ll spend some more screen time with Downey’s damaged hero in the near future (besides another Avengers outing). We’ll see if Marvel Studios, like Mr. Stark, have a few more fun tricks up their sleeves.

4 Out of 5

I have always been a fan of short films but never really liked attending shorts programs at festivals because there are usually only 1 or 2 good films sandwiched between 4 or 5 terrible ones. That is one of the reasons why I absolutely love the online press screening room that the Tribeca Film Festival gives us access to every year. Rather than have to watch the films in blocks, you can pick and choose which films to watch and potentially review. Throughout the week I watched (or attempted to watch) well over 25 TFF shorts. I say attempt because there were quite a few misfires that I didn’t think deserved to be in this festival.  Of course there were also some I wanted to see that just were not available, which I believe is a huge mistake made by some of the filmmakers. But there were quite a few that were pretty fantastic. I didn’t just like these films but want to share them with fellow filmlovers which is why I would like to publicly invite these filmmakers to submit these shorts to the Orlando Film Festival this year. For everyone else, keep an eye on these shorts because they are well worth checking out given the opportunity.

FEAR OF FLYING

This stop-motion short absolutely blew me away. It tells the story of a bird afraid to fly south and how he deals with the winter. The technique is flawless, the voice acting is spot on and the film itself is brilliant. I expect big things from Conor Finnegan who wrote, directed and edited this little masterpiece.

FOOL’S DAY

This short directed by Cody Blue Snider (son of Dee Snider) took me completely by surprise. The premise is quite genius, a 3rd grade class accidentally kills their teacher on April Fool’s Day and must hide the body before their D.A.R.E officer comes in for his weekly visit. The execution (no pun intended) is equally genius with some excellent moments of dark humor. Just because you see the ending coming a mile away does not make it any less entertaining.

AB-

Where FOOL’S DAY was a complete story, AB- feels more like the opening to a feature film. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because I found myself really wanting to know where this story will go. High production values and an intriguing concept made me really appreciate this short bit of horror. I had the pleasure of meeting screenwriter/director Daniel Klein at one of the TFF parties. He told me to check out his film and send him a little email after letting him know what I think. Hopefully he likes this public pat on the back better. Well done sir.

ROOT OF THE PROBLEM

Going to the dentist is never fun and in this slice of 50s suburbia setting, it is downright hell. Ryan Spindell expertly combines wonderful visuals, excellent production design and some dark humor into a fantastic little short of whimsical horror. A greatly look forward to his next short and hopefully a transition into feature filmmaking.

GRANDMA’S NOT A TOASTER

Grandma is in bad shape but her 3 grandchildren are left out of the will. On a stormy night, they are looking to change that and granny isn’t too happy about this. A darkly funny story by itself, this short gets more fascinating because of the manner it is presented to us. The film jumps from each person’s perspective, retelling some of the same moments through the point of view of each character. Although the ending did feel a little abrupt, this truly was a perfect story and technique for the short film format.

FORTUNE HOUSE

What happens when a shy waitress & a unique customer connect at a Chinese restaurant? This charming little simply short kept my interest at first but completely won me over by the end. I’m not quite sure if I will look at fortune cookies the same way again.

Jerry Cavallaro  – @GetStuck  –  www.JerryCavallaro.com

The premise is fertile ground for a high concept, feel-good Hollywood comedy, and STARBUCK plays like one, but it’s a French language Canadian film shot in Quebec, and has been a huge hit there. It’s already been made remade for Hollywood (already in the can, DELIVERY MAN stars Vince Vaughn – once titled the much better DICKIE DONOR) but I recommend going ahead and seeing this original version. It’s good.

