Author: Jim Batts

Jim Batts was a contestant on the movie edition of TV's "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" in 2009 and has been a member of the St. Louis Film Critics organization since 2013.

Review: STONE

A popular film genre(or sub-genre) over the years is the steamy, southern gothic drama encompassing everything from THE LONG,HOT, SUMMER to BODY HEAT. STONE is the genre’s newest entry which boasts several actors with impressive resumes.

The film opens on a steaming summer’s day (complete with insect noises on the soundtrack) as a young woman confronts a young man intent on watching a televised golf match.This is intercut with footage of a bee trying to get in thru their little girl’s upstairs bedroom. When the woman threatens to leave, the man storms upstairs to the bedroom and dangles the little girl out of the second story window. “You go and I’ll drop her!” he yells. The woman consents to stay and he bring the girl back inside. The woman slams the window shut on the bee(symbolic?). Quick cut to an older couple sitting in church.It appears that the young couple is now Robert DeNiro(as Jack Mabry) and Frances Conroy(as Jack’s wife Madylyn). We soon learn that Jack works with the parole board at the local prison and is counting the days till his retirement. He endures the monotony of his job(and home life) until he’s jolted awake by one inmate, Gerald “Stone” Creeson(Ed Norton). He’s confrontational while still trying to convince Jack to help shorten his sentence for arson. For good measure “Stone” tells his wife Lucetta(Milla Jovovich) to get friendly with Jack. Soon Jack’s spending his evenings with her while “Stone” undergoes a spirtual awakening thanks to a pamphlet and an attack on a fellow con.

Director John Curran(THE PAINTED VEIL, WE DON’T LIVE HERE ANYMORE) can’t seem to bring any life to the script from Angus Maclaclan(JUNEBUG). The film’s pace makes it seem like a never-ending humid July day. The actors are doing what they can, but they can’t rescue the film from being overwrought and pretentious. Norton seems to be re-working his thuggish, marble-mouthed character from AMERICAN X with tight cornrows instead of a skinhead. It’s good to see DeNiro out of the soft family comedies and back into a drama, but he’s got little to do besides going from a frustrated meek man to explosive anger.The sex scenes between him and Jovovich(complete with body double insert shots) are truly embarrassing. Speaking of embarrassing, the casting of Jovovich as the unhinged, female fatale opposite Deniro is ,at best, clumsy. I’m sure she’s been very good in the RESIDENT EVIL film series, but she just doesn’t have the chops to pull off a role that Kathleen Turner could’ve played in her sleep circa 1984. Frances Conroy has very little to do as the long-suffering, miserable wife. The director borrows a page from THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE by having snippets of religious talk radio playing throughout the soundtrack, but nothing can liven this up. I like the two main leads, but if you want to see an entertaining film with DeNiro and Norton, you’d be better of getting a copy of THE SCORE.

Overall Rating: 2 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Review: LIFE AS WE KNOW IT


As 2010’s movie year marches toward the big final holiday season Hollywood releases another attempt to capture the hearts(and cash) of romantic comedy fans. Veteran TV Director Greg Burlanti’s LIFE AS WE KNOW IT is Katherine Heigl’s second release this year(the other being the Ashton Kutcher co-starrer THE KILLERS). Clearly she’s attempting to find a spot in the genre recently dominated by Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts None since her movie break-thru role in KNOCKED UP can come close to these actresses’s rom-com classics. This film is no exception.

As the film opens, Holly and “Messer”(Josh Duhamel) meet cute at a botched blind date set up by their mutual friends Peter and Alison ( Hayes MacArthur and the radiantly beautiful Christina Hendricks. Yup, I’m a big Mad Men fan.) I mean what guy takes a booty call at the start of a date? Here they’re established as the up-tight, focused career woman and the arrested adolescent man. When their mutual friends get married, Holly and “Messer” are forced into many uncomfortable social situations. How original. Then, after Peter and Alison are married and have a beautiful baby girl, Sophie, tragedy strikes. An auto accident claims the couple and surprisingly the baby’s guardians are the fussing, fighting singles. Conveniently(very) the gorgeous suburban house is all paid for, so the two decide to movie in together to raise Sophie in the familiar surroundings. Will they clash? Will they eventually warm up to each other? Will there be lots of baby poop jokes? If you’ve never seen a film before, you might be sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense.  For the rest of us it’s one cliché’ after another.

