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

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.

“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.

“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.

A New Muppets Film For Old Fans

Swift shot:  The Muppets are back with all their singing and dancing and of course lightning quick cameos . . . it’s a family film that will probably mean more to the aged but it was still a lot of fun for the littlest (and newest) Muppet lover in my family.  Jason Segel deserves credit for making The Muppets cool again and for giving me new Muppet memories to share with my son, as my father and I shared many Muppet memories together.

I am not a Muppet fanatic by any means, but I have always had a soft place in my heart for anything that Jim Henson created, and when he died, it devastated me, a little piece of magic, hope, and imagination died that day, so anytime a new Muppet film comes out, I am reluctant to accept it as part of the canon.  When I saw Jason Segel created a puppet opera for his aggressively funny Forgetting Sarah Marshall film, I wondered if he was a closeted Muppet fanatic – folks, the man IS a Muppet, granted a giant Muppet, but a Muppet nonetheless.  I think Jim Henson would be proud of this film.

The Muppets starts out in Smalltown, USA, a place where everyone is carefree, happy and randomly breaks out into song and dance.  This film is stuffed with plenty of frivolity, so if this is your first Muppet movie, get on board immediately or you will just sit there grousing the whole time.  Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (Walter the Muppet) are inseparable brothers who like to do just about everything together, but as Gary grows up, Walter . . .  well, he is a Muppet, you do the math.  One thing they always do together is sit in front of the TV and watch VHS tapes of the original “The Muppet Show”.  Both giant fans, when Gary decides to take his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) who is far from a bad teacher, to Los Angeles, he invites Walter to join them in the hopes they can visit the Muppet studio together.

Once they arrive though, the studio is in ruins, the tour amounts to basically viewing the outside and paying a fee – Walter is devastated, but he manages to sneak into Kermit’s old office (which is one of the most nostalgic scenes of the film, excellent job by designer Steve Saklad for that nice touch throughout the film).  While there he overhears a business deal between the sinister Tex Richman and Statler and Waldorf who are finalizing the selling of the studio to Richman.  As far as they know, the studio is being purchased to create a museum.  They don’t know much, always too busy pitching one-liner put-downs to read the fine print.  Still, Walter realizes all is not lost, as long as the Muppets can raise ten million dollars in a week – sure, simple enough . . . enter, the scream!

Desperate to save their beloved Muppets, Walter and Gary seek out Kermit the Frog, who is constantly referred to as “Mr. the Frog” – a bit that never gets old for some reason.  The dramatic, and funny, first encounter is classic Muppet comedy, heavy on the absurd and quite punny.  Kermit is quickly on board once he realizes the fine print spells the end of all things Muppet.  The whole team, including the oft overlooked yet plucky Mary, gathers the old gang.

They manage to gather every Muppet with one piggish exception . . . yeah, Miss Piggy, who is working in Paris at Vogue – see if you can recognize her devilish secretary.  They even convince one network, due to the cancellation of Punch Teacher, to let them air a telethon to raise the money needed to save Muppet studios.  Now all they are missing is an A-list celeb, something that the original Muppet show would never have to worry about, but on such short notice, even in LA, the celebs aren’t lining up to help . . . which, if you read the production notes was the exact opposite – so many people were dying to be in this film.  Giving away the A-lister would be mean-spirited and thus, un-Muppet behavior.

Reuniting the old friends is wonderful and Walter even manages to become a bona fide Muppet, but poor Mary is never quite sure where she stands with Gary, is he a man or a Muppet?  Gary, and even Walter, struggle with that question towards the film’s finale and I’d wager America’s ‘biggest’ cameo will have you grinning and dying to tell your friends who you saw – but, again, that wouldn’t be very Muppet of you.

With original music scores by Bret McKenzie and choreography by Michael Rooney, son of Mickey Rooney, who is still ticking by the way, if Muppets movies are your thing, you won’t come out disappointed.  I don’t know if people will rush out to by the album before Christmas, but I do imagine a ton of downloads for “Man or Muppet”, by far one of the best, personally home-hitting, sequences in the film.  Heck, it may even be on par with “Rainbow Connection”.