The many scenes where David anonymously drops in on his brood are the best part of STARBUCK and elevate the film into something more than fatherhood gags and masturbation jokes. STARBUCK is from writer/director Ken Scott, who maintains a healthy momentum, pumping chuckles and well-timed sight gags into the film skillfully. STARBUCK is full of good intentions but when David accidentally finds himself in the middle of a meeting for the class action targeting him, the story goes in a more serious direction. He visits a nursing facility where one of his progeny is severely disabled and when he pretends to be the legal guardian of his disabled son in order to spend more time with his children without giving away his identity, his deception becomes less endearing.  His story begins generating massive media attention.  “Who is Starbuck? – La Masterbatur!”’ the headlines scream and David soon wonders if this lawsuit could be the solution to his problems.

Much of Starbuck’s success can be attributed to the lead performance from Patrick Huard who strikes the perfect balance between likable loser, irresponsible jerk, and just a troubled fellow trying to do the right thing. STARBUCK carefully straddles a thin line between poignant and maudlin. Some coincidences are ridiculous, like one where David poses as a pizza delivery man to meet a daughter and arrives just as she’s overdosing (she’s about to shoot up – why does she order a pizza? Does heroin give you the munchies?), and the subplot involving David owing money to strong-arm goons is unnecessary and unresolved. A speech about David unfairly favoring his unborn child over his fertility clinic progeny reveals a dumb misunderstanding of the purpose of sperm banks, and the climax featuring the largest group hug in movie history is an eye-roller, but STARBUCK has such a big heart, it’s easy to forgive its flaws.

4 of 5 Stars

STARBUCK opens in St. Louis May 3rd at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

Review by Barbara Snitzer

The Angel’s Share is an unexpectedly delightful movie from English director Ken Loach whose previous films have been characterized as “social-realist” reflecting his left-wing views.  This movie deservedly won the Audience Award at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival.

The movie takes place in Glasgow, Scotland, and some smart studio suit wisely made sure the film was released stateside with subtitles.  Yes, they speak English in Scotland, and no, you shouldn’t be offended.  Their presence alleviates the strain that comes with trying to understand the thick Glaswegian accent in which the word “kilt” sounds like “cult” to an American ear.  They also, perhaps unintentionally, make up for the poor performance of the sound engineers that result in only one side of phone conversations being at all audible. Most importantly, they keep us from questioning our own intelligence as seeing a word spelled out confirms our ignorance of it, rather than distract us from the movie as we wonder what was just said.

Do you know what a cleidach is?

These words you don’t know are terms related to whiskey made in Scotland, known as Scotch outside of that country. The Angel’s Share is a story of redemption by spirits; yes, those kinds of spirits.

Paul Brannigan plays Robbie, a young Glaswegian who has only experienced poverty and crime in his twenty-something years. His girlfriend, Leonie (Siobhan Reilly) is about to give birth to their first child.  With fatherhood looming in his immediate future, Robbie wants to change his life for the better.  With no role models around and the very real threat of violence from Leonie’s family, a better life seems impossible.

Ironically, the path to a better life will reveal itself after he is forced to confront the consequences of his having violently beaten an innocent stranger.  Robbie is sentenced to community service.  Fortunately, his supervisor is nothing like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona. Harry (John Henshaw) has a kind soul; he drives Robbie to the hospital so he can see his newborn son.  While there, he witnesses the violence Leonie’s family are capable of and offers Robbie a safe refuge by inviting him to move in.

Harry offers a toast to Robbie’s son Luke and in that moment, when Robbie tastes whiskey for the first time, his new life begins.  As Harry shares his passion for whiskey, Robbie’s nascent talent emerges.  It turns out he has a gifted nose; Robbie can discern the various flavors in blended whiskies in the same way perfumers (who are actually referred to as “noses”) can differentiate the scents in fragrances.

Harry and Robbie develop a strong bond that helps Robbie reinforce the new choices he’s making.  When Harry invites Robbie to a whiskey tasting, to Harry’s chagrin, he is forced to include other members of the service crew.  None are as sharp or talented as Robbie, but together they are an entertaining motley crew and ultimately become Robbie’s accomplices.