So if you’ve seen the trailers and commercials you pretty much know where this is going. This is filmmaking at its most lazy and predictable. Heigl seems to be in a rut as the chilly professional gal that just needs to lighten up a little in order to find her dream man. Duhamel get to show more of his talk-show-interview charm here than in another Transformers flick, but is ill served by the writers making him so obnoxious in many scenes. Josh Lucas is a terrific actor wasted in the thankless role of Holly’s would be suitor, the handsome doctor. This is a perfect example of the rom-com stereotype spoofed in the much funnier 2005 comedy THE BAXTER.  In order to not get too mired in the constant bickering scenes many comic actors familiar from network and cable TV are trotted out as funny co-workers, loopy neighbors(MadTV’s Will Sasso, Mike& Molly’s Melissa McCarthy, Eastbound and Down’s Andrew Daly, and from Best Week Ever Rob Huebel and Jessica St, Clair) and a wisecracking cabbie(COUPLES RETREAT’s Faizon Love). I will say that they make excellent use of the Atlanta locations. All in all there’s not one joke here that you don’t see roaring up Highway 75. Whenever a scene starts to fall flat the screen cuts to big close-up of the smiling,winking tyke. The state of the Hollywood romantic comedy is pretty poor shape these days. At least there’s something at the multiplex you can  take Mom or Grammy to that won’t offend them. Or surprise them.

My rating: 1.5  OUT OF 5 STARS

Review: MADEMOISELLE CHAMBON

Affairs have been the subject of many dramatic films thru the years. NOW VOYAGER and BRIEF ENCOUNTER concern men and women sharing a short doomed romance. Add France’s MADEMOISELLE CHAMBON directed by Stephane Brize to this long list, As opposed to other explorations of this theme, this film tries to show how this affair would occur between members of the French working class.

The film opens with a man wielding a jackhammer at a home renovation project. This is Jean played by Vincent Lindon( he reminds me of Ben Stiller crossed with  the hangdog expressions of Brad Garret). We then see Jean on a picnic with his adoring wife Anne-Marie(Aure Atika) and sweet young son Jeremy(Arthur Le Houerou). Both Jean and Anne-Marie are attentive parents who try and help Jeremy with his lessons after the meal. Anne-Marie is soon back at her print shop job while Jean tends to his aged, demanding, widowed father. One day Jean shows up at Jeremy’s school to take him to Anne-Marie who has injured her back at work. It is at the school where Jean meets Jeremy’s teacher Veronique Chambon(Saundrine Kiberlain). Jean is immediately taken aback by her . She asks him if he would be available to speak to the class on the monthly father career day as the scheduled speaker had just cancelled. Jean agrees and returns later to field many articulate questions about home building from the enthusiastic schoolchildren. After class Veronique asks if Jean could take a look at a leaky window at her apartment. He also agrees to this and after inspecting the window he says he needs to be replaced. Upon his return with his supplies and tools Jean sees a violin and photos of her playing the instrument. He coaxes her into playing a classical piece for him. Jean is moved by the beauty of the music. She loans him several CDs and when Jean returns them the two quickly fall into each others’ arms. What will they do with this intense attraction?

This question is explored in the script by Brize and Florence Vignon based on Eric Holder’s novel. Besides their physical attraction Jean and Veronique don’t seem to have much in common beside their enjoyment of classical violin. He has a loving family, but seems a bit bored by his job and having to handle his grumpy dad. She seems a bit lonely after having to transfer to a new town at the end of every school year. The acting is very good throughout. Lindon really conveys Jean’s frustration at trying to decide what to do . He even lashes out at his wife and co-workers. Kiberlain expresses a longing sadness as she listens to an answering machine message from her mother reminding her of her sister’s successful career and marriage. Unfortunately Jean’s frustration becomes the viewer’s as several characters behave in illogical ways late in the story. I suppose the filmmakers are trying to show how desire affects people. It just makes it more difficult to invest in the characters as they must make many possible life-changing decisions. At the end of  it we’re left with a portrait of two people who have made poor choices. I appreciate the skill of those involved , I just wished I could’ve gotten a bit more out of it emotionally.

