Carly at the Movies: Friends with Kids
“Friends with Kids” came flashing across American screens last month, barely made a dent at the Box Office, and disappeared. Luckily (and happily) I caught it just before it closed yesterday.
The audience for this film has been split pretty evenly. Some folks hate it. Some folks love it. I sided with the latter group and laughed all the way through this young folks comedy, because I happen to think that kids (particularly other peoples’ kids) are annoying as hell.
Blonde and lanky Jennifer Westfeldt, who wrote, directed, and stars in “Friends with Kids” obviously feels the same way. So does her BFFNG (Best Friend Forever, Neither Gay) played by Adam Scott. Read more
Carly at the Movies: Accidental Masterpiece
To celebrate the 70th anniversary of the release of “Casablanca,” Turner Classic Movies arranged a screening of the film recently – a one night only event – at selected theaters across America.
I was only a lad when it premiered in 1942, and never got to see it on the big screen, although I’ve watched it on TV and DVD an embarrassing number of times. So off I went, accompanied by a movie buddy who’d actually never seen it at all. Read more
Carly at the Movies: The (Almost) Best (Probably) Films of Last Year
Award season is in full swing, and movie goers are busy wondering where all these strange, goofy, unseen nominees are coming from. Likw “We Need to Talk About Kevin” and “Shame” and “Albert Nobbs.”
Well, for most of us, most of the more obscure films have played in larger cities, quietly, for Critics, Indy film fans, and folks in the know, y’know. They’ll eventually get around to us regular people, although some won’t be available until they hit the DVD trail to Award Glory and immediate obscurity.
So now that 2012 is securely upon us, here’s my first list of the (almost) best – well, probably best – movies of last year. And once the films I have a sneaky suspicion are going to be worth seeing (such as “Take Shelter” become available, we’ll revise the list and everything will be hunky dory. Read more
Carly at the Movies: My Week with Marilyn
As Sir Laurence Olivier famously shouted, “Teaching acting to Marilyn Monroe is like teaching Urdu to a badger!” And while that may have been true for Marilyn, no acting lessons are needed for Michelle Williams who portrays her perfectly in “My Week with Marilyn.”
What a fabulous pre-Christmas gift is this film, based Colin Clark’s book, written from his diary of life as a Third Assistant Director during the filming of “The Prince and the Showgirl” in the mid-1950′s.
In those days, Marilyn was the most famous woman in the world, and her co-star, Sir Laurence Olivier, was the most famous actor. The clash of these two iconic titans was a shot heard round the film world, and it’s safe to say this backstage drama is far more interesting than the film they eventually made.
That is due in large part to Michelle Williams, who has already been named Actress of the Year at the 2011 Hollywood Film Festival. She has been nominated for an Oscar twice, including “Brokeback Mountain,” and played the lead in an absolutely wonderful 2008 independent film called “Wendy and Lucy.” Her third Oscar nomination is forthcoming for “My Week with Marilyn.”
There were a few problems in retrospect with the film, but as a movie fan who was just as transfixed as was everyone else with the real Marilyn’s magic, I found this movie absolutely delicious.
Sensitive-looking young Eddie Redmayne played the lowly Third Assistant Director assigned to keep the unruly goddess in her place, and Branagh obviously enjoyed his imitation of the great Sir Laurence. He was certainly adequate. But somehow I’d rather see Olivier do his impersonation of Branagh. Imitation, as they say, is the sincerest form of forgery. And Emma Watson (now and forever, alas, linked with the Harry Potter movies) has grown into a strikingly lovely young actress playing a working behind-the-scenes film worker who Redmayne should have hooked up with.
All of that was fine, but when Judi Dench arrived, playing the imposing Dame Sybil Thorndike, one tends to be desperately taken by her. She is a delight, and her performance a wonder to behold. Then, about halfway through the film, she drops out – as does character actor Toby Jones – while the plot concentrates on the Redmayne-Monroe relationship.
Frankly, I would have settled for a lot less of Julia Ormond (playing an aging Vivien Leigh, Olivier’s jealous wife) or Dougray Scott (as playwright Arthur Miller, or even Zoe Wanamaker (Marilyn’s phony guru, Paula Strasberg).
But the faux “romance,” between a young nobody and the most beautiful woman on earth, is beautifully shot and underplayed by Michelle Williams, who reaches the essence of Marilyn-the-icon and only hints at the vulnerable and deeply disturbed woman beneath. She is hypnotic. She floats. She is Marilyn.
The movie they were working on, “The Prince and the Showgirl,” was a clunker. Monroe’s next film was “Some Like It Hot” and Olivier’s was “The Entertainer,” both great films in anybody’s book. So neither of them were exactly ruined by their involvement in Prince/Showgirl. But the behind-the-scenes battle of the strict and self-absorbed Olivier and the drug-ridden, insecure beauty is the stuff that Show Biz is made of.