I cannae reveal any more of the movie.  After you walk out of the cinema with a smile on your face, go have a wee dram and toast the character of Harry and the excellent actor who played him, John Henshaw.  Would that we could all have a Harry in our lives.

5 of 5 Stars

THE ANGEL’S SHARE opens in St. Louis May 3rd at Landmark’s The Tivoli Theater

Review by Barbara Snitzer

While I highly recommend the new French movie Renoir, I feel obligated to caution that my recommendation might not apply to all Movie Geeks.

The most action-packed scene in this movie involves a paintbrush on canvas- no CGI, not even a montage to push the action along. This movie moves at the pace of Heinz ketchup being poured. If the mere description I’ve offered is making you fidget, watching this movie will feel like driving behind an elderly person going 45 mph with their blinker on. This is not the movie for you to go to impress a date; it won’t be long before a more appropriate French movie will be released.

For the rest of us, Renoir is an ambrosial two hour respite on the French Riviera, specifically Cagnes-sûr-Mer, generously offered by director Gilles Bourdos who is a native of nearby Nice. For those who are familiar with the Impressionist movement in art or the artist Pierre-Auguste Renoir in particular, it is an opportunity to see the paintings brought to life.

Auguste Renoir is played by the French actor Michel Bouquet, whose acting career has spanned more than half a century. His performance is understated and commanding.

Renoir does not follow the established trajectory of a biopic; the movie begins in 1915, Auguste has only four years to live, and he is crippled by severe rheumatoid arthritis in his hands. It has not been a year since the death of his beloved wife and muse Aline. Only the French could begin a movie full of life amid such dreadful circumstances.

Before Aline passed away, she met a young woman whom she thought would be a perfect model for Auguste. That this young lady, Andrée (the exquisitely beautiful Christa Theret) arrives at Renoir’s doorstep after Aline’s death portends a special significance for Renoir. She is indeed perfect, according to Renoir’s aesthetic. At this point in his art, he is concerned only with luminous skin and how its appearance is affected by the sun and nature.

So significant is she that Renoir dares not seduce her, as had been his usual practice with models, several of whom have become his housemaids and caretakers. Their devotion to him suggests that his peccadillos were not predatory, even if they were not entirely respectable.

The actress Theret’s resemblance to the women in Renoir’s paintings of this period, such as The Bathers (1918-1919, Musée d’Orsay), is uncanny. It is refreshing to be reminded of what women really look like (Christina Hendricks of Mad Men notwithstanding). While there is a degree of nudity in the film, it is restrained, even by French standards. The only moment of vulgarity involves Renoir’s ten-year old son, Claude (called “Coco,” played by Thomas Doret). Hopefully my above-mentioned warning will prevent any vulgarity that may emerge from immature patrons.

The young Claude is the only of Renoir’s three sons who live with him. The eldest two, Pierre and Jean sustained serious injuries in The Great War. The movie does not focus a great deal on either Pierre or Claude who is practically an orphan.

The sad reason for Coco’s neglect is Renoir’s obsessive race against his own mortality. The arrival of his perfect muse, Andrée, only heightens his urgency.

His middle son, Jean, arrives at his father’s estate to recover from a severe leg injury sustained on the battlefield. Jean appears to be his father’s favorite, and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to suppose Renoir, while not celebrating the reason for his son’s appearance, might be grateful that the injury is sufficiently formidable to prevent his return to war.

At the time of Jean’s arrival, Andrée has become a fixture in Renoir’s household and Renoir has developed a protective affection for her. Jean’s convalescence is comfortable, but isolating as he re-learns how to walk. The exquisite natural environment that surrounds Renoir’s villa exerts its will as Jean and Andrée interlace as a couple. At first Andrée is disdainful towards Jean, judging him as a trust-fund child and derides him for lacking ambition. She shares with Jean her dream to become an actress. Once Jean is on his feet and able to venture into the countryside, he’s inspired to buy film reels from a street vendor. Jean develops a keen interest in film and Andrée is planning their future in cinema.

