(2 People gave this 5.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“What happens to people who come to Hollywood?  Probably the same thing that happens to people everywhere . . . some make it, and some don’t.”

Check out the official site for more information: My Big Break

The H-Bomb:  During the late 1990’s, five young men shared a house in L.A., four of them were aspiring actors, one was an aspiring filmmaker.  Since the would be filmmaker, Tony Zierra, had no money, or even a specific project to make, he decided to simply film his four roommates.  He would interview them about why they were in Hollywood and what their goals were, and record them goofing off, with no real plan on how to use this footage.

Then one of the young actors, Brad Rowe, is cast in a TV show and becomes the talk of the town, with E! News labeling him “The next Brad Pitt.”  Not long after that, another one them, Chad Lindberg, finds success of his own when he is cast in the film, October Sky.  And as if it’s not incredible enough that two guys living in the same house find success in an industry where success is hard to come by, there’s a third guy by the name of Wes Bentley, who scores a choice role in a little picture you may have heard of called American Beauty.

The fourth aspiring actor of the house, Greg Fawcett, is the oldest and most eccentric of the bunch, and unlike his roommates, he isn’t having much luck.  He goes out on auditions and takes meetings, but he just can’t quite seem to catch that break.  Whether it’s landing any kind of acting work, or generating interest in the script he wrote about a man born without a dick, it’s just not happening for him.  He remains optimistic that things will someday turn around, but in the meantime, all he can do is watch as his friends’ careers take off.

Unfortunately, as we come to see, “making it” can be a little overrated, as neither Brad nor Chad are entirely happy with how their careers are turning out.  Brad is getting a lot of publicity, but work-wise, he doesn’t have much to show for it, and he really wishes that people would stop fucking calling him the next Brad Pitt.  Chad, meanwhile, isn’t satisfied with the roles he’s being offered.  He wants to be a leading man, but because his looks are unconventional, casting directors just don’t see that happening.  This is when he starts to seriously consider having plastic surgery to make himself “better looking.”

Finally there’s Wes, who, after American Beauty became a big hit and won the Best Picture Oscar, seems to be on the fast track to stardom.  He’s receiving praise from people like Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks, he’s all over the covers of magazines, and everyone seems to agree that he is the next big thing…  if he plays his cards right.  But we find that Wes is completely overwhelmed by all this attention.  He doesn’t know how to deal with it, and he starts to withdraw from everyone.

That, ultimately, is what My Big Break, the documentary by Zierra about his old roommates, that spent a decade in the making, is about; not four actors trying to achieve their ultimate goal, but what could happen if they obtain it.  If there is one film that should be required viewing for anyone with dreams of making it big in Hollywood, it is most definitely this one.  I am absolutely dead fucking serious, if you want to work in this industry, be it as an actor, director, whatever, you need to see this fucking film!  I can’t stress that enough, it is an eye-opener.

In a way, it reminded me of Overnight, the documentary about Boondock Saints director Troy Duffy, which showed quite vividly how someone can fuck up after they’ve gotten their “break.” (Though nobody in this film comes off as being the utter douche bag that Duffy was in that film)  At one point, there’s an interview with a producer who says that getting your big break is not the hard part, it’s what you do with it that can be tricky.  In order for your big break to be worth a damn, you have to be ready for it, and judging from the evidence, nobody in My Big Break was ready for it.

It gradually dawns on the subjects that fame just ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.  They may want the attention and the ability to make a living as actors, but what they didn’t count on was that they would have very little say or control over which direction their careers would take.  Both their images, and the kinds of roles they should play, are left in the hands of publicists, producers, and agents.  This is conveyed through such telling moments as Wes Bentley being told not to wear glasses to the American Beauty premiere, and Brad Rowe wearing a hidden camera on him, to show how crazy it can be to attend a red carpet event, with hundreds photographers shouting his name so he’ll look in their direction.

What struck me the most was the candidness of these guys.  We see how they act on the red carpet, in a press junket, or a formal interview, and then we see how they are when they’re being filmed by Zierra, when they’re truly being themselves.  They talk about their insecurities and how discontent they are.  Brad Rowe is pissed because people won’t take him seriously as an actor.  Chad Lindberg believes so strongly that he can be a leading man, that he turns down many supporting roles and TV guest spots.  Wes Bentley gets so flooded that he just splits from the whole fucking program all together.