It’s the kind of backstage magic that makes you want to run right out and see what the real movie was like. “The Prince and the Showgirl” is available on DVD and from Netflix. But it’s not half as much fun as “My Week with Marilyn.”
Carly at the Movies column by Carl Larsen
Carly at the Movies: J. Edgar
Compared to the group of recent would-be Republican presidential candidates, the little monster depicted in Clint Eastwood’s new film, “J. Edgar,” could qualify as just another power-mad nutcase. But even though Eastwood low-balled the seedier aspects of the little guy’s life, you’ve got to give Hoover credit for collecting dirt and sweeping through Washington, D.C., with the force of the mother of all vacuum cleaners.
More than half of America’s movie critics jumped gleefully on Clint Eastwood, dealing the film that deadliest of all poisons, a Bad Review. (As if anyone paid any attention to movie critics.) True enough, the film has some problems. But it’s a fascinating character study as well as a history lesson for those of us who have forgotten the past and then learned it repeats itself like stale sauerkraut.
So first of all, let us be thankful that Eastwood handled this material. Can you imagine what it would have been in the hands of Oliver Stone?
The story covers some of the major incidents in Hoover’s life, starting with the Big Red Scare in 1919, and ends with his death in 1972. It’s essentially the parallel tale of the Bureau of Investigation (as it was first called), and had it been told in a linear fashion, I believe it would have been less confusing. As it stands, it hops around from incident to incident, from the Lindbergh Kidnapping to the Civil Rights movement, from the McCarthy Hearings to the shooting of John Dillinger.
In the title role, Leonardo DiCaprio is outstanding portraying a Freudian mess of a man, dedicated to his mommy (Judi Dench), his closest friend (Armie Hammer), and his intense – if often mistaken – sense of Patriotism. Along the way, he managed to organize the federal use of far-reaching methodology, implementing wiretapping, fingerprinting, and other modern forensic weapons.
His methods as well as his madness were often abused, and his “secret files” on those in power were greatly feared. And all along the way, his secretary (played wonderfully by reliable Naomi Watts) stood by him, and it is assumed that after his death, she destroyed the files and their contents proving (or implicating) moral malfeasance and dirty dealings amongst the great and powerful.
One problem the film has that is upsetting. During the flashbacks and flash-forwards, as we see Hoover’s close buddy Charles Colson on screen, his garish makeup and clumsy facial prosthetic remind one of a Kabuki dancer. He looks ghastly, and as he ages, the mask is unsettling. Underneath all that gobbledegook, I think Armie Hammer is doing a good job of acting. (We’ll see. Watch for him as “The Lone Ranger” in the 2013 release of that classic remake, with Johnny Depp as Tonto.)
Director Eastwood shows great restraint and refrains from editorial comment during Hoover’s low moments, leaving judgment up to the viewer. But there is little that can be positive about a man who tramples individual rights, driven by his ages-long fear of Communism and his own daemons.
While it is difficult to feel compassion for a man so overtly prejudiced (his hatred for Martin Luther King, Jr. is legendary) and so willing to play fast and loose with our Constitutional rights to gain his bizarre ends, one is torn between pity and shock.
Does the film have any relevance for today’s world? Are you kidding? Who watches the watchers, and who waters the elephants? The gods have stone feet, as do the clowns. It shouldn’t take that many more Republican Candidate Debates to illustrate that.
Carly at the Movies column by Carl Larsen
Carly at the Movies: Reel fun at Halloween
Halloween is a real special time for us fans of old-timey monster flicks, horror films, and those beloved 1950′s science ficdtion schlockers. We drag out our dusty old VCR copies of classics like the original “Frankenstein,” “Dracula,” and Lon Chaney, Jr.’s portrayal of “The Wolf Man,” and spend the evening of October 31st salivating over the glories of black-and-white overacting.
That’ll be just fine for next week, but I’ve spent several days recently creeping about the local screen venues in search of some newer scary fare that might be worth your time. So join me, if you will, whilst we flutter (graceful as a bat) from TV to motion pictures on the wings of “Walking Dead,” “Reel Steel,” and the current remake of “The Thing.”
Let’s take the bestest firstus. Frankly, I’ve never been a big fan of Zombies. Those shuffle-along, single-minded carnivores have been the subject of scads of bad movies as well as a handful of good ones. But last year Frank Darabont created a TV show based on a series of graphic novels by Robert Kirkland called “The Walking Dead.” And it was simply spectacularly good because Darabont believes that good stories are about interesting people, whether they are sitting or walking or alive or dead.
The series was nominated at the Emmy Awards and a host of other kudo-type affairs and won an above-ground audience of ardent admirers, yours truly included. It was one of those catch-lightning-in-a-bottle things, and was able to portray that elusive Feeling of Impending Doom as well as “Rosemary’s Baby” or “Alien,” to name just two of the classics.
This story of a small group of people facing a horde of zombies in a post-apocalyptic world is not a brand new idea. But it is done with characters who have made you care about them – a trick not easy to do when surronded by undead critters lusting to gnaw on your gizzard. And the second season of the show, just recently started, moves the story forward with the same craftsmanship (although, admittedly, leaning toward the gorier aspects of .cannibalistic consumer consmption just a bit heavier).
The cast is not loaded with headliners, though you will probably recognize Jeffrey DeMunn as one of the better elderly character actors from his busy 30 year career on stage and screen. The assembled crew is well-cast, dedicated, and react as normal humans might in such an abnormal situation.
Trying to convince an adult fellow film buff to watch something called “Walking Dead” on TV is harder than pulling teeth, believe me. I’ll leave it to you, and gently place it among your hoped-for collection of future delightful surprises.
“Real Steel,” with Hugh Jackman in the starring role, was a pleasant surprise for me. It combines elements of “The Champ” and “Rocky,” set in a near-future where human boxing has been outlawed and robots have taken over that husky task. Rock ‘em sock ‘em robots? Yeah, kinda.
The story is told with a sly humor that makes the familiar turns more palatable. Jackman is no surprise as he resurrects a discarded hunk-o-junk ‘bot and takes it to the inevitable championship bout, a la “Rocky,” with the help of youthful Dakota Goyo (as The Kid) and Evangeline Lily (remember her on TV in “Lost” – glad to see this talented beauty moving on with her career).
It’s a fun film, just right for a family Halloween outing, and a sequel is already in development, due in 2014.
The thing about “The Thing” is, about halfway through it you begin to wonder why somebody remembered to bring along a flame-thrower and a box of hand grenades on a scientific expedition to the South Pole.
Otherwise, this little prequel fits in nicely just before John Carpenter’s 1982 gooey version under the same title. They both pale, of course –- one is tempted to call them “Polar opposites” unless one contains oneself — before the original 1951 “The Thing From Another World.”
Saturday morning I watched the prequel at a movie theater, came home and watched the 1982 version on Netflix, and then downloaded the short story (John W. Campbell, Jr.’s chilling “Who Goes There?”) they were all based upon to my Ipad. If I was a Mouseketeer, Saturday would surely have been “Any Thing Can Happen Day.”
What happens is, a whole bunch of Norwegian semi-scientists (who all look alike) accompanied by star Mary Elizabeth Winstead discover a flying saucer buried at the South Pole.
The unpleasant Thing inside starts gobbling up people and dogs alike and morphing into their bodies, proving once and for all that imitation is the sincerest form of forgery.
Now the alien monster is probably a second-cousin to the creature from “Alien.” It’s got the requisit Gaping Maw as well as slimey tentacles, gooey insides, spidery legs, bad breath, and an unpleasant disposition.
Time to break out the flame-throwers, gang. Only problem is, which one of us is truly the creature in disguise? Well that’s the premise of the film, and it careflly predates the Carpenter version, even perfectly dovetailing its own end credits with the beginning of the 1982 film. They make a great double feature.
The 1982 film is actually a lot better than the new one, stars Kurt Russell and Wilford Brimley (sans mustache), and is quite enjoyable even though the viscous victims fall hither and yon before the vile villain. And it’s all set to a wonderful musical score by Ennio Morricone. Voila!
Can’t leave without a few words about that beloved 1951 film “The Thing From Another World.” James Arness (in his pre-Gunsmoke days) is the monster, come to conquer the earth all by himself, and arriving from some far galaxy’s fresh vegetable bin. This is the first truly naturalistic science fiction film I ever saw. The characters talk over each others lines (just like real people, who never listen to one another anyway) and it’s mostly underplayed and straight-arrow, which really convinced me – I was 17 at the time – that it would be great to explore the Arctic and interview monsters from outer space.
So all in all, there’s quite a variety of movies on local screens for Halloween. Having had my fill of them, I plan to stay home to watch a few old time classic horror films, heavy with makeup and dialogue that makes you want to groan. And to feel safe, maybe I’ll just clean and reload my trusty flame-thrower.
Carly at the Movies column by Carl Larsen
Carly at the Movies: Hunger
Posted by afp on April 27, 2012 · Leave a Comment
The thought made me shudder. After all, the film was based on a series of so-called Young Adult novels, and probably written for the idiots who worship “Twilight” – a bunch of young people who can’t act, wallowing around in a preposterous plot laced with teen angst and vapid vampires.
Girding my loins (and other semi-exposed body parts) I set off to the local cinemaplex, not bothering to learn anything more about the film, and dreading the worst. Read more
Filed under Blogs · Tagged with carl larsen, carly at the movies, the hunger games