Their happily-ever-after is derailed when Jean’s full recovery makes way for his sense of duty to re-emerge; he feels obligated to return to fight for his brothers-in-arms and country. Renoir and Andrée are understandably devastated.

But this is not the end of the story, nor the whole of the movie. There aren’t words to convey the transcendent beauty of this part of the world and the exquisite cinematography that captures it. Words can neither explain the creation and process of painting. The paintings in the movie aren’t real Renoirs, but they are real paintings. The hand holding the brush in the movie is that of Guy Rides, an art forger who created the works seen in the film.

Renoir is a movie to be experienced. So I will stop writing about it.

5 of 5 Stars

RENOIR opens in St. Louis May 3rd at Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater

Look at that poster below. Look at the “artful” way the cursive “A” conforms to the buttocks of the model they’ve used to stand in for the sixteen porn stars interviewed in this documentary. The website (NSFW) for The Aroused Project claims that it’s about “the lost sensuality of a woman.” The implication, to me at least, is that pornography has warped sensuality and sexuality into commodification, and that director Deborah Anderson seeks to pierce that cultural norm by talking to “the real women” behind these cheesy stage names.

Maybe. There’s a blurry line between honest artistic intent and just another form of exploitation. In either case, this isn’t really what these women are “really” like. They might be opening up about their lives and personal philosophies, but it’s still in a carefully constructed environment, and their confessions are filtered through the sensibilities of the filmmakers. So beyond the pretension of truth, is Anderson really seeking to help us understand these women on a deeper level by talking to them while they’re posing naked on a bed?

Or maybe she just wants to shill her art book of the same name as the film. After all, this is essentially a “making of” for that book. It shows the actresses getting their makeup prepped for the photo shoot, and some glimpses of said shoot. There are a few random sojourns to the house of a friend of Anderson’s who works in the porn industry, and who talks about what the conditions are like for young women looking to “make it.” It all feels rather slapshod and halfhearted.

There are some interesting things that the actresses have to say, though most of them are unlikely to shock unless one is solely familiar with pornography as a sinister abstract. None of them originally set out to be Hollywood actresses but “fell.” In fact, none of them “fell” into it at all. They weren’t molested when they were younger. Etc. etc., one stereotype after another gets pushed back. But whatever truth about pornography and how women fare in it that any viewer will glean from the interviews will likely conform to their pre-set assumptions about this world.

As for the stars themselves, well, they seem more like an interchangeable mash of faces than many distinct people. Even though the movie insisted on reminding through title cards who each woman was (along with, curiously, their age and place of origin, as if that was crucial), I still couldn’t keep them straight. It doesn’t help that new interviewees keep getting introduced at random, and quite late into the film.

Mostly though, Aroused is such a bore, and even a viewer lured in by the promise of copious nudity will likely be worn out, despite the scant 70-minute runtime. After all, anyone horndog enough to seek this movie out just for the skin can see all of these women in much more revealing but less talky situations. The doc was at least able to hold my interest throughout the first half, when people are moving about as they prep for the shoot. But once the shoot begins (which accompanies an arbitrary shift from black and white to color), the film is literally nothing but shots of the actresses talking to the camera. Perhaps it’s meant to be subversive, given what they usually do for the camera, but it’s just tremendously dull.

There is a good film to be made about our societal image of what porn stars are like versus the reality that they live. Aroused is not that film.

1 out of 5 stars

By Nick Day

An orchestra quickly tunes up, and then brief silence before the music begins. The film opens with the image of a closed red curtain, some nameless theater, a bit of symbolism that signifies that this particular theater is in fact all theaters, as this film is meant for any and all audiences familiar with the tale of Snow White. Director and writer Pablo Berger is, by way of mis-en-scene, giving you a proper invitation to his particular world, and it would be a shame to pass it up.