All of this leads back to Tony Zierra himself, and his own bittersweet history with the industry.  When he first embarked on the project of filming his roommates, he had no idea that he would end up with something this fascinating: an actual chronicle of the rise and fall of three actors, as well as a fourth actor who failed to launch (Greg Fawcett seems like an interesting guy, I’d put him in a movie).  It ultimately becomes Zierra’s story in that he actually had a documentary from this footage called Carving Out Our Name.

The fate of that documentary is something I won’t give away here, I’ll simply state that My Big Break can be seen as both a remake and a follow-up to that film.  It took Zierra more than ten years of his life to get this film out to people, but from where I stand it seems worth the time and effort, as this does provide an incredibly insightful and sobering look at three young men whose dreams seemed to come true, and the unexpected, and unwanted, effects it had on their lives.  I can only reiterate, for anyone looking for a career in the entertainment industry, this is an absolute, undeniable must see!

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Try saying that five times fast!

The H-Bomb:  Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) calls her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson), out of the blue after two years of no contact.  Martha’s story is that she’s been living in the Catskills with some boyfriend all this time.  Lucy agrees to take her in for the time being and brings her to the gorgeous, lakefront vacation house in Connecticut that she shares with her husband, Ted (Hugh Dancy).

As glad as Lucy may be to have her younger sister back in her life, she and Ted both can’t help but notice that Martha’s behavior is a little… peculiar.  Martha’s quirks start out as strange but minor annoyances; saying inappropriate things (“Is it true that married people never fuck?”), doing inappropriate things (skinny dipping in the lake in broad daylight with people about), but it’s all nothing they can’t just shrug off and ignore.  However, Martha’s bizarre behavior soon escalates, with Lucy and Ted being especially disconcerted when Martha sneaks into their room and jumps into bed with them while they’re having sex, and from there they watch in alarm as she becomes increasingly erratic, confrontational, and even fearful that someone might be after her.

But why would anyone be after Martha?  Well, as we the viewers are already fully aware of, Martha has spent the last two years in the Catskills, but not with just some boyfriend…  she had fallen in with a cult.  A commune-like cult, of about twenty or so, run out of a farmhouse, and led by the charismatic, but quietly intimidating Patrick (John Hawkes).  We never really find out much about this cult, other than it takes in society’s young strays, teens and twenty-somethings, “cleanses” them, and gives them each a job on the farm.  For the women, it’s usually cooking, cleaning, working in the garden, or taking care of the many infants Patrick has fathered, all of whom, creepily, are boys.  It’s a patriarchal cult, with the men in charge of the women, and Patrick in charge of them all.  He even gives them all new names when they join his flock (in Martha‘s case, Marcy May), as one of his ways of asserting ownership of them.

At first Martha is happy here, but over time she sees things that make her disillusioned with her “new family,” and once she finally realizes how dangerous they and Patrick really are, she splits.  Now, living not so happily with her sister and brother-in-law, she has reason to believe that the cult members have found out where she is and are coming to get her…  or are they?

The film remains skillfully ambiguous about that, right up until the final frame, and that is part of what makes Martha Marcy May Marlene, a psychological drama from feature debuting writer/director Sean Durkin, so damn effective.  Maybe they’re really after her, maybe it’s all just in her head…  who knows?  The story is structured in a way that it’s constantly cutting back and forth between what’s happening with Martha at her sister’s house in the present, and glimpses of her time with Patrick’s cult.  Often times, it’s something Martha says or does in the present that triggers memories of the past.  And the more she remembers of what went on at that farmhouse, the more frightened and unhinged she becomes.

What really helps to elevate this understated thriller is the surprisingly incredible turn by Olsen, the younger sister of the Olsen Twins, and apparently sole heir to any acting talent in that family, as the title character (and many titles she does have).  She makes Martha (Marcy May Marlene) endearingly shy and awkward, and gives her a sense of paranoia that intensifies throughout.  This is a star making performance if I ever saw one, despite the film being a modest indie, and I can say with confidence that Olsen definitely has great things coming her way in the not so distant future.