At the end of this film, I hope you find yourself asking that same question, are you a man/woman or a Muppet, because we all need to channel our inner-Muppet from time to time, even if for only a few moments then we begin to realize that life is a happy song.  Enjoy the Muppets, you will, even if Miss Piggy isn’t Frank Oz.

“Let’s just hope the Cooper Clan sticks with the First Amendment, and stays far, far away from the Second Amendment.”

The H-Bomb:  Jarod (Kyle Gallner), Travis (Michael Angarano), and Billy-Ray (Nicolas Braun) are three horny high-schoolers who get more than they bargained for when they show up at Sara’s (Melissa Leo) trailer for an Internet rendezvous.  What they imagined was going to be a wild and crazy night of three-on-one sex turns into a nightmare when they are taken captive by Abin Cooper (Michael Parks), a Fred Phelps-like preacher who shepherds a flock of gay hating Jesus freaks.  Cooper and his congregation used to pull the usual nonsense of protesting at funerals and whatnot, but they’ve been upping the ante as of late by stockpiling assault weapons and executing gays, as well as other perceived moral degenerates, during Cooper’s sermons.

This time, it’s the three teens who are going to be sacrificed on the Pastor’s altar for their deviant, “fornicatin’” ways.  But, without giving too much away, shit goes wrong…  very wrong.  Shots are fired, people are killed, and the ATF, led by John Goodman and Kevin Pollack, are called onto the scene.  The fit hits the shan and everything goes nucking futs when Cooper and his clan barricade themselves inside their walled-in compound, with children and hostages inside, and the feds move into position on the outside, resulting in a Waco-type standoff…  and that’s about as far as I’ll go, plot wise.

“Red State” is writer/director Kevin Smith’s balls out, no-holds-barred indie bounce back from his major studio flop “Cop Out” (a movie I didn’t hate as much as everyone else seemed to).  In a way, it’s almost as if the Jersey born director is apologizing for “Cop Out” by doing the exact opposite of everything he did on that film;  he wrote the script himself, raised the money himself, and even distributed it himself.  It’s most definitely not the kind of film we’ve ever seen from him before.  In fact, you’ll often have to remind yourself that you’re watching a Kevin Smith film, and even then, you’ll have a hard time believing it.

It’s only in the first twenty minutes or so that it even remotely feels like a Smith flick, with the foul mouthed teens talking about sex, sex, and…  more sex.  After that, it shifts into an intense, captive-tied-down type of torture porn, then shifts again into a stand off ‘n siege pic.  It’s not exactly a horror movie, per se, but like many horror flicks, it is dark, violent, and even oppressive, with a mean, pessimistic undercurrent running throughout.  It’s definitely not the kind of movie we would associate with this filmmaker… but he fuckin’ rocks it, nonetheless.

Simply put, “Red State” is, for the most part, fucking awesome.  This, to me, is Smith’s first film since “Dogma” where he really seems to have something on his mind and where he’s really giving it everything he’s got.  Like in “Dogma”, he’s once again saying that the only thing wrong with Christianity are the Christians, and it’s those who twist and pervert scripture to fit their own hateful beliefs who are once again the target of Smith’s satirical lashings.  But they’re not the only ones, as Smith also takes aim at the inept Government Agents and Bureaucrats, more interested in saving face than saving lives.  Even the victims, the kids who do all their thinking with the wrong head, are painted in a rather mocking light, and shown to be the shallow, chauvinistic dimwits that they are.  No one here is let off the hook.

With this movie, Smith shows that not only does he have a dark side, but that he can be funny in a deeper, more clever way, without resorting to his typical “dick ‘n fart” jokes.  The satire doesn’t always work, as there are some characters, like the closeted, bumbling local Sheriff, as well as the two cackling government suits towards the end, who come off as being a bit too cartoonish.  But for the most part, Smith’s lampooning is spot on, and it’s often as funny as it is frightening.

Tone and subject matter aside, “Red State” is also a major aesthetic departure for Smith, as it features a dirty, desaturated, hand-held look, something akin to “The Devil’s Rejects”, which this movie reminded me of in a number of ways, though things never quite get as intense as they did in Rob Zombie’s film.  As far as the acting is concerned, I would say there certainly aren’t any slouches in the lot, though there are two very notable standouts:  Melissa Leo and Michael Parks.