BLANCANIEVES is a stunner, at times alarmingly beautiful. It retains enough of the Grimm tale to feel familiar, but finds an altogether original way to interpret the material. Heartfelt and heartbreaking, this film is a celebration of cinema, of Spain, and of the human spirit.

And so, the red curtain opens and BLANCANIEVES begins.

It is important to note that the film is dialogue-free, though it is not quite homage to the silent era, as THE ARTIST clearly was, but more of a logical extension of that early discipline. This isn’t tongue in cheek, or a clever wink to the audience. Berger has really tried to make a bit of pure cinema, and while your enjoyment of this film will likely be predicated to the mileage you get out the silent flavor of film, I’d argue that the execution is a complete success, personal tastes be damned.

Sparse intertitles are as close to dialogue as you will get, but while the film lacks spoken words; it has a feast of a score, courtesy of Alfonso de Vilallonga. He peppers his music with choices that reflect the era and the culture of 1920s Seville, but careful listeners will hear the inspiration of many an early film composer. The title music, to my ears, recalls the work of the great Franz Waxman, the composer best known for his work on THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and REBECCA.

Also of note is the really wonderful editing by Fernando Franco. He finds a way to splice, smash and bleed together Berger’s sublime compositions to create transitions and images that speak as loudly and as clearly as the finest dialogue, as expressive and revealing as any actor’s body language.

The story is borne out of the Brothers Grimm tale, but Berger makes it his own by planting the characters in 1920s Seville. His Snow White (Macarena Garcia) is no idle waif singing to creatures of the forest, but is instead a bullfighter of uncanny skill. The wicked stepmother (Maribel Verdu) isn’t just an evil queen jealous of a younger and prettier girl, but a perverse caretaker that exploits her husband’s weakness to slowly leach his fortune. And Prince Charming is… well, you should really see the movie. Berger is smart enough to play BLANCANIEVES pretty close to the source material, and by doing so appeal to the widest audience. But he is savvy enough to make changes that not only distinguish itself from the recent glut of Snow White-related retreads, but markedly improve upon what is a relatively slight folk tale. I think Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm would approve. I certainly do, and I think you will too.

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5 stars

Review by Barbara Snitzer

Weddings are supposed to be happy occasions, and not just because they are a cash cow for all the meaningless businesses depicted on reality shows.   Our culture inculcates the ceremony as a benchmark that will enhance our lives and our society. If it were not so important, those who have been denied the right to marry would not be fighting so hard to be allowed to. The marriage ceremony has been the subject of many movies, particularly comedies, as it is such a universal experience.

Considering these points, one would think that a comedy called The Big Wedding starring A-list and Oscar-winning actors would be a slam-dunk hit, welcomed by critics and audiences with open arms.

One would be wrong.

The Big Wedding is generating much scorn from the critics; it remains to be seen whether moviegoers will be turned off by their censure.

Why all the hate?

My hunch is that a pimple of elitism has erupted on the face of our cinematic arbiters.

The Big Wedding is a broad comedy.  Broad comedy is neither intellectual nor witty.  As defined by the Urban Dictionary, it “employs humor of a particularly physical, over-the-top, indecent, or otherwise unsubtle nature.”

In other words, this is not a Woody Allen movie.  It’s not going to win any awards.  So what?  Does every movie have to be important?  Or realistic?

Conversely, can a movie be considered a comedy today if it doesn’t have Judd Apatow’s name in the credits?  The most successful comedies of recent years, among them The Hangover, Knocked Up, and Bridesmaids have all been gross-out, toilet-humor movies.  If today’s moviegoers require repugnance to elicit laughs, our society is in big trouble.

Fortunately, at the screening I attended, the press and audience were laughing throughout the entire movie.

I may be the only reviewer who thoroughly enjoyed this movie.  I may also be the only reviewer who saw the French-Swiss movie Mon Frère Se Marie of which this movie is a remake.