My rating: THREE OUT OF FIVE STARS

WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE HOLDING ST. LOUIS AUDITIONS

WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE HOLDING ST. LOUIS AUDITIONS

Now dear movie fans, you may be wondering what this has to do with the world of cinema (besides being central to the plot of SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE). Well, every year the national syndicated show devotes a week (five half hour episodes) exclusively to movie trivia! That’s right, all movie questions! And they’ll be giving the try-out tests for those special shows along with the general knowledge test in St. Louis! Here’s the location and dates: Monday, October 11 from 7 to 11 AM they’ll be giving the tests at the Lumiere Theater in the beautiful Lumiere Casino on the landing in St. Louis.

Here’s a few pointers. Why should I be giving out audition tips, you ask. Well I, Jim Batts, was a contest  on Who Wants to be Millionaire’s Netflix Million Dollar Movie Week during the 2008-2009 season(I‘m the big, grinning doofus rockin‘ the Snooki-colored sweater in the photo above). And it was one incredible adventure! So I want to see another St. Lou movie geek grab some big bucks! First, if you haven’t seen the show since Regis was ruling prime time you need to check out the Monday thru Friday nationally syndicated  version airing here in STL on KPLR,CW11 at 11 AM. They run classic episodes at 11:30 AM and are currently rerunning last season (who knows, I might pop up again there soon). You want to watch  the earlier show, since they underwent a big format change with this season. When the show went into syndication with Meredith Vieira hosting they did away with the fastest finger. With the new shows the hot seat is history along with the $50,000 question. Ms. V and the contestant now stand at a lighted podium and both read the questions off a giant monitor. The first ten  questions take you to $25,000, but the dollar amounts and range of difficulty are randomly scrambled and hidden. The first question may not be the toughest and it might be worth several thousand bucks. You still have lifelines (including the popular ask-the-audience) , but there’s just three total. The two others are jump-the question in which you can skip over a question. Trouble is the dollar amount of that skipped question will not be available. The final four questions ($100,000 to the million) are back to the classic format. If you miss a question during the first ten you leave with a grand. If you fold, you’ll leave with half of the money you’ve accumulated. You should get the hang of the new format after watching a couple of shows.

Enough of that, you’re ready to go to that audition! I know that 7 AM is mighty early( and if you get on the show you‘ll have to be at the studio around that time), but give yourself time to shower , shave, and roll or spray on some deodorant (but take it easy with the cologne and perfume). We don’t want to knock out the staffers. Pick out some nice duds. You don’t have to wear a suit and a tie, but don’t wear anything with a lot of holes or too distressed. I guess business casual would be the way to go. You may have a great T-shirt with your favorite star or movie scene on the front, but you may as well leave it at home. When you get picked for the show, they’ll give you a big list of wardrobe no-nos (especially clothes with logos and images). I brought along my Bogart necktie to wear, but it got nixed by the legal department!

It’s time to take the audition test. Gotta’ make sure you knows your movies! I’m not sure what kind of test they’re giving now, but I can tell you about the one I took back in June 08. It was a 30 question multiple choice test that had to be completed in 10 minutes.  Like the old SAT tests, we had to fill in little circles on a card with a good ole’ number two pencil. It might be a good idea to bring along a mechanical pencil and an ink pen just in case. The questions I got ran the gamut from golden age classics to recent releases. Not sure what the grading curve was, but I’m pretty sure I got two questions wrong. Before I went to audition some friends suggested I try not to get every question right because they may be afraid of letting on someone who might win it all. I disagree. I believe the producers want contestants who really know their stuff and will go all the way. Big winners attract viewers, so do your very best.