Leo, of course, won a much deserved Oscar for “The Fighter” this past year, and her turn here proves that she’s no one hit wonder.  She plays the easily led Christian zealot Sara with crazy eyed intensity and a cold blooded ferocity, all the while not falling into the trap of making her one note or a caricature.  She may be a complete moon-bat, but she’s also a dedicated family woman who loves her children and her church.  It would have been easy to go overboard into whacko-land with Sara, but Leo made her real instead, and added yet another knockout performance to her resume.

But it’s Parks who deserves the real accolades.  The guy’s always been a solid character actor, but what he gives here is easily a career defining performance.  Smith actually challenged people to name five actors who have given better performances this year.  Well, I’ve actually thought about it, and I can’t even come up with one.  Cooper is a certifiable nut-job of a Pastor, but Parks plays him as being calm, collected, and surprisingly charismatic.  When he goes off on one of his lengthy sermons, I can’t help but be captivated, even though everything he’s spouting is reprehensible, bigoted drivel.  This is a case where the actor maketh the movie, and Parks should win every award that Hollywood gives out this year.

Is there anything to bitch ‘n moan about, aside from the aforementioned cartoonish characters?  Well, I would say this “horror film” does sometimes fall into that horror film trap of having characters do stupid things simply because the plot needs them to; like when one of the captives gets his hands on an assault rifle, yet does not take everyone out, even though he very easily could.  But, this kind of flagrant dumb-assery happens infrequently enough that it can be forgiven.

When all is said and done, “Red State” is an “unlikely film from THAT Kevin Smith” that’s almost excellent.  I think that if the Tarantino/Rodriguez “Grindhouse” experiment had worked out as intended, and spawned an ongoing series, this would have been Smith’s contribution to it.  It doesn’t hurt that his wild script plays out in ways that are as unconventional as they are unpredictable (I defy anyone to guess how it all ends), making “Red State” a unique, curious little pic that not only broadens Smith’s abilities as a director, but also makes for what is easily his best film in over a decade.

“This isn’t Casper!”

Swift Shot:  I guarantee you at least three screams.  Using that same, what I call, the “Where’s Waldo” effect, where you have to keep looking at seemingly mundane footage and trying to essentially figure out what, if anything, is off, missing, or wasn’t there before.  This was the scariest, and probably most interesting, of the films to date.  And, they left room for even more story-telling.  Somehow this stuff never gets old, and the creators manage to deliver more surprises!  Perhaps the biggest surprise was that Michael Landon’s kid, Christopher B. Landon wrote this thing – and that it was pretty terrifying!!

[Swift note, spoke to Aceman today and asked him if he had seen any of the films, "Yea, and at first I wasn't impressed, nor scared, but then, much later, it was with me, and I couldn't get it out of my head."  I told him, "Well, this one is scary AS you watch it AND it stays with you well after you see it."]

PA3 – as the cool kids are calling it – is set primarily in 1988, in September, where we see old VHS tapes of young Katie having a birthday then things start to go all Paranormal Activity!  Well, it isn’t quite that simple, things need time to develop.  Katie and Kristi are just little munchkins, living with their mother Julie and her boyfriend, Dennis, a struggling wedding videographer.

Julie and Dennis are likable characters, in fact, they reminded me a lot of Micah and Katie from the first Paranormal Activity – their dialogue was genuine, funny and helped the audience connect with them on several levels.  Plus, this was set in the 80′s, so if you are a fan of Family Guy, and few aren’t, you’ll love seeing some old “friends” and 80′s nostalgia nods on screen.  Heck, I want to see the film again just to see how many old toys I recognize.

Kristi is the younger kid, so she is still more apt to have a wild imagination, and she claims to have a friend, Toby that only she can see and hear.  It’s frustrating having this friend, because no one really believes he is real . . . or maybe no one wants to admit he is real.  Dennis is intrigued, and much like Micah, can’t leave well enough alone.  One night when he experiences an incredibly rude (you’ll see what I mean) earthquake, he notices something in reviewing the footage that he has to share with his co-worker and friend, Randy.