My fellow NYU alum, Justin Zackham, who directed and adapted the screenplay from Jean-Stéphane Bron’s, deserves a boatload of credit for finding this movie in that one.  My guess is he simply read the screenplay and didn’t see the movie itself.  It’s supposed to be a comedy, but it plays like a threnody.

Many French movies are remade for American consumption and rarely do they succeed, let alone outshine the original.  One such exception was Dinner For Schmucks, a remake of the very successful Le Dîner des Cons.  Like The Big Wedding it used the original movie as a framework on which to build a unique movie rather than be lazy and copy the work already done by the French.

Robert De Niro stars as Don, a recovering alcoholic erotic sculptor.  He hasn’t been this funny since Midnight Run, and in that movie he played the straight guy to Charles Grodin, who bore the comedic weight.  In The Big Wedding, De Niro does the heavy lifting himself and doesn’t phone his performance in Focker-style.

Diane Keaton and her amazing haircut are Ellie, Don’s ex-wife.  They haven’t seen each other since their divorce ten years earlier.  Their marriage produced three children:  two biological Jared (Topher Grace), Lyla (Katherine Heigl), and a boy adopted from Colombia, Alejandro (mucho caliente Ben Barnes).

Susan Sarandon plays Bebe, Don’s hippie-dippie, paisley-bedecked girlfriend.  They have been a couple since Don’s divorce, and she is accepted as a second mother by all the kids.

Alejandro’s birth mother is flying in from Colombia for the wedding, and therein is found the movie’s comedic premise.  She is an observant Catholic who would be mortified to learn that the family to whom she entrusted her son has divorced and that Don is living in sin.

Thus does Bebe become Catholic collateral damage in service to the farce in the name of the Holy Father.

Jared and Lyla have their own storylines that I won’t go into.  Suffice it to say that Topher Grace, Katherine Heigl, and Amanda Seyfried who plays Alejandro’s fiancée (Missy) owe an enormous, unpayable debt of gratitude to the talented veterans who carry their dead weight through the entire movie.

The other heavyweights actors who tentpole the movie are Christine Ebersole (whom you may remember from Saturday Night Live) and David Rasche (a native St. Louisan unacknowledged because he didn’t attend high school there).  They play Missy’s parents, Muffin and Barry, who live in a universe free of minorities and Jews and are thus understandably chagrined at the reality that their son-in-law-to-be is “beige.”  Ebersole’s Muffin very eerily resembles in name and appearance, certain realtors who advertise in the Ladue News (Ladue= Greenwich, Palm Beach, Orange County).  Barry’s bow-tie and sport coat combinations are equally scary in their accuracy.

My biggest bone to pick with this movie concerns the casting of Alejandro.  Ben Barnes is British and his American accent is spot on, but not being a Spanish speaker, I wonder if his Spanish is authentic Colombian.  I don’t understand why they didn’t cast a Latino actor.  Could they not find one?  In Los Angeles?  Alejandro looks like a Gringo with a spray tan.  Seriously, he’s approaching Oompa-Loompa orange.  There’s a scene where Ellie plays the “Save the Children” video that inspired her to adopt Alejandro and it is implied that the boy in the video is Alejandro.  That kid looks Colombian; he’s neither orange nor “beige.”

Unless you demand believability from movies or are a religious Catholic, I highly recommend this feel-good, laugh-out-loud cinematic diversion.

4 1/2 of 5 Stars

Looks like it’s time for another “inspired by true events” night at the multiplex. It’s not a heavy drama or political thriller, not even a mushy tear-jerker. Nope, this is a raucous, raunchy R-rated comedy about kidnappers. Uh, uh, felons. And it’s from that master of big screen comedy Michael Bay. Yup, fresh off the TRANSFORMERS trilogy. Well, this flick is about some larger than life characters, though not several stories tall like the Autobots. Bay can do the big explosions and gun battles, but can he really dive into the Apatow territory? You’ll get to find out in PAIN & GAIN.