After the test you’re told to come back later for an interview. Great! Passing the test is the first big hurtle. Kill some time by enjoying a nice lunch at the casino or one of the fine restaurants on the Landing. Maybe you could head over to Union Station and have a caricature drawn (shameless plug)! Now about that interview. You’ll probably be videotaped so the folks back in NYC can decide on who gets to play. Consider this like a job interview. Smile, be energetic (but don’t talk to fast) ,be positive, and try to forget that the camera’s there. Knowing your stuff is important, but they don’t want someone who’ll freeze up with Meredith between questions.

That’s about all the advice I can offer. Three weeks after I returned from the auditions(lucky you, I had to go to NYC to try out) I got a postcard saying that I was in the contestant pool. It was not a guarantee that I’d be on the show, but it said that I may get a phone call from them with a date to be at the studio. This prompted me to finally get a cell phone, because if you can’t pick the call live, you’ll only have 24 hours to get back to them. I was scared that my old answering machine would fail me. You’ll probably have to pick up the tab for travel to NYC and a room, but they should be able to recommend a good travel agent and hotel. Even though they can’t guarantee that you’d get to play that day (usually 5 shows are taped in one day)  it’s certainly worth taking a chance. I was certain that I wouldn’t get to play, but ended up being the last contestant at the end of the fifth show. What an experience! I’m a bit envious of you. Having played the game, I can’t return to the show( unless they do a “tournament of champions” special week. I can dream), so go down there and have fun. I hope you win more than me. And if you don’t pass the test or aren’t put in the contest pool, you can say that at least you gave it a try. For more details go to millionairetv.com or KPLR11.com. Best O’ luck!

And that’s my final answer!

Review: THE SOCIAL NETWORK

THE SOCIAL NETWORK

A few months ago the release of this film’s trailer elicited a few snickers from movie fans. They’re doing a feature film on Facebook?  Then the word came out that this had a script by Aaron Sorkin (A FEW GOOD MEN) and was directed by David Fincher (ZODIAC). The chuckles ended and movie fans were curious. Finally filmgoers can satisfy their curiosity and experience one of this year’s best  motion pictures.

The film begins in the Fall of 2003 where Mark Zuckerberg is having a beer with his girlfriend at pub frequented by college students. Mark vents his frustration at the different final clubs at Harvard in a terrifically written scene and ends up insulting his companion. She dumps him and storms out . Mark runs back to his room in order to slam her on his blog. After downing a few beers he decides to hack into several websites (with the help of his best pal, Eduardo Saverin) and set up a new site, Face smash, which lets viewers rate the hotter of two different co-eds. The overwhelming popularity of the site causes the school’s servers to crash and Mark is called on the carpet by school officials, thus giving him a rep as the go-to webmaster. Mark is soon approached by the Winklevoss twins ( two exclusive campus club members also heading the rowing team) to help them set up a Harvard student dating website. After promising to work on it, Mark asks Eduardo to bankroll his idea to set  up his own school social network site. Soon the site expands to several other colleges while Mark and Eduardo start to become big men on campus. On a trip to LA seeking funds to expand the site they meet Sean Parker of Napster fame. Sean captivates Mark by telling him off the big financial possibilities of his site, while Eduardo is a bit more skeptical. Meanwhile the twins hear of Mark’s success after having finally been brushed by him about their dating site plans. Eventually Mark moves to the West Coast to expand the site with Sean while Eduardo goes to NYC to get more sponsors. Soon  Eduardo and Mark clash over the business. The film intercuts between the two deposition hearings brought on by Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins( with Divya Narendra) against Mark.