Also delivering a knockout performance is veteran character actor Hawkes (Winter’s Bone), who is downright chilling as Patrick.  On the surface he’s calm and friendly, but almost immediately one can sense something much, much darker underneath that welcoming smile of his.  We see this when he “cleanses” the new women who come under his wing, by drugging them and then… doing something else.  He will scold his followers, should they step out of line, and get them to bow to his will, all the while never even raising his voice.  Hawkes makes it all look so damn easy, turning Patrick into one of the scarier movie characters I’ve seen in a while.

Paulson and Dancy are also terrific as the put upon sister and brother-in-law, Lucy and Ted.  They want to do the right thing by helping Martha, as they know that something has happened to her, but she’s not saying what, and they’re both gradually driven to the end of their patience by her crazy antics.  They do a fantastic job of conveying the couple’s feelings of helplessness and frustration.  Kudos to them both.

If there’s anything to put people off from seeing Martha Marcy May Marlene, it’s that it’s deliberately slow paced and quiet in it’s approach.  It’s a film, that while a thriller, prefers subtly disturbing the audience with suggestion over showing anything explicit.  In fact, there’s only one act of graphic violence, and even that is over very quickly.  In terms of being low key, it makes Drive look like a Michael Bay movie by comparison.  And much like Drive, Martha Marcy May Marlene is another terrific film that, despite some rave reviews, not very many people have seen.  I’d hate to fall back on this old cliché, but if Drive was the best film of 2011 that you didn’t see, then Martha Marcy May Marlene is most definitely the second best.  And now that it’s out on DVD, I’d say that now is the time to see it.

(1 People gave this 1.00 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Who will speak for the trees?

Swift shot:  I am no tree-hugger, but I can proudly say that iRATEfilms.com is run solely on wind energy; you can see our badge below.  And my views on finding alternative energy sources stem more from my loathing of certain oil-rich regimes than saving mother nature.  Still, I have a heart.  And, where some may take The Lorax as a beat you over the head with guilt film, I chose to take it as a, hey, just don’t forget about the trees, film.

Or let’s take his own words to heart, before I get hate mail about the “real message” or the fact that he lampoons environmentalists as some furry little creature.  Seuss once said, “The Lorax doesn’t say lumbering is immoral. I live in a house made of wood and write books printed on paper. It’s a book about going easy on what we’ve got. It’s anti-pollution and anti-greed.”

Starring Ed Helms as the mysteriously named, Once-Ler and Danny DeVito as title character The Lorax, the film is setup as a love story where Ted (Zac Efron) is trying to woo the auburn-haired dreamer, Audrey (Taylor Swift – No Relation to Me), and in fact the book itself was inspired by a romantic trip to East Africa that Seuss took with his wife Audrey in 1970.  And, yes, fans may realize this film was produced by Audrey, the widow of one Theodore, Ted “Dr. Seuss” Geisel.  It really is a love story.

In the film, twelve-year-old Ted is so infatuated with Audrey that he is willing to go beyond the trappings of the plastic city of Thneedville, run by corrupt, bottled-air-tycoon, Aloysius O’Hare (Rob Riggle) to find the one thing that Thneedville really needs, hope, in the form of a Truffula Tree seed.  Stealing the show, of course, was Betty White as Grammy Norma,who tells Ted that he must see the Once-Ler to find out about the trees.

With a little help from Grammy who tricks his mom (Jenny Slate), Ted manages to escape town and soon meets the Once-Ler who forces him to to endure a long story, a long, long story (complete with songs) about where all the trees went and how he met the odd-little magical creature, The Lorax.  Right away the Once-Ler is skeptical and catches on that Ted is just doing this to impress a girl, but he is also just happy to have someone captive, err, captivated with his story.

I was glad to see The Lorax, it was a highly imaginative and colorful film for little minds to enjoy, but it also has some wonderful surprises for adults to keep your attention throughout.  The Humming-Fish and Bar-ba-loots get almost excessively cutesy, but they grow on you as you anticipate their next silly antics and the film doesn’t put you to sleep.  Kudos to Danny DeVito for being the first actor in an animated movie to voice his role in multiple languages!