The main focus of P&G is the gang’s ringleader (mastermind is stretching things a bit), Danny Lugo (Mark Wahlberg). It’s South Beach, Florida circa 1995 and Lugo’s an ex-con (a shady investment racket) now working as a fitness trainer at Sun Gym. But he’s not satisfied. He wants the high life and he wants it now! He sees a oppurtunity in a new client, sleazy business mogul Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub). Lugo will snatch up Mr. K and force him to sign over everything (mansion, cars, bank account) to him. But Danny needs help so enlists two co-workers, the steroid-shooting Adrian (Anthony Mackie) and the just-released-from-prison, born-again, newly sober behemoth Paul (Dwayne Johnson). After several botched attempts they nab Kershaw and proceed to clean him out. But after everything’s signed over,what will they do with their victim? And how will the stay a step ahead of the law? What will happen when all of the Kershaw estate is spent? Will these goofballs begin a crime wave?

Well I suppose you could use an internet search engine to read about the real life case which would be infinitely more entertaining than enduring this over 2 hour (!) vulgar, plodding misfire. I’m sorry Paramount Studios, these three guys aren’t mischievous dimwits. They’re criminals who are now right where they should be. Yeah, the Kershaw character is a jerk, but he doesn’t deserve the endless abuse (think Rasputin with gold chains). There might have been some well-earned laughs in the script, but Bay has sledge-hammered them into a nauseating pulp. There’s countless action sequences that go to slow motion that allows Bay to freeze frame on the actors’ grotesque grimaces. That’s before the sweaty close-ups and the camera zipping in and out of rooms through a small hole or crack (yeah, it’s cool but move on!). Bay goes out of his way to fill the screen with wacky eccentrics (hey, let’s make the motel bouncer a little person! Hee hee!) and misses no opportunity for a juvenile gross-out. Really, we gotta’ see the severed digit again? And the hefty hospital guy’s bathroom accident? Of course, Bay’s noted misogyny is on full display. The ladies are either video-vixen bombshells or hateful shrews. All the better to sell an awful rape joke. Oooo, edgy! Via the constant title cards we’re told this is a true story although many characters endure injuries that should put them in traction without slowing their stride. Stick with the shoot-em-ups and building debris, Mr. Bay, movie comedy will live without your gifts. I was actually feeling embarrassment for the cast.

Said cast being composed of usually good actors, but they’re not given much here. Wahlberg is mostly frustrated and agitated when not getting in somebody’s face. Johnson ‘s Paul is there to mainly be the butt of countless jokes on his religion (adding fuel to the fire of the pro-value groups) with some homophobic and coke-snortin’ gags tossed in. Mackie is the panicky, fast-talkin’ soul man who, of course, has to have a thing for plus-sized white chicks (particularly the talented Rebel Wilson who’s neglected for much of the film). Shaloub can play arrogant D-bags in his sleep, so the Kershaw role is no great stretch. The very funny Rob Corddry (HOT TUB TIME MACHINE) is wasted as the clueless Gym owner. Ken Jeong riffs on his sneering HANGOVER persona as an infomercial huckster. The only actor that seems to really be playing a human being is Ed Harris as a determined private investigator.The few scenes with his wife (played by Emily Rutherfurd) have a real warmth lacking in the rest of the tawdry tedium. Ah, better cut from them and go back to the chases and boobs! Even a terrific actor like Harris can’t class up this mess. It’s like seeing a beloved teacher cleaning an outhouse. There’s not a thing to be gained from all this movie going pain, but because of Mr. Harris I’ll give it…

1 Out of 5

A former member of the revolutionary militant group the Weather Underground goes on the run after a journalist outs him in THE COMPANY YOU KEEP, a political thriller directed by Robert Redford and based on Neil Gordon’s novel. It’s a film that touches on the costs of political commitment, specifically the fervent activism of young college kids in the ’60s who, swept up in the revolutionary moment, took actions that they pay for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, it’s not as thought-provoking, or as political, as it sounds. Since Redford doesn’t have the guts to either condemn or applaud the Weather Underground radicals, THE COMPANY YOU KEEP basically boils down to one long, boring chase. There’s a subject here for a good movie, perhaps even a great one, but this isn’t it.

