Please enable javascript to view this site.

Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Movie Reviews

Jack Rico

By

2011/11/21 at 12:00am

My Week With Marilyn

11.21.2011 | By |

My Week With Marilyn

The mere thought of another movie based on Marilyn Monroe (‘Marilyn and Me’, ‘Marilyn & Bobby: Her Final Affair’, ‘Norma Jean & Marilyn’) might send shivers down the spine of many admirers and cinephiles who chide at the feeble attempts from Hollywood to recreate The Blonde Bombshell’s essence on screen. But ‘My Week with Marilyn’ should be the elixir to any and all types of derision. It is by far the best film of Monroe to ever be put on celluloid, mainly, due to the performance of Michelle Williams. She is Marilyn Monroe for all intents and purposes, and her performance will most assuredly be recognized by the Oscars with a nomination.

The movie is based on Colin Clark’s two memoirs – ‘The Prince, The Showgirl and Me’ and ‘My Week with Marilyn’. He was the third assistant director on the set of ‘The Prince and the Showgirl’, Marilyn Monroe’s first film as both producer and star in which she played opposite Sir Laurence Olivier, who also directed. The book recounts the production’s myriad problems, fueled almost exclusively by the lack of communication and understanding between the two stars: Monroe’s erratic behavior and tardiness were exacerbated by her addiction to alcohol and prescription medication; while Olivier, a staunch traditionalist, refused to accommodate Monroe‟s idiosyncrasies or her devotion to Method acting, which she practiced under the guidance of Paula Strasberg. In the second memoir, Clark affectionately remembers one enchanted week he spent leading the troubled Monroe on a tour of the English countryside. It offers an all-too-rare glimpse of the real woman beneath the carefully cultivated image, unencumbered by the busy machinery of stardom.

At its core, the film’s best attribute is its plotline. It is one of the most appealing and interesting stories of the year in film. I mean, how did a world-famous movie superstar at the height of her fame end up spending an intimate week traveling across England with a gopher from her film set? This is the stuff that men dream of everyday. Monroe’s clashes with Olivier, her anxiety about her marriage to Arthur Miller and her own insecurities about her talent made her deeply vulnerable. She was in need of a friend and through a series of incidents, she became very close and intimate in a platonic way with Colin Clark. He was always there and was non-threatening.

What also is undebatable is Michelle Williams performance. One of the toughest tasks asked by any director of his actresses is to embody Ms. Monroe. No one has been able to do it without evading some level of scorn, except Williams. She’s so good that the talk amongst many film critics, including myself, is that only Meryl Streep in ‘The Iron Lady’, can depose her of a Best Actress award at next year’s Oscar ceremony. Williams success lies in her ability to bring Marilyn to life by extracting all her complexities such as her mannerisms, vulnerabilities, diffidence, sexiness and vocal nuances. She did this while never raching the levels of impersonation.

Director Simon Curtis and scribe Adrian Hodges have done an excellent job in deftly capturing “the real Monroe” in her heyday, the backstage controversies of a movie shoot and an innocent love story. ‘My Week with Marilyn’ is one of my favorite movies of 2011. It awoke a dormant curiosity in me to know more about the surroundings of her death, what she really meant to the world and give her acting career another look. Was she really a great actress and not just a blonde bimbo? Fortunately for many of you, this film does a stupendous job in getting closer to that answer. If you love the 50’s, glamour and romance, and of course, curious about Marilyn Monroe herself, then don’t hesitate to watch this delightful and intriguing piece of film.

Karen Posada

By

2011/11/18 at 12:00am

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1

11.18.2011 | By |

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1

The highly anticipated fourth film of The Twilight Saga has finally arrived: Breaking Dawn-Part I. The last book of the series was broken up into two films, which was a wise choice since most of the harder to grip subjects occur in this last chapter.  This last film follows the vibe from the previous one in keeping along the lines of the book series, so for those that haven’t read the books keep your eyes and ears open so that you don’t get lost in all the mind twisting things that Meyer came up with here.

 

The film begins with the buzz from the wedding of Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson). Although the film is all about what to most people are happy occasions: marriage, honeymoon & pregnancy; there’s a tone of worry, tension and sadness all throughout that make the few happy moments tough to enjoy. The wedding itself seems just like a backdrop for the love triangle and although Stewart portrays well the nervousness of Bella during this happy occasion she doesn’t seem heartbroken to be saying her “goodbyes” to her friends, family and mortal life. The sexual tension in the honeymoon is definitely felt, the couple spends most of the time playing chess instead of enjoying the beautiful private island off the coast of Brazil. The lovey-dovey couple have a rude awakening when they encounter their first disagreement as a married couple: to bring a “monster” into the world or get rid of it.  There’s no real time frame here, the storyline seems to develop within a week. The character that seems to bring the most balance to the story is Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), although he’s hot headed, in this chapter he’s more of an adult and he helps for the three worlds mixed into this story (humans, werewolves and vampires) to not get too confusing for the audience.