Every aspect of this film is excellent. Fincher has assembled a top flight cast. In a neat bit of technical wizardry Armie Hammer plays the Winklevoss twins (Armie’s head was digitally grafted on to actor Josh Pence’s body in most scenes) and really conveys their frustration . NEVER LET ME GO’s Andrew Garfield makes Saverin a great tragic figure and is very strong in his big confrontation scenes at Facebook HQ. I look forward to seeing his take on Spider-Man is in the  upcoming  film series reboot. Pop star Justin Timberlake continues to surprise with perhaps his best film performance yet as the charismatic Parker. He has really expanded on the acting skills that he first displayed hosting SNL. The real stand out is Jesse Eisenberg’s surprisingly powerful performance as Zuckerberg. At times arrogant, other times vulnerable, Eisenberg helps make Mark one of the more complex movie characters ever. I was first aware of Jesse thru his great work as the oldest son in THE SQUID AND THE WHALE,  and enjoyed his comic turns in AVENTURELAND and ZOMBIELAND, but then was concerned that he’d become stuck in the earnest, nerdy guy rut. Some friends of mine even confused him with Michael Cera. Eisenberg breaks free of that teen geek mold with this work. It helps that he’s been given the fantastic dialogue of Aaron Sorkin adapting  Ben Mezrich’s book THE ACCIDENTAL BILLIONAIRES. The lines between Mark and Erica in the opening sequence crackle and make it the best “worst” date scene ever. Of course all of Sorkin’s great work would be for naught without a great director at the wheel. After making his name as an exceptionally gifted visual director of thrillers (SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB), David Fincher shows that he can make a compelling down-to earth very human story and get great work from this young group of actors. THE SOCIAL NETWORK raises many questions about ethics, loyalty, and responsibility and gives moviegoers a lot to think about after leaving the theater. It addresses a subject unique to the new century and while some fads may be forgotten, THE SOCIAL NETWORK will be long remembered as a great piece of cinema.

MY RATING : Five out of Five Stars

B&B Theatres Wildwood 10 Opens!

Besides bringing cooler Fall temperatures, the first of October has brought a new state of the art movie showcase to the St. Louis area. B & B Theatres (the 25th biggest national theatre chain dating back to 1924 with locations also in Florida, Oklahoma, and Kansas) opened their Wildwood 10 theatres. The morning before the grand opening to the public, this writer got to take an advance peek courtesy of B & B’s director of Marketing, Bobbie Bagby (representing the fourth generation to work in the family’s theatre operations). The facility is part of the Westwood Town Center shopping village a few miles west of St. Louis. Here’s what the exterior looked like that morning.

Just inside the theatre, across from the front entrance is the self service kiosk where you may pick up tickets ordered in advance. The monitor above displays feature showtimes.

Those patrons who do not purchase their tickets in advance can walk to the right and pay for their movie tickets at the fully stocked concession stand. This way tickets and snacks can be put on the same charge card. Beside the usual movie concession fare, they offer freshly spun cotton candy. A self service seasoning and butter counter is off to the left of the stand. And unlike most theaters, the concession will not close a few minutes after the beginning of the last screening. Instead they’ll provide treats till the end of the final late film.

Going down the hallway to the auditoriums you can enjoy the framed movie posters and future releases along the grey, black, and red art deco-themed corridors. You can also take a look at the digital heart of the theatre. All the films are projected digitally and the computer banks can be seen thru glass display doors.

All of the auditoriums feature stadiums seating (with 16 inches between your seat and the next row allowing more room to move), plush high back rocking chairs, and cup holders. In the center of the auditoriums is the Grand Screen with a massive 56 foot wall to wall screen and all encompassing Dolby 7.1 Surround sound(all the screens feature this sound system).

These eight screens offer exceptional viewing enjoyment, but what really sets Wildwood 10 apart from your neighborhood multiplex are the two Marquee Suites. The suites seat 48 and 52 patrons respectively for a more intimate viewing experience. They’re available to guests over 21 who can enter the them thru a separate side entrance. Outside the auditoriums is a lounge area where guest can relax at several tables prior to showtime.

Marquee Suite guests can enjoy their own private concession stand which offers alcoholic beverages, appetizers, flatbread pizzas and traditional movie snacks. If a food selection is not ready by the film’s start time the guest is given a pager device to tell them when to return to the stand (no waiters serving food in the theatre blocking the screen).

Inside the Suite theatres granite table tops for resting concession items are located between every two seats (which are larger leather recliners). This makes the Suite a perfect spot for couples enjoying a “date night” or a fellow looking to impress on that very first date.