Sadly, I read a story today about a tree that stood for over 3,500 years, it was the fifth oldest tree on Earth and some meth-head burned it to the ground last month in Florida, and I couldn’t help but think about my review today.  “The Senator” will stand no more, and it wasn’t killed for greed or corporate necessity – it was destroyed by a person that probably needed a little more Dr. Seuss in her life!

Finally, I will leave you with the film’s effective and endearing message taken from the book – “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not.”  Put down your cell-phones and tablets, pull away from your TV’s and PC’s – take your kids to this heart-warming film and remind them that there needs to balance in all things in life.  I think this film would make Dr. Seuss very proud.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Jill Sprecher

Written by: Jill Sprecher and Karen Sprecher

Cast: Greg Kinnear, Billy Crudup, Alan Arkin, James Detmar, David Harbour, Lea Thompson

So I started watching this film and I said to myself, “self, what’s this all about?” It seemed dull, dull, and dullier. “What was Greg Kinnear thinking when he took on this role?” Then all of a sudden, the film takes this funky turn and I’ve fallen through the ice and am absorbed in the story up to my neck…and it keeps getting better and better. With rapid and unexpected plot twists and turns and a climax that just sings, Thin Ice is a small gem of a film with great performances and a crafty everyman story.

Very reminiscent of both (Fargo-1996) and (A Simple Plan-1998) for it’s Bible-Belt characters and wintery location, Thin Ice carves out a place all its own that holds your attention and takes you on a dangerous journey of deceit and double-dealing.

The story goes like this, a Wisconsin based con-man insurance salesman (Greg Kinnear), separated from his wife (Lea Tompson), broke, and precariously near the end of his rope, discovers that an elderly client (Alan Arkin), whose account he stole from a new associate, has inherited an extremely valuable violin from his ailing sister and is not aware that it’s worth $25,000. Hatching a plan to grab the violin and sell it himself, Kinnear tries to build a friendship with the befuddled old man. But Kinnear is hopelessly out of his depth and that’s when things start to get really complicated.

Kinnear is wonderful in his endless desperation, Arkin is masterful as the old man, and Billy Crudup is explosively dangerous as a locksmith caught up in the whole scheme. The writer-director team of the Sprecher sisters (Clockwatchers-1997), themselves Wisconsin natives, show they have an intimate knowledge of their subject and place it on the screen beautifully, warts and all. Good job Everyone.

Thin Ice gets all the elements just right, taking the audience on a wild ride with an abundance of cannily plot contortions combined with some wonderful comic touches that will have you agonizing right along with the main character. It is a solid, enjoyable film experience.

THIN ICE is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Time: 97 min.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

What is it they said about politics and bedfellows?

The H-Bomb:  It’s the Ohio Democratic Primary, and presidential hopeful Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is running neck-and-neck with his rival, Senator Pullman.  Despite having one of the best campaign managers in the business, Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and Zara’s wunderkind No. 2 Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), heading his campaign, Morris is still trailing Pullman by a few points in the polls.  A lot hinges on which candidate will receive the endorsement of Senator Thompson (Jeffrey Wright), whose recommendation will go to the highest bidder (meaning whoever promises him the best job in their administration).

Stephen is a 30-year-old idealist who has worked on more campaigns than most guys in their forties, and who earnestly believes in his Morris and all that he stands for.  One day, Stephen is contacted by Pullman’s campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti), who asks to meet him for a drink.  After some finagling, Stephen agrees, against his better judgment, to meet with him.  It’s during this friendly little talk that Duffy tries to convince Stephen that Morris is a lost cause and to jump ship and join the Pullman campaign.  Although Stephen more or less tells Duffy to go suck a duck, if word ever got out that he had a one-on-one meeting with the opposition in secret, it could be very bad for him, career-wise.

To make matters even more complicated for Stephen, he has started a relationship with a young campaign intern named Molley (Evan Rachel Wood), who happens to be the daughter of the DNC Chairman.  After answering an ill-timed phone call at two in the morning, Stephen finds out that Molley has a skeleton in her closet . . . a big one.