Even Randy thinks there is something to this that can’t be explained, and he encourages Dennis to try and record more strange phenomena.  Dennis, like a dumb-ass, does.  He manages to convince Julie to let him place some cameras around the house, and there we have the set-up we all expect with these films.  Because this was a videographer using his own equipment, at home, I was more immersed than the stilted, security camera footage from the previous film.  The second Paranormal Activity was good, but this was so much better!

Do you remember Gramma Lois?  No?  She is in this film, front and center, and while she liked Dennis, she reminds Julie that he has no real job or prospects and is just using her for her money.  It is never made clear what Julie does for a living, if anything, but Gramma Lois supports her daughter’s decision to stay with Dennis.

Using classic horror film elements, like the teeny-bopper babysitter, Lisa, who looked like she was Debbie Gibson’s biggest fan, this film even managed to be clever without being cheesy.  That’s hard to do.  Her scenes contain at least one of your “guaranteed screams”.  Then, Dennis’ friend Randy manages to pull out a classic Halloween game that you should really never toy around with.  In fact, if there are any lessons from the Paranormal Activity films, probably the best lesson is “Don’t meddle with things you don’t understand, nor know how to vanquish!”  Anyone who has ever had a paranormal encounter of their own probably already learned this lesson the hard way!  Randy certainly did!

[I just heard a noise in my closet, and I am fairly certain it wasn't Tom Cruise]

You’ll love this film like a roller-coaster, it will scare you, and at times you will laugh at yourself for being scared, but ultimately . . . scared is what you will be, particularly if you have a keen imagination.

Finally, when the credits roll, you’ll wonder just whom, or what, was watching this footage.  If you paid attention, the answer is eerily obvious.  If you are a fan of the other two films, you needn’t hear from me that you will like this one as well, it delivers to its fan base . . . and then some!  In fact, some people that I knew didn’t care for the other two actually said this one was the best of the three.  I only hope they have at least one, or two, more films to release.  I will be there, assuming I heed the film’s warnings and steer clear of the “intriguing”.  Where did I put that tripod?

“The people’s champion… sounds good to me.”

The H-Bomb: No, your eyes are not deceiving you. No, that four star rating is not a typo. No, H-Man is not off his meds. I know what you’re thinking, that the story of “Real Steel” sounds an awful lot like “Rocky” remade by Michael Bay (ewwww… shudder), and that the only result that could ever come of that is pure, unadulterated cinematic retardation. Believe me, I was thinking that very same thing beforehand, and normally I would’ve been one hundred percent right. But on this occasion, I was one hundred percent wrong.

Set sometime in the not-too-distant future, “Real Steel” (adapted from a Richard Matheson story) tells the tale of ex-boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman), who was forced into retirement when human boxing fell out of popularity long ago, and now gets by going around boxing robots. Basically, the way this works is he controls his robot like a video game while taking on another robot being controlled by someone else. Like in real boxing, there are sanctioned league fights, underground fights, and championships. But, no matter who’s running the fight, they usually end with one robot or the other being destroyed. Whether all this could be construed as a step forward or backwards in human evolution depends on who you ask.

But anyway, after Charlie’s last couple of robots have been smashed into junk, he finds himself down and out, in need of cash and a new bot. This is where fate smiles on Charlie, as ex-girlfriend, with whom he had an eleven year old son, Max (Dakota Goyo), has just died. Max’s wealthy aunt (Hope Davis), wants to adopt him, which Charlie has no problem with, since he was never part of the kid’s life, anyway. However, she’ll be in Italy for the summer, and so her husband offers Charlie $100,000 to look after Max until the end of August.

At first Charlie and Max butt heads and want nothing to do with each other, but then one night while they’re in a junk yard looking for robot parts, Max finds an old, long discarded robot named “Atom.” Atom, as Charlie explains, is a sparring robot, not designed for actual competition. But Max, being the headstrong youth that he is, disagrees, and sets about training (programming) the dinged up old bot to fight.

And what do you know, Charlie and Max actually start winning fights, with the puny old robot that wasn’t even designed to fight competitively. Word about them starts to spread, all the way to Farra Lemkova (Olga Fonda), a Russian Kim Kardashian who owns the world champion robot fighter, “Zeus,” designed by some scary looking ninja assassin dude (Karl Yune). Lemkova arrogantly offers to buy Atom off Charlie and Max, but Max throws it back in her face by challenging the mighty Zeus to a fight.

Naturally, this is just a joke to Camp Zeus, but after the public’s reaction to the challenge, they’re left with no choice but to accept. Will Charlie and Max be able to get their little-robot-that-could ready to take down the big, bad champion, and, of course more importantly, will they stop kicking each other in the balls and actually bond as father and son over the course of this long journey? What do you think?

“Real Steel” is a much, much better film than it should be. I went into this thing thinking it was going to be stupid as hell, like “BattleBots: The Movie”, and came out of it completely dumbfounded by how caught up I was in it. Strip away the high tech robots and whatnot, and what we have here is basically a good old fashioned, feel good, underdog sports movie. It’s a familiar formula, but it’s one that worked in the past, and I’ll be damned, it worked here, too.

Even though this flick is filled to the brim with slick special effects and metal mashing, robotic beat downs, that’s not what makes it so good. Rather, and hold on to your seat, because this is a shocker, it’s the well developed, likable lead characters and their chemistry together that maketh the movie. Jackman and Goyo are right on, spot on, dead perfect as the mismatched father and son team, and their performances couldn’t be better.

Goyo, as the piss ‘n vinegar filled Max, is a real find, and you won’t be able to help but smile during the scenes when he and his robot dance into the ring. Jackman’s Charlie is a real douche-baggy prick at first, but he redeems himself as his relationship with Max grows. It’s ultimately their journey and their bonding that makes up the back bone of this film, and that makes it so emotionally satisfying. The terrific sense of humor that it retains throughout helps, as well. Charlie’s big toothed redneck tormentor, Ricky (Kevin Durand), provided some real laugh out loud moments.

“Real Steel”, despite its moronic sounding premise, is in actuality a genuine, straightforward crowd pleaser. Yeah, you’re not going to be very surprised by it, but when a formula is done this well, it don’t matter. You’ll be reeled in by it in spite of yourself. I feel guilty saying this, but it’s actually one of the better movies to come out this year, and definitely one to catch on the big screen.

Sawyer (Nathan Gamble) is an unhappy, lonely boy.  He has a hard time in school and as a result, he has to spend his summer vacation stuck in summer school.  His only friend is his cousin Kyle (Austin Stowell) who is about to leave to join the Army.  However, everything changes the day that Sawyer meets Winter.

While on his way to school, Sawyer stops off at the beach.  There is a man fishing and he notices something beached on the shore.  Sawyer goes to investigate and there he finds a badly hurt dolphin.  He helps the dolphin as much as he can, until the Clearwater Marine Hospital cavalry shows up, led by Dr. Clay Haskett (Harry Connick Jr) and his daughter Hazel (Cozi Zuehlsdorff).  They take the injured dolphin to the Marine Hospital, and Sawyer heads off to school.  But, Sawyer can’t concentrate and can’t stop thinking about the dolphin he helped.  So he visits the Marine Hospital after school and officially meets Hazel.  Hazel is pretty much the anti-Sawyer.  She’s bubbly and inquisitive and she and Sawyer become friends.  Dr. Clay doesn’t really like outsiders interacting with the injured animals, but Winter (as Hazel named her) bonded with Sawyer when he was helping her on the beach, so Dr. Clay makes an exception.

Now Sawyer finally has something he’s interested in!!  He researches dolphins and visits the Marine Hospital every day, eventually not even attending summer school anymore.  When his mother Lorraine (Ashley Judd) finds out, she is not happy – until she goes to the Marine School and sees how Winter is helping Sawyer grow.  She agrees to let him help at the Marine Hospital and makes a plea to his summer school teacher to allow him to earn his grade by doing practical work.  The teacher refuses, but it all works out by the end . . . of course.

Unfortunately, Winter’s tail was so infected that it had to be amputated.  This is bad because dolphins use their tails to swim by moving them in an up and down motion.  Since Winter has no tail, she moves what is left of it in a side to side motion to swim, which is damaging her spine.  The Clearwater Marine Hospital doctors are at a loss as to how to help Winter, and fear that the more damage is caused, the worse her condition will get.

Meanwhile, Sawyer’s cousin Kyle was involved in an explosion.  He gets to come home, but he doesn’t want to be around his family.  Kyle used to be a swim star, he set several records before graduating from high school, and since the explosion he is unable to move his legs without therapy.  It’s while visiting Kyle at the VA Hospital that Sawyer gets a brilliant idea – if people can have prosthetic limbs, why can’t Winter have a prosthetic tail??  Enter Dr. Cameron McCarthy (Morgan Freeman), who crafts prosthetic limbs for veterans who have lost their own while on duty.  Sawyer convinces Dr. McCarthy to work on fashioning a fake tail for Winter.

Unfortunately, Winter doesn’t like having fake parts on her body.  It takes a couple of tries but Sawyer and company never give up!!

I really enjoyed “Dolphin Tale”.  Morgan Freeman was great as usual, (when is he not fantastic in a role??) and I really enjoyed the antics of Rufus, a rather enthusiastic pelican that lives at the Marine Hospital.  Although it had a running time of nearly two hours, the film didn’t drag and kept my interest the whole time.

Inspired by the true story of Winter, the dolphin who lost her tail, “Dolphin Tale” is a light-hearted drama (I use the term drama loosely) that is an inspiration for the whole family.  Of course, the film is in 3D, but in this case it’s kind of nice.  When there was a 3D effect of a dolphin jumping, it looked like it was smiling at me and was going to jump out of the screen at me.

Brilliant to some, B.S. to others… make up your own mind.

The H-Bomb: As I was exiting the theater for Terrence Malick’s latest film, “The Tree of Life”, I over heard a middle age man say to his wife, “Well, that was… different,” to which they both chuckled. I really could not tell if that was meant as a positive or a negative, but I imagine that would be, positive or negative, what many in the general movie going public will say after viewing this film.

Me, I am familiar with Malick’s past work, with “The Thin Red Line” being in my top ten list of all time favorite films, so I knew going in that this wasn’t going to be a typical film. Not a typical drama. Not a typical period piece. Not a typical storyline. Not a typical anything, and just to state off the bat, this is a film that many, many people will truly dislike. To say it’s not for all tastes is an understatement, so take my high rating, and the fact that it won the Palme d’Or (Best Picture) at Cannes this past spring with a grain of salt, because while I did quite like it, I am somewhat hesitant to recommend it to people.

They say art is in the eye of the beholder, and in the case of a Terrence Malick film, truer words have never been spoken. I have never seen films divide audiences the way his do. His films can best be described as kind of cinematic poems, where plot and even character development take a back seat to mood, visuals, and overall themes. I would compare his films to David Lynch’s in their uniqueness, except the mystery and creepiness are replaced by spiritual and philosophical wonder. Malick has a style all his own, and his work is definitely for a limited audience, and even that audience is going to be divided in their assessment of “The Tree of Life”.

Some, such as myself, will find it captivating. Others will find it simply boring. Let me put it this way, if you hated “The Thin Red Line” and “The New World”, then just steer clear of “The Tree of Life”, as this is Malick’s most abstract, most esoteric, and most lacking in traditional story thrust film to date. If the meandering of his other films annoyed you, this one will drive you batty. Swifty, the fan of “The Thin Red Line” that you’re not, you would be well advised to stay the hell away.

So, with my attempt at a disclaimer out of the way, I shall now attempt to review this thing. At it’s core, “The Tree of Life” is about a man named Jack (played by Sean Penn as an adult, and by Hunter McCracken as a child), who, despite having a successful career, a beautiful home, and an attractive wife, seems to be going through some sort of inner turmoil. One of his younger brothers died at the age 19, and having never quite gotten over that, even decades after it happened, adult Jack reflects back on his childhood, growing up in a small Texas town with his mother (Jessica Chastain), father (Brad Pitt), and his two brothers.

I know that makes it sound like a typical coming of age story, but it‘s anything but. It’s a coming of age story, all right, but a very unusual one. Something, as mentioned by others, more akin to “2001: A Space Odyssey” than “Summer of ‘42”. One filled with ideas about the origins of the universe, life, and man’s place in it all… oh, but, wait, I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s focus on the “main story” of Jack’s childhood and family, first.

We follow Jack from his infancy to early adolescence, where we see a very stark contrast between Jack’s mother, who is kind, nurturing, and soulful, and his father, who is strict, at times distant, and often bitter because of his own failures. He’s a man who is trying to prepare his sons for the harsh realities of life, so they don‘t make the same mistakes he did. He’s never abusive, but he can be stern, even harsh. It’s while being raised by these two very different people he calls his parents that young Jack must find his own self… something he’s still trying to reconcile well into his adulthood. Sounds simple enough, right? Yeah, well, it would be, except for the way it all unfolds.

“The Tree of Life”, much in keeping with the style of Malick, takes the existential, expressionistic approach. The narrative is fragmented, often dreamlike, with very little dialogue, but many of those flowery voiceovers that Malick has used in his earlier films. Like before, these “deep thought” narrations come from different characters; the mother, the father, young Jack, adult Jack. Often delivered in prayer like whispers, sometimes they work, but other times they seem like the kind of bad poetry that a pretentious college freshman would write.

However, the fragmented narrative does make sense, when one stops to think about how memories, particularly distant ones, work. Many scenes seem incomplete, where we only catch a sentence or two of what was a much longer conversation. When we remember a conversation with someone, we typically don’t remember the entire conversation, just the most important things said. An example of this would be when young Jack is scolded for a reason we’re never told nor shown. We’re not shown the reason because adult Jack remembers the scolding, but perhaps not what he did to receive it. That is very much how it unfolds here. We don’t get the whole picture of this boy’s experiences, just the bits and pieces that left an impression.

Then, and here’s the aspect of the film that throws many, there is the story thread that deals with the birth of the universe. For a solid 15-20 minutes of zero dialogue, we simply see various kinds of space imagery set to music. Then we see the start and evolution of life on Earth, and yes, that includes the much talked about scene featuring two dinosaurs, in which one dinosaur shows what seems to be compassion and mercy for the other. What does this have to do with the rest of the film… good fucking question.

In fact, fuck it, no summary or synopsis can even come close to doing justice to what this film actually is. Much of the imagery, such as adult Jack following his younger self through a desert, or young Jack in an attic with a man who appears to be a giant, or the mother floating in the air under a tree, or the relevance of the birth of the universe sequence, is symbolic, the meaning of which is left up to your own interpretation.

If I must offer my overall interpretation of “The Tree of Life”, without spoilers, it is that it’s about a jaded man trying to come to terms with his past, his father, his brother’s death, and his place in the world. Maybe the universe scenes are symbolic of him thinking about his tiny role in the “bigger picture” and being humbled or frightened by it. Or perhaps he’s pondering the existence of God. Who’s to say? These are merely my impressions, and I could be wrong. But that’s what I like about “The Tree of Life”, it’s a film about ideas, and engages me to interpret those ideas without spelling anything out. Films of this kind, that challenge us in this way rarely come along, and I appreciate them when they do.

As far as the performances go, everyone does fine, considering their dialogue is minimal. Pitt makes for a very believable patriarch from that period, loving but less than affectionate. Chastain brings real warmth to what could be a star making role for her, assuming enough people see this. McCracken is impressive as the young Jack, taking on a complex role as a kid who seems to observe everything around him and absorb it like a sponge. He does well at conveying a wide range of emotion through, again, very few words. As the adult Jack, Penn is his stellar self, though I was disappointed by how little screen time he actually had. Despite his second billing, his appearance is little more than a glorified cameo.

Malick’s direction is very much in keeping with the visual style he has established in the past. Much of the film was shot with a steady cam, allowing the camera to float about freely like a ghost and capture moments on the fly. Another characteristic of Malick’s, images of a serene nature, such as trees in a forest or a flowing river, are composed like paintings. His trademark of juxtaposing man and nature, and the effect man can have on nature, is very present. Call his films dull to your heart’s content, but you must concede they are beautiful to look at.

But, pretty pictures alone will not sway a detractor’s opinion on this film, and I can understand why. There are even artsy-fartsy cinema snots who hated this thing, and granted, some aspects, like the dinosaurs or the mother floating, or the flowery narrations, border on being just silly. At two hours and eighteen minutes, it is long, languid, and some will say, not a whole lot happens.

Personally, I found it rich and thought provoking, from one of the few true artists working in cinema. Others will find it boring and incomprehensible. How you react to it depends on you. I know, that can be said of any film, but in the case of “The Tree of Life”, it has never been more true.