A few hours after my tour it was time to return for the big opening ceremony. Moviegoers lined up on the red carpet waiting to be the first to experience the new facility.

An hour before the first film start time, and after some opening remarks from the mayor and the B & B owners and family, the ribbon was cut (actually a strip of film clipped by a movie slate).

First-nighters enjoyed complimentary popcorn, sodas, and the music of a jazz trio.

Fortunately I was able to enjoy the premiere Grand Screen showing of THE SOCIAL NETWORK. The seats were very comfortable with plenty of ample leg room. The picture quality on the massive screen was sharp, bright, and crisp. I did not miss any of Aaron Sorkin’s great dialogue thanks to the impeccable sound system. A superb night at the movies. B & B Theatres Wildwood 10 is a great addition to the St. Louis film scene. You can find ticket prices and showtimes at their website www.bbtheatres.com, become a fan on Facebook here, and follow them on Twitter here

Review: GENIUS WITHIN: THE INNER LIFE OF GLEN GOULD

GENIUS WITHIN: THE INNER LIFE OF GLEN GOULD

Going into this documentary directed by Michele Hozer and Peter Raymont my knowledge of Glen Gould was limited to the fact that an earlier documentary, THIRTY-TWO SHORT FILMS ABOUT GLEN GOULD(1993), had inspired a classic episode of THE SIMPSONS(1996’sTWENTY TWO SHORT FILMS ABOUT SPRINGFIELD). Therefore the story of Glen Gould’s life as one of Canada’s most celebrated classical pianists was all new to me. Gould’s life and career was not one that most people would expect of such an artist.

Born in 1932, Glen Gould showed a talent for music at a very early age. A Toronto childhood friend tells of many nights in which Gould would stay at the piano almost till dawn. He had developed the habit of singing along  while tapping out the compositions. Soon he would be performing public concerts and playing over the airwaves of Canadian radio. The recording industry soon  wanted him on their classical label, The filmmakers have included some promotional footage from the early 50’s of Gould’s arrival in NYC  and encounter with a colorful cabbie(“Piano player, eh? Longhair or boogie-woogie?”). We get to see Gould embark on a series of concerts that would eventually take him to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War in 1957. There Gould was a sensation(according to an on-camera eyewitness) and his concert stay was extended. The TV footage of Gould around this time presents a very unique performer. Besides his singing and long unkempt hair, he preferred to use an old wooden folding chair his father modified so he was only 13 inches off the ground and made him hunch over the keyboard. An interview at his beach home shows Gould in his usual casual attire of a flat cap, large overcoat, long, flowing scarf, and gloves that he kept on all year round. We then are told of a minor scandal in the classical music world when Leonard Bernstein spoke before one of their NY concerts and told the audience that he did not agree with some of Gould’s interpretation of Brahms. While in NYC Gould became friends of another pianist and his wife. We learn of the romance between Gould and the wife later thru interviews with her and her children. The filmmakers also include some very funny footage of Gould cavorting on a beach in the Bahamas with bikini-clad dancer.

At the height of his popularity Gould stopped playing public concerts in 1964. In a curious career move he began producing documentaries for Canadian radio. His subjects ranged from the residents of the upper north of the country to pop star Petula Clark(Ms. Clark discusses this on camera). Gould’s editor talks of the warm relationship between the two and how Gould looked into legally making him his brother. Many more recordings and televisions specials followed until Gould was felled by a massive stroke and  passed away in 1982 just weeks after his fiftieth birthday.

The film is told in a leisurely, straight forwarded fashion. The talking head interviews are split up with old film and TV interviews and footage of a look alike actor roaming the lonely streets. I found the images of Gould at the piano very compelling, but I didn’t quite get at the source of his passion. I’m sure there’s an involving film to be made of this conflicted genius’s story, but this telling didn’t absorb me. The editing and camera are excellent and kudos for going without a narrator. Add a star if you’re a big classical piano fan.