For spoilers sake, I’ll stop there, except to say that from there a whole lot of back stabbing, double dealing, and blackmailing ensues.  The kind that could destroy Stephen’s idealism and force him to take actions that he never imagined he would be capable of taking.

The Ides of March, co-written and directed by George Clooney, is a sizzling, sharply penned thriller that has, above all else, reaffirmed my own feelings towards politicians: I don’t fucking trust them.  Any of them.  Democrat, Republican, it don’t matter, they are all about as straight as Quasimodo’s spinal chord.  It’s a film that shows that almost everything that a candidate says publicly is scripted and rehearsed, even when they’re allegedly speaking off the cuff, and that winning elections isn’t all about how many votes you can get, but how many you can buy through backroom deals and shady power plays.

It’s fitting that the day before I screened The Ides of March, I watched, for the first time, Frank Capra’s, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  These are both films about naive young men who enter the political world in order to do some good and become disillusioned.  But where Jimmy Stewart’s Mr. Smith managed to remain uncorrupted through it all (Jimmy Stewart cannot be corrupted), Gosling’s Stephen finds that he will have to “get down in the fuckin’ mud” if he wants to keep his career.  And that’s what it’s all about, folks, that even those who go into the political arena with noble intentions will eventually go bad because that’s the way the system is.  No one is immune.

This kind of cynical look at our political system is certainly nothing new, but this one does have an air of credibility to it in that it was adapted from the stage play, “Farragut North” by Beau Willimon, who worked on Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign, and thus is savvy to the behind-the-scenes workings of a major political campaign in a way that your average writer is not.  How much is truth, and how much is drama, I of course can’t say for sure, just that I, with one exception I’ll get to in a bit, did believe it all the way through.

The dialogue and the drama all felt authentic, and the characters all come to life through the work of a uniformly excellent cast firing on all cylinders.  I was dumbfounded that Gosling wasn’t nominated for his incredible, understated turn in “Drive”, but after watching his powerhouse turn in this, where he’s actually allowed to speak, I’m convinced the Academy has something against the guy (maybe because he was once a Mouseketeer?).  Most actors in his age bracket would have shriveled up while standing alongside the likes of Hoffman, Giamatti, and Clooney, but Gosling managed to carry the film marvelously.  Oscar, dear boy, you are are this close to losing all credibility in my eyes.

As far the other names I mentioned go, they are all as brilliant as you would expect them to be, and since this is a true actor‘s piece, each and every one of them has copious moments to shine, be it Hoffman ranting about loyalty, or Giamatti warning Gosling to get out of the game before he ends up jaded just like him.  Of the whole supporting cast, it is Clooney, as smoothly charismatic as ever as the Obama-like Morris, who shines the most.  Watching him deliver a speech, I absolutely believe that he could run for office and win, if he so desired.  He also delivers with his assured direction, which is up for an Oscar.  His direction is slick but straightforward, focusing our attention right where it should be, on the actors and the story.

Which brings me back to that one thing I didn’t quite believe, the one aspect of the film that didn’t work; the fact that Gosling’s Stephen is pretty damn naive for a guy who’s allegedly worked on more campaigns than most guys a decade older than him.  Every time someone figuratively sticks a knife in his back, he is genuinely shocked.  He is thirty, not twenty, and one would think he would be considerably more wise to how ruthlessly cutthroat this business can be.  Like he himself says to one of his underlings, “This is the big leagues.  If you fuck up, you’re done.”

That one grievance aside, The Ides of March is a smart if surprisingly cynical drama that shows that there are no good guys in politics, there’s just the lesser of two evils, and good luck trying to figure out which one that is.  It is a fascinating, fantastically written film by an actor/director who is improving with each project, that deserves to be seen by more people than it has been.  Rent it today.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Rodrigo Garcia

Cast: Glenn Close, Mia Wasikowska, Aaron Johnson, Janet McTeer, Pauline Collins, Brenda Fricker, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Brendan Gleeson, Maria Doyle Kennedy, Antonia Campbell Hughes, Mark Williams, James Green, Bronagh Gallagher, John Light

This film, an intricate tale of women passing as men in 19th-century Dublin, is a true labor of love for actress Glenn Close, and her performance is brilliant. She played this role on stage in the 80’s and has been trying to bring it to the screen ever since. I’m glad she did, for it’s thrilled me with what I believe to be the best performance by an actress in the past 10 years.

The carefully measured and calibrated performances by Glenn Close and her co-star Janet McTeer, as two women who succeed in passing as men in a stifling period of time where the only choices for women were virtually limited to being wives or scullery maids, or prostitutes, are a joy to behold.

Here’s the storyline: Professionally attired as major domo of the elegant Morrison Hotel, Albert Nobbs is a small, fastidious, impeccably correct gentleman, thought of fondly by guests and most of the other employees. When not working he keeps to himself in the dreary bedroom where he has carefully concealed every cent of his earnings under the floorboards. He lives a dreary, lonely life, devoted to his job and devoid of true human contact. Think of Albert as a sad Chaplinesque figure, walking stiffly, speaking in monotones, and acting masculine in a way that is at once captivating, revealing and yet heartbreaking.

This behavior has gone on since Albert was traumatized early in life and made the decision to hide her feminine self away in this elaborate disguise. All would have gone on like this forever, had not Hubert the painter (Janet McTeer) accidentally entered Albert’s life. Turns out, Hubert is also a disguised woman (married to another woman), who has been very successful in achieving a reasonable life for herself. She becomes Albert’s role model and then mentor. How Albert reacts to his/her renewed desires for a full life makes up the balance of the film. It’s a pure joy to watch, and I don’t want to spoil it for you, so just go see it.

The film is based upon the short story titled “The Singular Life of Albert Nobbs” by George Moore; and Glenn Close, Gabriella Prekop and John Banville painstakingly wrote the script. It was skillfully directed with grit, grace and a deep understanding of what a person’s singular dream of liberation means, by the talented Rodrigo Garcia, whose ability to pull tour de force performances out of actresses is becoming legendary.

“Albert Nobbs”  is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Sex and violence, more implied than shown.

TRT: 103 minutes

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi here!

Limacher Low Down:  A Separation recently won the 2012 Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, and it is easy to understand why.  The film is a character study of several people living in Iran and the circumstances they find themselves in drives the movie. The acting is outstanding, and while a few things may be lost on viewers that don’t understand the culture, the story can easily be considered universal.

The movie begins in a courtroom, and we see two people through the eyes of the judge. Immediately we learn that a couple has filed for divorce, and the only thing holding up the proceedings is the issue of custody of their young daughter.  Nader (Peyman Moadi) is the father who wants to stay in Iran with his daughter to take care of his elderly father who is stricken with dementia. Simin (Leila Hatami) is the mother who wants to flee from Iran and move somewhere to be with her family without possible prosecution. Simin wants to leave right away before her passport expires, and does not want to leave without her husband and daughter. This is really an interesting set of circumstances. When most of us think of divorce, it is because of issues that cannot be resolved. This couple still loves each other, but because of insinuating circumstances, they need to divorce.

There is a moving scene in Nader and Simin’s apartment where they discuss the court proceedings with their daughter Termeh (Sarina Farhadi). Nader is a loving father, and it seems while Termeh speaks with Simin, she wants to stay with her Father. Simin understands that she needs to leave and leaves the number of a person to take care of Nader’s ailing father since she will no longer be around to take care of him. Enter Razieh (Sareh Bayat) who becomes the caretaker of Nader’s father.

Razieh has strict religious beliefs which don’t allow her to take care of some of the duties that she needs to perform to take care of Nader’s father. After thinking long and hard about whether or not to return the next day, she does. This is interesting because it gives some insight into the religious beliefs of some in Iran, and where the line is truly drawn. It also shows that people can/will do whatever they can to support their family in times of need and that theme builds the crescendo of the film.

Razieh returns the following day to take care of Nader’s father, but leaves to take care of some personal business. Instead of taking care of Nader’s father, she decides to get creative with his care.  Nader returns home to find his father nearly dead lying on the floor.  Razieh and Nader exchange some words that leads into another story that starts to develop into multiple story-lines which all come together.  Putting the angst into the heart of the audience, the film made me question my own emotions and left me curious where the story would  go next.

Nader receives a call that Razieh is in the hospital and that Simin is still with her family in the city. Nader and Simin rush to the hospital to find out what happened to Razieh and to find out if there is anything they can do to help. They come across Razieh’s husband, Hodjat (Shahab Hosseini), who at first is very calm and thankful that Nader and Simin have come to the hospital to check on his wife.  While Nader is first greeted with grace by Razieh’s husband, things change rapidly and Nader finds himself the target of a lawsuit.  This is the point in the movie where I lost all control of how to react. I started to question the people and how I might react in a similar situation. This scene really opens up the characters to scrutiny, and when you think you have answers . . . all the questions develop more questions.

Facts come to light, but not all the answers are given and it remains up to the viewer to draw their own conclusion. The movie flows continuously and is unrelenting as a way of making the viewer not only question the actions of the actors, but also question how they would react in a similar situation. Right when you think everything is tied up the ending comes and leaves the biggest question of all.  Read my interview with Director Asghar Farhadi to get more of an understanding about the climax.

The film grants the audience the proverbial fly on the wall perspective to the drama that unfolds over the course of the story. While it may not be for everyone, people who enjoy drama and excellent story-telling will be more than inclined to go out of their way to see “A Separation”.  The thing that makes this film so compelling is the way the story sticks with you. These are not characters who are easily forgotten, and it is films like this that make movie going a genuine experience.

(Give us your rating!!)

 Loading ...

“Out with the old, in with the new.”

The H-Bomb:  George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a 1920’s movie star who is on top of the world.  Each film is a bigger hit than the last, he lives in a beautiful mansion with a cold, money grubbing wife (Penelope Ann Miller), and he’s a darling of the press and public alike.  Life couldn’t get any better for George… and it doesn’t. 

One day, George’s producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) tells him about a big change that’s coming to cinema: the addition of sound.  George blows the notion of this new kind of picture off completely, thinking that it’s just a passing gimmick and believing that his audience will always be there for him. 

But George soon finds out the hard way just how wrong he is.  “Talkies” are not just a fad, they are here to stay.  It’s no longer just about faces, but about “Words! Words! Words!” as Norma Desmond would contemptuously say.  The truth finally sinks in for George when his latest film opens against a sound picture and flops.  To make matters worse, the star of that talkie is Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), an actress he more or less discovered, who’s star has been on the rise while his has been on the decline.

Now George finds himself completely unemployable in a business that he once had at his beck and call, unable to even pay his loyal chauffeur, Clifton (James Cromwell).  Will he ever find a way to reclaim his former glory?  And what about Peppy, the newly minted start for whom he once had feelings?

An appreciation for silent films and the early age of cinema seems to be a recurring theme as of late.  It certainly was in Martin Scorsese’s fantastic “Hugo”, and it is yet again in writer/director Michel Hazanavcius’s “The Artist”.  However, “The Artist” isn’t merely an homage to silent films… it is a silent film.  A silent film shot in black and white to look like it came straight from that era, with the dialogue being shown on titles against a black screen, but most of the information and emotions being conveyed through exaggerated facial expressions and gestures. 

It’s a silent film about the end of the silent films, when the advent of sound, coupled with the Great Depression, made them obsolete.  But it wasn’t just the technique that went obsolete, many of the actors did, as well, once actually delivering dialogue (and ideally doing it well) became a factor.  George’s story could be the story of any actor who couldn’t adapt to the new ways.  In fact, the theme of adapting to a constantly changing world is a universal one, that could be applied to people from all walks of life, especially in this day and age.

But what makes “The Artist” so good isn’t simply that it has a theme that rings true, it’s also that it’s a love story.  One with many facets, not only about romance, but also about loyalty and second chances.  All that, combined with the cinematic form and technique, along with some knockout performances, make “The Artist” an absolute delight to watch. 

Dujardin and Bejo, with their classic looks and expressive faces, truly look like two actors who stepped right out of the period.  Their chemistry is terrific, as you can almost see the sparks between them, despite the fact that they have no dialogue.  Goodman is terrific, and provides some of the funnier moments as the stereotypical, cigar chomping studio honcho.  Cromwell does great with what little he is given to do, and I loved Miller as the bitchy wife.  Oh, and the dog… the dog is brilliant!  See the film and you’ll see why.

On the downside, the film does have the slight scent of prestigious Oscar Bait to it… a scent that usually makes me gag.  When I sense a film is bucking for an Oscar, it just pisses me off.  However, I had such a good time with “The Artist” that I can’t begrudge it that.  Film aficionados will absolutely treasure it, and general audiences who are willing to give it a shot will enjoy it, too, I think. 

But how many will, since it is a black and white silent film, and that undoubtedly will put off a good number of average moviegoers, who sadly would rather see what Asshead Kutcher is doing this “New Year‘s Eve“.  And that really is a shame, because “The Artist” is an immensely entertaining little yarn, with heart and smarts, that is far more worthy of people’s time and dime than most of the junk floating around out there.  It’s slowly trickling into theaters around the country this awards season, and if it comes to one near you, definitely take a chance on it.

(3 People gave this 4.67 out of 5)

 Loading ...

“Be careful what you fish for!”

Swift shot: Frantically paced, clever, fun, with an imaginative script.  Holmes and Watson find themselves married to their work, in more ways than one, as they match wits with the fiendishly calculating Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) across Europe.  Guy Ritchie turns in another winner this time with witty scribes Keiran and Michele Mulroney delivering an action-packed story.

The year is 1891, Europe is on the brink of a global war, anarchists and nationalists are juxtaposed as the nations amass their forces preparing for a dreadful, technological slaughter. Everyone else sees the rampant bombings of the occupiers, oops, I mean anarchists as solely anti-government loons hell bent on tearing down the establishment, but Holmes (Downey Jr.) knows better.  It doesn’t take him long to convince his astute mate, Watson (Law) that someone, a well-connected character, Moriarty may be pulling all the spiders webs, but to what end?

It isn’t like Watson wants to run around on another potentially perilous adventure with Holmes, especially considering he is finally going to wear the shackles of horrible matrimony, get married, rather.  Kelly Reilly reprises her role as Mary, soon to be Mrs. Mary Watson, unless Holmes manages to massacre her wedded bliss. On a wonderfully shot  train sequence, with close-quarters combat and all manner of ingenuity to escape death, she gets her chance to show she is worthy to marry a veteran of the Afghanistan campaign.

Mary is dispatched to let another feisty feminine join the game, Noomi Rapace (fresh off her fiery performance as Libeth Salander) assumes the role of gypsy Madam Simza, who is just as much a badass as Salander . . . she was well cast!  When we first meet her character, she is dealing with a pesky Cossack who must have cockroach DNA!  She is concerned because her brother, a dedicated anarchist, has gone missing and sent her a mysterious note.  That is how she makes Holmes’ acquaintance.

Meanwhile, Holmes’ older brother, Mycroft (clearly the Holmes parents were sadists) unveiled by the wonderfully talented Stephen Fry, is working behind the scenes to determine if his troubled kid brother is onto something real, can all these bombings across the globe somehow be connected?

Well, here is where the film fell a bit, for someone as genius as the Professor, and for someone who never leaves loose ends, he sure left enough to have Holmes very quickly surmise he was the Soros, I mean, puppet-master behind the violence and protests.

It was all a little too convenient, really.  But, I didn’t mind, because this film was every bit as much an action flick as it’s older brother from last Christmas.  Getting to the good bits might have been less cerebral than most people preferred, but I heard a few people say that the original film was “boring” – so maybe the writers decided to trim some fat to get to the action.  I won’t fault them for that, but remember, this is a Holmes film – it needs to be incredibly clever . . . it needs to dazzle with brilliance, not baffle with the typical Hollywood bullshit.  I don’t know if it was a puzzler per say.

Still, there will be surprises, you do have to pay attention, and there are things for you to try and unravel – you may find yourself wanting to watch it again, right away, just to see if you missed anything, but in the end, the great reason for Moriarty’s game left me wanting something a bit less derivative.