 

The actors seem more comfortable with their characters in this film, they make them a lot more believable but they still need more work convincing us. At points the story-line gets overly dramatic for no reason and some actors seem to be by-standers that reappear from behind the shadows, which makes us want to scream at them and ask why they didn’t intervene earlier; since supposedly these are beings with more acute senses than us humans (Pattinson being the main example). All the tension culminates in the last 15 minutes of the movie when you are just waiting to see where it will get cut off. There’s so much happening towards the end that the characters try to narrate quickly about imprinting and immortal children.

 

For those that have read the book and even enjoyed the movies they will be happy with the result of this one because it stays true to the series. The few funny moments help ease over the soap opera atmosphere the movie reaches at times. For the squeamish ones there are some moments where the story gets very real and bloody so beware. This film helps mature the story and keeps it in range with its followers who are probably no longer teens but young adults. You will like the film if you don’t expect too much from it and remember that very little has changed in the sense that we are still seeing the same actors develop a story that just keeps getting more complicated and wacky. The second and final part of this chapter will come to us November 16th, 2012, which might be the end of the vampire craze that The Twilight Saga began.

Jack Rico

By

2011/11/17 at 12:00am

Jack Rico

By

2011/10/21 at 12:00am

Jack Rico

By

2011/10/12 at 12:00am

Trespass

10.12.2011 | By |

Trespass
Jack Rico

By

2011/10/07 at 12:00am

Jack Rico

By

2011/09/30 at 12:00am

Ted Faraone

By

2011/09/11 at 12:00am

Contagion

09.11.2011 | By |

Contagion

There are several things wrong with “Contagion,” the latest from helmer Steven Soderbergh.  The most egregious is Warner Bros.’ US marketing campaign which uses taglines including “The world goes viral September 9,” “Don’t talk to anyone,” “Don’t touch anyone,” and the heroic “Nothing spreads like fear.” Oh, please!

 

This is nothing more than a cynical attempt to hypo a less-than-average big-budget picture featuring a big-name cast who could have been used far better in another vehicle — almost any other vehicle.

 

Plot revolves around a pandemic, worse than SARS, worse than H1N1, and probably worse than AIDS, although none of the creators has the fortitude to say so in as many words.

 

Structure takes its cue from some successful pics, such as “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World,” “Crash” (2004), and “Babel,” wherein several storylines are intercut and woven into one.  Title cards help the exposition, of which pic is bedeviled by too much.

 

The big cheat comes into play in the final reel, where the origin of the pandemic, which is not exactly a mystery, is revealed in flashback.  To make matters worse, said revelation is no more than a bit of mudslinging at multinational corporations and at China.

 

Your critic has not brief for or against cross border businesses.  He couldn’t care less unless he owns stock in one of them.  The fictional corporation unwittingly at the heart of the “Contagion” pandemic is no more than a straw man set up in the final reel to give “Contagion” a degree of social significance — and create a villain for auds to hate.  Pic also takes a low view of Chinese agricultural hygiene, which shares blame for killing something like two or three percent of the world’s population.  Your critic also has little to say about China other than what Noël Coward wrote in “Private Lives”: “Very large.”  Malthusians should love this picture.  “Contagion” is sort of a bad version of “The Andromeda Strain.”

 

“Contagion” is billed as an action, sci-fi thriller.  Two out of three aren’t bad.  It falls short in the thriller part.  It does, however, boast a very attractive cast of stars including Matt Damon, pic’s sole sympathetic character, who appears to be immune to the disease, Marion Cotillard, who appears to be on her way to becoming the French Charlize Theron in that she never looks the same in two pictures, as a World Health Organization official, Kate Winslet as a US public health field agent, and Laurence Fishburne as the Centers for Disease Control honcho (also her boss) who directs the US end of the investigation into the pandemic.  Also central to the plot is Gwyneth Paltrow, who gets to appear without makeup, a mistake she should never again make in any picture, and who is central both in the opening and final reels to the denouement — even though she dies in pic’s first 20 minutes.  Jude Law appears in an unlikely role as a corrupt blogger attempting to profit from the pandemic.  His character’s name, Alan Krumwiede, is blatantly allegorical.

 

Give the filmmakers credit for sledge hammering home a point:  Paltrow in the opening reel is in Hong Kong on the phone with her boyfriend in Chicago discussing a tryst.  Her wedding and engagement rings take center screen.  If anyone thinks that this scarlet letter has nothing to do with pic’s action, he or she should go back under his rock.  This is about the most blatant giveaway your critic has ever seen.  She plays the Minneapolis-based Damon’s wife.