MY RATING: THREE  AND A HALF OUT OF FIVE STARS

Review: NANNY MCPHEE RETURNS

Here’s a movie intended for the youngest of audiences that’s full of many pleasant surprises. NANNY MCPHEE RETURNS is a sequel to 2005’s NANNY NCPHEE. I didn’t see the original, so I came in with a fresh set of eyes having only seen the trailers. These trailers seemed to just focus on various characters falling in the mud and poo(warning parents: you get to hear that word about 25 times in the first half hour) and shots of the adorable farm animals. Happily the film itself has much more to offer than slapstick.

The film opens in the English countryside during World War II ( although WWII is never spoken during the film, it’s just referred to as the war). Mrs. Green (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal as a woman in dire need of rest) is running a small farm with the help of her two sons and daughter and managing a general store with help(sometimes) from the dotty, daffy Mrs. Docherty (Maggie Smith) while Green’s  husband is serving in the war. On this morning the very frazzled Mrs. Green is expecting a visit from her sister’s son and daughter, who will spend the rest of the war at the Green farm. The city kids are rich, spoiled brats who immediately turn up their noses at living on the farm and battle the Green children. In reference to WWII rationing, the kids had been saving sugar stamps for a small jar of homemade jam for their father which the snobby cousin Cyril smashes on the floor. Mrs. Green is at her wits end when the general store’s shelves (which Mrs. Docherty had filled with syrup) open and close while repeating, ”Nanny McPhee is who you need”. Of course the magical caregiver appears. An imposing woman dressed in black, her face a collection of hairy warts and moles(complete with a large pug nose, unibrow, and single snaggle tooth), and armed with a large, curved wooden cane. This is not Mary Poppins!  Returning to the Green farm, she immediately uses her magic to get the children in line. Through the film she teaches the children how to get along and helps Mrs. Green fend off her brother-in-law Phil(Rhys Ifans) who wants her to sign away the farm to settle his gambling debts(he’s trying to keep ahead of the casino’s debt collectors: two very funny blonde sisters).

As I mentioned earlier there’s a good amount of slapstick scenes involving Phil and the children. Also Nanny uses her magic to utilize the farm animals to teach the kids. There’s some well done CGI effects on display especially with a baby elephant and six little piglets with a penchant for Esther Williams water ballets. The photography of the English landscape is gorgeous and the art direction and costuming are superb. A visit to wartime London (complete with dirigibles floating overhead) is impressive. Gyllenaal does a respectable British accent and the kids are cute without be cloying.  What surprised me the most were several scenes dealing with how a family copes while the father is at war and a heartbreaking sequence that deals with the effect of divorce on children. This may open up a few discussions on the way home. The film moves at a brisk pace and should hold the attention of  most pre-schoolers. More importantly any adults who escort them should find it a pleasant way to spent a trip to the movies It’s may not be Pixar-quality, but at least it’s not full of pop culture references, crotch hits, and bubble gum tunes. As I said earlier: a pleasant surprise.

Overall rating: 4 STARS OUT OF 5

Review: PATRIK, AGE 1.5

In recent years adoption stories have become a staple of made for cable movies. Director Ella Lemhagen’s PATRIK, AGE 1.5 is a departure from many of these formulaic TV movies. Besides being made for cinemas it focuses on the efforts of two married gay men in Sweden who decide to start a family. We first meet Goran (Gustaf Skarsgard) as he and his husband, Sven (Torkel Peterson), meet their new neighbors at a block party. Everything in this little neighborhood is full of bright colors similar to the suburbs of Tim Burton’s EDWARD SCISSORHANDS. The residents are slightly surprised at the couple, but soon welcome them warmly. Later Goran looks longingly at the parents playing with their young children. They soon visit a adoption agency to find out how their application for a child is progressing. The men are told that no country wants to offer a child to a gay couple. Goran quickly states that a Swedish child would be fine (even Danish!). Back at their home they are visited by Sven’s still bitter ex-wife Eva (Annika Hallin) and his surly teenage daughter Isabell (Amanda Davin). It’s hoped that a baby in the house will inspire more frequent visits by Isabell. Later we see Sven in his job at an office in the city while Goran settles into his new position as a doctor at the town’s clinic. Finally they receive a letter with good news. A boy, Patrik, age 1.5 will be living with them. Goran joyfully busies himself by turning one of the rooms into a nursery for the eighteen month old complete with a TV monitor. The men are stunned when fifteen year old Patrik arrives. They take him back to the agency just before the office is to close for a three day weekend. Sven retrieves Patrik’s file and learns of his violent record. The men soon learn of Patrik’s homophobic streak. Later the directors of the agency admit to the misprint on the adoption letter. This sets up many questions for the rest of the film. Will they give Patrik back to the agency where he may never be part of a home? How will this affect the relationship of Goran and Sven? What will be the reaction of the neighborhood to this unusual family?