Redford, Susan Sarandon, Richard Jenkins, Nick Nolte and Julie Christie  play former ‘Weathermen’ from the ‘60s who have all shed their identities and now are hiding in plain sight as lawyers, housewives, college professors, and pot runners (I guess Jane Fonda was busy) . Turns out that one of their robberies decades ago resulted in the death of a bank guard. Oops! Redford (looking every one of his 76 years here) plays Jim Grant, a widowed Albany lawyer with an 11-year old daughter (!) who for decades has hidden the fact that he is wanted as an accomplice in that fatal robbery. His cover’s blown when one of his fellow terrorists (Susan Sarandon), a housewife living under an assumed name, is arrested by the FBI. Ambitious young reporter Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf) begins investigating her old comrades and Grant, feeling the heat, goes underground again, seeking help from other ex-radicals. Some remain true to their old beliefs; others want no reminders of their past affiliations. Grant, with the feds (lead by Terrence Howard and Anna Kendrick) on his trail, puts his long-dormant survival skills to use while wondering who to trust.

In a twist you could see coming with your eyes closed, it turns out (…mild Spoiler Warning…) Grant wasn’t at the fatal bank robbery after all and the script for THE COMPANY YOU KEEP by Lem Dobbs spends most of its time on the clever, THE FUGITIVE-style maneuvers Grant uses to exonerate himself. Redford gives us scenes that are supposed to be tense, such as one where Grant hands off his daughter to his brother (Chris Cooper) in the lobby of a hotel surrounded by police looking for him and another similar one on a subway train. These getaway chase scenes are poorly paced and blandly directed, containing not a speck of suspense. Much of the problem is Redford himself. Not only does he exhibit creaky directorial skills, he’s far too old for the lead role. Redford would have been in college in the mid 50’s, not the late ‘60s. He seems like a stiff old man, his wrinkled face lacking urgency. Worse is LaBeouf, who overacts like he’s in a roadshow version of The Front Page. I’m surprised he’s not wearing a fedora and a pencil in his ear. Watch him bug his eyes out when he first spots lovely Brit Marling as Redford and Christie’s long-abandoned daughter (don’t ask). Nolte and Jenkins have the most fun with their roles but one crime Redford is guilty of is making Julie Christie look tired and unglamorous (a first!).

While I wouldn’t say Redford glorifies the Weather Underground with THE COMPANY YOU KEEP, he certainly looks at them through rose-colored glasses, mostly ignoring their legacy of violence and murder. The film is never quite clear on what it thinks about these domestic terrorists – not about whether these individual members were guilty or innocent, but whether they were good or bad. THE COMPANY YOU KEEP is about people who made a choice while young and foolish and are living with the consequences of their actions. During the course of the film these characters should have to re-evaluate their decisions but they don’t. Why did this group of privileged kids declare war on their government? Do they feel regret for their actions? Is it really heroic to leave your loved ones behind just to save your own skin? Only one scene in THE COMPANY YOU KEEP attempts to address these questions and it’s a powerful one where Susan Sarandon delivers a strident if queasy jailhouse speech on how, if given the chance, she’d do it all again. Problem is, she delivers this discourse with such conviction that there seems to be no way this remorseless woman could have kept it bottled up for so many years. But it’s a good scene, the only time the movie really comes alive, and it’s when you realize what a livelier film this would be if Redford would have just gone for broke and given in to his (and much of his cast’s) left wing instincts. As it is, nothing seems passionate or genuine in THE COMPANY YOU KEEP and I can’t recommend it.

2 of 5 stars

THE COMPANY YOU KEEP opens in St. Louis April 25th at (among other places) Landmark’s Plaza Frontenac Theater