 

Another significant plot element is the official Chinese penchant for covering up disasters, even of the epidemiological sort, such as SARS.  Your critic had the benefit of the very attractive amateur film critic who makes her living as a doctor in international practice to confirm that pic is correct on the Chinese behavior as well as the medical facts.  Filmmakers at least got the context right.  But as the beautiful doctor also said, “If they found a guy like Matt Damon who was immune to the virus, they would have been all over him.”  “They” in this case are the US public health authorities.  In pic, Damon is more or less ignored or treated as a nuisance.

 

Unfortunately, in this ensemble pic, Damon is wasted to the extent that as its most sympathetic character, he does not get enough screen time.  Augmenting his role might have given auds someone for whom to root.

 

But pic’s biggest waste is the legendary Elliott Gould.  He gets only one fabulous moment, about half an-hour into pic, as a San-Francisco based epidemiologist who violates CDC orders to destroy his virus samples and gives the world its first real insight into the nature of the bug that kills almost without warning.  Note to filmmakers:  If you cast Elliott Gould, at least give him enough to do!  If you don’t believe your critic, have a look at “The Caller” (2008).

 

In pic’s favor are staccato scenes, one right after another, which move the plot along.  It has no fat.  It is short on character development, but it is clear that other than Jude Law, pic’s bad guy is the germ, and it’s tough to write dialogue for a microbe. Title cards help put pic’s action in chronological context.  About two thirds of the way through, “Contagion” develops a breakdown of society, a theme Fernando Meirelles handled so much more eloquently in “Blindness.”  Unfortunately, Soderbergh does not rise to Meireilles’ hights.

 

“Contagion” carries a PG-13 rating.  It runs 105 minutes but feels longer.  Editing by Stephen Mirrione is crisp.  Lensing by director Steven Soderbergh, himself, is workmanlike but displays a few flaws.  Sound recording could be better.  Some key lines of dialogue are inaudible.  Production design is more than adequate, and kudos go to Howard Cummings for keeping it simple and straightforward.  Thesps all turn in above par performances.  It’s a pity that Scott Z. Burns’ screenplay and Soderbergh’s direction make “Contagion” less than the sum of its parts.  It will depend on star power, which it has in spades, for revenue.  Take the kids.  They’ll probably laugh at the unintentional humor in a picture utterly devoid of comic relief.  A professional screening audience did.

Jack Rico

By

2011/08/19 at 12:00am

Conan the Barbarian

08.19.2011 | By |

Conan the Barbarian

‘Conan the Barbarian’ is by far one of the cheesiest movies of 2011, yet, the gory violence is so ubiquitous in the film that action fans are going to enjoy it. The acting is second rate, the dialogue is abominable and the editing is dizzying. By no means is this a good film. Quite frankly, this is as bad as they come. But the film has such an uncanny ability to make fun of itself that the shortfalls are ignored. What prevails is the applause for the gore, which is a testament to how twisted we are as a society. I’ll leave it at that for now, but it’s worth the conversation some other time.

Here’s the synopsis of the movie: A quest that begins as a personal vendetta for the fierce Cimmerian warrior soon turns into an epic battle against hulking rivals, horrific monsters, and impossible odds, as Conan (Jason Momoa) realizes he is the only hope of saving the great nations of Hyboria from an encroaching reign of supernatural evil. 

The first opening sequence is just ridiculous as we see the birth of Conan during battle. The way he is brought out of the womb of his mother is so laughable that you are ready to either walk out or stay to see how worse it can get. Then the extreme violence kicks in as young Conan slices and dices some tribal assassins. What we ultimately get is entertainment on two levels: a) A bad movie that we can satisfyingly laugh at without shame, and b) the brutality and savagery of the violence which is where the movie makes its mark.

The re-imagination of this ‘Conan’ is nothing like the Arnold Schwarzenegger versions from the 80’s except in story, but that’s attributed solely to the Robert E. Howard books. Jason Momoa, the man who plays the new Conan, brings a vastly different approach than what Arnold brought to his character. Momoa is more like a lion, ferocious and cruel, dark and cold blooded. Think of Sean Connery and Daniel Craig’s James Bond. Two drastic approaches to the same character.

The rest of the cast is filler and worth a laugh or two. Ron Perlman, who plays Conan’s father, once again delivers a heavy dose of risible bad acting. Everything from his face to his delivery is just funny. When you see this movie know that you’re watching a lousy film, but one that you’ll acknowledge the entertainment value in. The characters grow on you and the masculinity of the film is just to chortle at for hours.

The 3D is subpar and nothing I would recommend paying extra for. Momoa directly told me in an interview that he couldn’t believe how good the 3D was. I’d have to disagree with ‘Conan’, but I wouldn’t want say that in his face. If you’d like to see good use of 3D effects, check out Fright Night 3D. That is excellent use of the technology and worth every cent you pay.

‘Conan the Barbarian’ is man’s movie and a really cheesy B film at that. It’s Jason Voorhees meets Jason Statham. This is not good moviemaking at all, but it is fun enough to have a good time with with the guys.

Jack Rico

By

2011/08/05 at 12:00am

Select a Page