Ella Lemhagen keeps the story moving at a very relaxed pace. The performances of the leads are all very good particularly Gustaf Skarsgard as the quiet complex Goran. The opening scenes suggest a whimsy that’s not followed up later in the film. The people of the neighborhood are not developed fully. They seem to be of the “desperate, repressed suburbanite” cliche. This “dramedy” seems weighted more on the drama side. I can’t say any of the story points surprised me, but I enjoyed seeing this controversial subject manner from the Swedish viewpoint. A well made, if a bit predictable film.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Review: GREAT DIRECTORS

Filmmaker Angela Ismailos decides that the best way to learn about cinema is by interviewing several veteran movie directors. This is the central idea for the new documentary, THE GREAT DIRECTORS. I would say that the film offers an overview of the world’s best filmmakers, but the interview subjects are from North America and Europe. It’s a shame that the Middle East, Asia, India, and Australia are not represented. Perhaps they will be included in a follow-up sequel. The directors included offer some interesting insights into the history of cinema.

A talk with Italian filmmaker, Bernardo Bertolucci who relates a story about a childhood encounter with Pier Paolo Pasolini that sparked an interest in cinema, begins the film. Later he talks about his work including his censor problems over LAST TANGO IN PARIS (some countries banned it for decades). In France we meet Catherine Briellant who also had many battles over sex scenes in her films such as A REAL YOUNG GIRL. Ismailos talks with another French female director, Agnes Varda, about her New Wave film, CLEO 5 TO 7. A jump across the pond takes us to one of the more animated cinema personalities, David Lynch. He talks about his first big film, ERASERHEAD, and how midnight theatre audiences embraced it. He was then brought into the major studio system by Mel Brooks(!) to make a film of the stage hit THE ELEPHANT MAN. Lynch offers a warning to beginning filmmakers by way of his difficulties bringing DUNE to the screen (“Always get final cut!”). This may be the reason that TV versions of DUNE include a director credit to Alan Smithee. Luckily Lynch was given complete freedom with BLUE VELVET and continued on to make many interesting films. In England we meet Ken Loach and Stephen Frears, who both got their start directing films for the BBC until political forces sent them into theatrical feature films. Loach seems content to make the smaller budget dramas and comedies in Britain while Fears has enjoyed diving into the big budget studio films. Back in the USA, Todd Haynes and John Sayles are interviewed. Haynes talks of his admiration for Douglas Sirk and Rainer Werner Fassbinder, while Sayles relates stories of how he balances being a script doctor on big Hollywood films and making more personal small budget films. Italy’s Liliana Cavani tells of the controversy surrounding her most popular film, THE NIGHT PORTER. American Richard Linklater vents his frustration over the response to his first studio film, THE NEWTON BOYS. In all this documentary includes a good variety of different directors.

The style of this film is similar to many other documentaries. Most of the time we get close ups of the directors’ faces as they tell their stories inter-cut with scenes from their films. Unfortunately Ismailos occasionally feels the need to insert a reaction shot of her smiling or nodding at the subject during their interviews. To break things up we get to see her and the directors walking through their homes and neighborhoods similar to a 60 MINUTES piece or a Barbara Walters special. However the film moves along fairly quickly with the subjects edited in at different points so as to not just be featured in one long segment. It would have been nice to hear from some of the more popular box office directors like Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino, or Lucas, but if you have any interest in the featured filmmakers then it is well worth seeing. Also the many clips of their films offer some great ideas for movie rental nights.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars