A Solitary Man

You probably haven't even heard of this movie. I had to drive to Santa Monica (about 15 miles)today to see it at the Laemmle Monica. (Reminder to myself: Never drive to the beach on Memorial Day !) Anyway, Michael Douglas as a flawed, charming, aging, formerly sucessful, but now failing in all areas of his life, not surprisingly, proved himself to be a truly terrific actor. I always thought he was good, but he surpassed himself in this role. Noteworthy in the excellent cast, which included Susan Sarandon and Mary-Louise Parker was Danny Devito -- who has come a long way from his days as the obnoxious guy on "Taxi" -(are you old enough to remember that series on TV?) Anyway, much as I disliked dealing with the bumper to bumper traffic today, the movie was worth it. Definitely not a happy story, but certainly believable as far as understanding the tragedy of a man who made bad decisions, and continues making them as he refuses to accept aging gracefully. (His character admits to being 60, and he doesn't understand about friendship). "A Solitary Man" won't be a blockbuster despite the fact that there's a lot of talk about sex. I hope to see Douglas soon in some equally challenging, suitable, and quality roles. SP

Father of My Children

Complex and compelling this French film (excellent subtitles) explores the life of a film producer with a wife and three young daughters revealing the fact (truth?) that we never really know what's going on with those near and dear to us. He is affectionate and seems to really love his family, although he spends almost every waking moment on his cell phone, or in meetings, trying to keep his "Moon films" from going under financially -- a fact which he has hidden from his wife for a long time. As the story unfolds, you see him as charming and genuine in his affections while having to deal with temperamental directors, actors, etc. everything that goes with the movie business. Although I don't usually notice the technical aspects of a movie I was impressed with what seemed to me to be exceptionally fine quality of the photography-- sharp, clear images, beautiful colors. Anyway, and here's the "spoiler" -- he reaches a point where he can't handle handle the stress of juggling all the aspects of his life, and he kills himself. But that's not the end of the movie! It goes on to show how his wife children ( especially the oldest daughter -- who is probably about 14 or 15?) cope with the results of his death, and their feelings. The acting is flawless. It's not a "feel-good" movie, but if you are interested in excellent story telling, this fills the bill. SP

Letters to Juliet

Vanessa Redgrave is magnificent as Claire in this romantic, and perhaps even sentimental (but never saccharine) film for grown-ups. It was obviously designed for people who can appreciate a movie that doesn't rely on violent, in-your-face ear-splitting special effects. Instead, feast your eyes on the lush Italian countryside, and watch the story unfold ( partly predictable, but who cares?. It manages to be funny as well as touching. It's not perfect, but I found it delightful. Is it too corny to say it's a "feel-good" movie? If so, so be it! SP

SHREK FOREVER AFTER

With the return of the original cast, voices perfectly matched to superb animation, this film would have been just as effective in 2D. (and less expensive). Combining elements from the perennial favorite, "It's a Wonderful Life," with the romantic legend of Sleeping Beauty and a variation on the theme of 'Selling Your Soul to the Devil' (in this case, to evil Rumplestilskin) "Shrek Forever After" could have been cliche, but it was not. Kudos to the writers for the surprising twists as the plot unfolded! I could have done without the dozens of cackling witches in black, complete with pointy hats, riding hell-bent for destruction on their broomsticks. ( I think small children might be frightened by some of those scenes. But listening to Antonio Banderas and/or and Eddie Murphy doing their pitch perfect Puss in Boots and Donkey characters was a delight. Plus, even the closing credits were so entertaining that I sat glued to my seat. (Or maybe it was sticky?) I know I'm raving on and on about the animation, but it was just about the best I've ever seen. The dialogue was clever and engaging. Mike Myers , was, of course every inch (or syllable) a perfect Ogre. Julie Andrews, Cameron Diaz (as Fiona) , and John Cleese were also to be heard, and very much appreciated -- even Far Far Away. SP

Roger Ebert on 3D and another Robin Hood review

Roger Ebert, the highly respected (deservedly so!) movie critic has written an excellent in-depth article explaining the 3D menace, its implications, and side effects. It's really worth reading. (Thanks to Siri Gopal Singh for telling me about it.) You can access it by going to http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110 I agree with Mr. Ebert whole heartedly. I don't llike 3D, don't find it worth the extra money, and find it annoying to watch. As you must know, I'm not a "critic." I go to movies for "escape"entertainment, and I simply share my opinions with friends. Still seeking entertainment, even in the waiting rooms of doctors' offices, I am always pleased to find the New Yorker magazine, which I flip through to find the cartoons. I seldom have time to read any of its articles but, lo and behold, I actually read one the other day (about movies, of course), in the Current Cinema section. Anthony Lane, wrote "Straight Arrows" in which he brutally, sarcastically skewered Russell Crowe's "Robin Hood." I have to admit, Mr. Lane's article is articulate and clever. He delves into the archives of the various other Robins throughout cinematic history, including Douglas Fairbanks' portrayal of our hero. (That one, from 1922, was even before I was born, so I never saw it.) But, as admittedly accurate he may be in pointing out flaws in the current film, I think Mr. Lane doesn't know how to enjoy himself at the movies. His article was not kind. In fact it seemed mean spirited. Alas, he is a Critic. SP

Oceans

Visually spectacular, marvelous, amazing photography!! Awesome underwater scenes, with outstanding closeups of myriads of underwater dwellers. However, the voiceover narrative, well, not so great. Too bad the writers couldn't have come up with a better script , which was, I'm sorry to say, rather annoying. Rather than enhancing the brilliant camera work, which revealed life in the Oceans as never seen before , the commentary struck me as rather lame and amateurish. On the other hand, or fin, the accompanying music was wonderful, well suited to the stunning visuals. "Oceans, " is definitely worth seeing, despite its flaws. (and it's G Rated!)

Princess Kaiulani and Robin Hood again

Yes, Yes, I said I wanted to find a PG rated film, but "Princess Kaiulani" wasn't it. First let me go back a few posts and explain something: I think my aversion to "Harry Brown" was not so much because of the violence in it, but the circumstances: vicious cruelty of drugged, depraved young perpetrators. After seeing and enjoying "Robin Hood" -- which had a lot of people getting killed -- I figured out that my ability to tolerate violence has to do with the time, place, and circumstaces in which it occurs. That having been said, let us now cross the waters to that legendary land of the hula.... If you like long walks on the beach, watching the sun set over rippling waters (over and over), and all that sort of sentimental stuff with young lovers' lingering kisses (again and again -- really- enough already!) , then you might like "Princess Kaiulani." I'm sorry, I didn't. It had a basic (true) story that should have been more compelling. But it just didn't make it. Lest I forget, lots of collecting sea shells, each one connected with a memory. Anyway, the young princess falls in love with an Englishman (I didn't see much chemistry, just a lot of what Yogi Bhajan used to call "exchanging saliva"), gives him up because she loves her country more, and returns to Hawaii, even though it is no longer a monarchy. (But she does manage to get universal suffrage for her people - standing up against the obnoxious US politicians.) Going back to horses and bows and arrows, I want to report that I just watched "Robin Hood" again on TV - the one with Errol Flynn. And well, folks, I don't want to choose between him and Russell Crowe. They cannot be compared. They are both splendid heroes!! (Errol was perfect for his era, dashing in his green tights - paired with beautiful Olivia DeHaviland, and Russell is definitely the Robin for now (better costumed, thank goodness) , perfectly matched with stunning and vibrant Cate Blanchette). See you at the movies! SP

Robin Hood

Duty bound to review and comment, I somewhat reluctantly went to see Robin Hood. Well, I must admit, I have, to say the least, mixed emotions. First of all, I want to apologize for I remark I made previously comparing Russell Crowe (unfavorably) to Errol Flynn. Having seen Russell Crowe at his best, I have forgotten who the other guy was! (Sorry Errol, Crowe really, as one professional critic said, "inhabited the part.") The scenes between our hero and Cate Blanchette are fabulous -- marvelous, great chemistry between two top notch actors, worth suffering through the over the top abundance of really noisy violent warfare (lots of horses galloping and snorting, bows and arrows flying all over the place, battering rams knocking down castle doors, burning down of places that wouldn't pay taxes to evil King John). The bad guys are really bad. There's teachery and betrayal , plus, of course, heart tugging loyalty. During a lot of the battle scenes I couldn't tell who was who, and which side anyone was on -- except, fortunately Robin rode a white horse, and that was helpful . Otherwise, it was a lot of shouting, blood, and dying nobly. Knowing that this was a prequel, I didn't worry about Robin and Marion getting killed. Splendid casting included Max Van Sydow as Marion's father-in -law. And the lovely woman who played King John's mother -- sorry I don't recall her name, but she was perfect. Lest I forget, great performance by William Hurt. There was a lot of switching from one locale to another (conveniently indicated by subtitles) -- so, for history buffs, perhaps useful. Anyway, the Magna Carta was not signed by the time I left the theater. Maybe there will be a sequel to this prequel? Bottom line of my experience: I didn't want the movie to end! So I guess my tolerance for violence isn't entirely gone after all.

Michael Caine is "Harry Brown"

Once upon a time I claimed to have a high level of tolerance for violence in movies. I thought it helped me to vicariously experience/express my (hidden!) martial tendencies. Well, those days are over!
"Harry Brown" has gone way over the top, even for me. If it weren't for Michael Caine's superb performance as the quiet, retiree who finally has "had enough," and goes out as a vigilante against the depraved, drugged out, violent crazies who populate almost the entire film, I would have walked out. (I probably should have!) Emily Mortimer ( always wonderful ) plays a policewoman, also trying to solve the killing of the elderly retireee who was Harry's (only) friend and chess partner. In the course of events, they each get brutally beaten up and shot. (Spoiler: they do survive) I'm going to hope for some PG films soon, or I shall have to rely more heavily on my TiVo -- which reminds me, I forgot to mention "Frasier" -- almost always clever and enjoyable and nobody gets maimed or murdered. Thank God for reruns. I'm wondering how heavy the newest version of "Robin Hood," coming out next weekend, with Russell Crowe, is going to be. (Errol Flynn he ain't, nobody is.) I'll let you know. Sigh.... SP

Iron Man 2

After the opening credits, the first few scenes led me to believe this was going to be great. Alas, despite a stellar cast (headed by Robert Downey Jr. who can usually do no wrong as far as I'm concerned) giving pitch perfect performances -- when the screen was not filled with special effects, well, as one reviewer put it, "Too much iron, and not enough man!" Parts of the movie (big chunks of it) were so loud and so crashingly violent that it was physically painful to watch. Even with my eyes closed (the car chase made me dizzy!) I left the theater feeling as if I had been hit by a truck. Yes, it topped the box office for this weekend, and will probably continue to rake in the big bucks. I have to give top marks to a remarkable performances by Scarlett Johannsen. Who knew she could do all that physical stuff? (If it was a stand-in stunt person, well, I couldn't tell.) And if ever there was a villain to make you want to hiss and boo, Mickey Rourke filled the bill perfectly as the really, really evil guy. Other bad guys and some good guys, and a marvelous turn by Gary Shandling that was really fun. So, there you have it, a mixed bag. Fill it with popcorn, and enjoy the show, if you can. Blessings, SP

REALITY HUNGER a Manifesto

Having just finished reading REALITY HUNGER a Manifesto by David Shields (one of the brilliant panelists I heard at the Festival of Books at UCLA a couple of weeks ago), I felt so intimidated about writing anything, that the only way I could psych myself up to create this review was to think of the author as an intellectual snob. But then, if it's a truism that the fault we see in others is a reflection of our own selves, well, then, I must be guilty of some kind of reverse snobbery, based on the fact that I've never read Proust, or most of the other books he referred to with such cavalier familiarity! Otherwise, I have to say, the guy really is a terriffic writer! (Shields, that is, I don't know about Proust. I just said, remember?) Dealing with such topics as reality, hip-hop, collage, genre, doubt, thinking, brevity (and many unique approaches toward possible ways to write non-fiction, which he posits is truly a form of fiction anyway, --well that's my oversimplification --) the book is divided into 618 fascintingly readable sub-sections of its 26 chapters ( A to Z). If you love words and savor seeing them arranged eloquently on each page, then you'll probably enjoy this book. Oh, and he does talk about "truth." (But, of course he is only referring to personal or perhaps relative truth, and we know there's an ultimate Truth - but that's for another Blog.) SP

Television

In my ongoing search for entertainment, I enjoy the following. Perhaps you will. Perhaps not. But FYI - My Tivo is set with a "Season Pass" for : "The Good Wife," "The Mentalist," "Lie to Me," "Leverage." And I often watch reruns of "MacGiver," and of couse, "Monk." Reruns of "Becker" and "Cheers" are convenient for a few laughs, and PBS frequently has excellent short series, such as the current "Foyle's War." The brits make good drama. Speaking of British films (slight change of rererence), I saw the original "Death at a Funeral," which was quite funny, and very well done. I didn't even consider seeing the U.S. remake, based on the cast and the reviews I read. ( metacritic.com is my usual source of commentary. I don't always agree with their perspective, but they can be helpful.) Stay tuned... SP

"Please Give"

"Please Give" is not a feel-good movie, because it deals with people who seem to be too true to life. Exactly what it is, is hard to describe. I must say, though, it was fascinating, and troubling, and even funny. It definitely kept me interested. In the opening scenes you get to observe mammograms being given. If you're a woman, you know this is not fun. If you're a male, well, GOK what it will seem to you. The plot revolves around a wealthy married couple who own an up-scale furniture shop, selling at ridiculously high prices the pieces they buy at the cheap from homes of people who have died. They have a fifteen year old daughter who (as you can see in the trailer) resents her mother giving away a 20 dollar bill to a homeless person, but won't buy the kid $200 jeans. Then there's the ninety-something year old woman living next door to them, in an apartment they really want to own just as soon as she dies, so they can expand their current living space. (Of course they feel guilty about that, too, but not a lot.) The old woman, who is pretty feisty, has two granddaughters, one of whom is kind and caring, and the other selfish and nasty. There's probably something for everyone in this movie: infidelity, greed, guilt, selfishness, even a little nice romance for one of the granddaughers, and genuine concern for the homeless and less fortunate among us (up to a point -- and beyond). Really fine acting all around, including the red-haired (except for where the grey shows) nanogenerian. (Is that spelled right?) The married couple are played by Kathryn Keener and Oliver Platt. Splendid work.

Artificial Insemination for your consideration

This was not on my list of the movies I wanted to see. But I was told that in one scene, the background music was from one of Snatam's albums. So, of course I had to go see it. Honestly, I didn't hear anything that I recognized, but then, with my less than perfect hearing, that doesn't mean that it wasn't there. Anyway, because I went in with low expectations (the critics have really panned the movie) I have to say it was not too bad after all. True, Jennifer Lopez is not a great actress, but she obvioulsy made a noble effort. The other actors were quite good, especially the male lead, Alex O'Loughin. Also, it was fun to see some old (definitely not young) familiar faces among the supporting cast. There was a bit too much graphic pain and screaming during the water/birthing scene (not Lopez, another woman) for me. but there were a number other adventures throughout the film that could be considered traumatic. If you'd like to see what happens in the doctor's office during an intro-vitro procedure, you'll appreciate this opportunity. (Not to mention the early ultra-sound procedure that came later.) I must admit, there was a lot of laughter in the theater during the show, oh, and the outdoor photography was splendid, but, well.... 'nuff said. SP