Coming Attractions: Alice in Wonderland

I certainly have been known to get excited about upcoming films. I'm eagerly awaiting the new Harry Potter, and I'm looking forward to Julia and Julie, The Time Traveler's Wife, and Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg. I just came across these beautiful pictures from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland which will be released in 2010. The first picture of Johnny Depp as The Mad Hatter just takes my breath away -- as did Anne Hathaway as The White Queen. Alice is played by Mia Wasikowska, whom some of you may know from HBO's In Treatment, where she played a precocious teenage gymnast. Helena Bonham Carter is The Red Queen. The promising cast also includes Stephen Fry as The Cheshire Cat, Alan Rickman as The Caterpillar, Crispin Glover as The Knave of Hearts, and Christopher Lee as The Jabberwock.

Review: Every Little Step

Review: Every Little Step

Rating: ***

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 91%

Put this documentary on your Netflix list because it didn't enjoy wide distribution and only remains at a few theatres (The Glen in Glen Ellyn being one). The documentary tells the story of (initially 3,000) dancer-singer-actors auditioning to appear in a musical (A Chorus Line) about dancer-singer-actors auditioning to appear in a musical. I am a sucker for dance movies -- probably because I have no terpsichorean talent whatsoever. That muse passed me by.

Features that make this film a delight: 1) archival footage of Michael Bennett's original interviews with Broadway dancers -- interviews that inspired the dialogue in the musical; 2) initially ragged-around-the-edges dancing, singing, and acting that becomes glorious by the end of the film; 3) the professionalism of the auditioning director et al.-- watching them make tough decisions and watching them handle the fragile egos of the dancers with care and sensitivity; and 4) the impassioned devotion to their art that so many of dancers exhibit.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth putting on your Netflix list
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Rating: *1/2

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 37%

Let me 'f'ess up to the truth right away. I went to see this movie for one reason only: Hugh Jackman. The reviews have generally been pretty awful, but I thought I'd give it a chance because I'd enjoyed the first two offerings in the X-Men series so much. Unfortunately, the reviewers have delivered very defensible negative evaluations of the film. The special effects are there; there's nothing schlocky about the production values, but the movie just doesn't have the heart and center of the first two films. In fact, my interest tellingly perked up at the end of the film when Patrick Stewart appeared as early mutants escaped to his protective care. The lesson learned is that one X-man does not a movie make: even if he's buff, beautiful, and a good actor.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Wordle Sermon

As a linguist, I am delighted whenever words are bent, broken, twisted, and otherwise delightfully tranformed -- and especially visually. I can't get enought of Visuwords, the visual thesaurus: http://www.visuwords.com/?word=happy. So, Wordle (http://www.wordle.net/)is my idea of the bees knees. I submitted my first Seabury sermon to the website, delivered on 2-22-08 -- one week after the traumatizing announcement that Seabury-Western Theological Seminary was ending its 150 year run of educating residential M.Div. students for the priesthood. We had no idea about our futures -- all of us: staff, faculty, and students. Since then, Seabury has begun to rise from its ashes like the proverbial phoenix -- solvent and healthy -- with a new mission and purpose.

Click on the image below for a better view:

Review: The Brothers Bloom

Review: The Brothers Bloom

Rating: ***

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 62%

I have always loved movies about the long and short con: The Lady Eve, The Music Man, Paper Moon, The Sting, The Grifters, House of Games, The Spanish Prisoner, Catch Me If You Can, and, oh, of course, Steve Martin's Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels. These are only a few of the titles in this surprisingly ubiquitous genre. Unfortunately, however, these films have predisposed us to skepticism whenever we watch a new film about a con artist. We know to take nothing at face value; we assume there is always more than meets the eye. Is a character dead? Probably not. The Sting ruined that surprise for us.

So, offering a new film in this genre is not for the faint of heart. The viewers expect to be surprised. We really don't want to figure it all out. We want to be conned. David Mamet did just that in House of Games. We didn't want to believe the ending. After all, the dead guy gets up, doesn't he? It's all a con, isn't it?

The Brothers Bloom does manage to surprise us -- to con us. We are finally amazed that we have been watching a love story all along, a story about the love of brothers as well as the love of a man and a woman. The director, Rian Johnson, manages the con predominantly through the stunning performances of his remarkable cast: Adrien Brody, not knowing what it is to live a life unscripted by his brother, Mark Ruffalo, a brilliant con artist, Rachel Weisz, a true, but entirely believable, eccentric, Rinko Kikuchi, silent and deadly, Robby Coltrane, a million miles from Hagrid, Maximilian Schell, diabolical and compelling, and Ricky Jay, the perfectly cast narrator.

The film loses some steam in the second half, but, overall, the con works. I'd like to see it again.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Up

Review: Up

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 98%

A lonely old man and a pudgy little boy travel by balloon-house to South America and . . .

Does this sound like a sure-fire plot for an animated film? Hardly. But it all works so beautifully. As we've come to expect from Pixar, the animation is stunning; the colors vibrant. My grandson Max and I chose to forgo the 3-D version, and we weren't sorry.

The "adventure in Venezuela" part of the plot is great fun with talking dogs, an exotic bird, a marvelous airship, and an evil nemesis. But it is the beginning of the film that I found most compelling. With few words, the movie recounts the story of the meeting, courtship, and marriage of Carl and Ellie Fredricksen: a union marked by unrealized mutual dreams and the sad absence of children. Ellie and Carl grow old together and Ellie dies, leaving Carl to his profound sadness. This story is told directly with the absence of sentimentality. To Pixar's credit, the film recognizes that Carl's sadness does not disappear, that it surfaces from time to time. Carl, however, is not paralyzed by his grief; he moves on to fulfill his and his wife's dream.

Death at the beginning of a Disney film has been almost formulaic historically, especially the death of a parent as in Bambi, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Finding Nemo. In Up, death is treated realistically and appropriately for its intended viewers: impressionable children.

Max, by the way, thought the movie was terrific and far superior to Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

Rating: *1/2

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 44%

When Max, my grandson, and I saw the original Night at the Museum movie, I went with low expectations. The film had only received a 44% Rotten Tomatoes rating. As we watched the movie, I thought, "Well, this isn't Citizen Kane, but I think it's going to be a big hit." Just the concept of being privy to historical figures coming alive in the night at a museum was enough to win me over. Yes, some of the jokes were sophomoric, but Max, then nine, was thoroughly delighted and I was thoroughly entertained. It was that rare thing, a live action movie for children that adults could also enjoy.

So, when the second movie, Battle of the Smithsonian, was released, I was eager to see it -- even though it again received only 44% approval from the Rotten Tomatoes reviewers. This time, I have to agree with the reviewers. The film, transplanted from New York to the Smithsonian, is a pale copy of the original. The new venue, so full of possibilities, simply offers nothing new in the way of plot or delight. The movie was tired and tedious. Although, to be fair, I must report that Max liked it -- and I do love Hank Azaria doing funny voices.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Entre Les Murs (The Class)

Review: Entre Les Murs (The Class)

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 97%

In the past few years, I've gone to several French movies on the strength of almost universal acclaim from critics -- and I've been stunned by how much they overpraised the movies (see, for example, my review of Un Conte de Noel --A Christmas Tale). So, I approached this film with much trepidation, knowing only that 97% of 129 reviews reported on Rotten Tomatoes were positive, if not glowing.

My unequivocal admiration for this film has come in two stages. In the first phase, I found the film totally engrossing. Yes, in a past life, I was a teacher, so, like most teachers, I love to watch classroom-centered dramas. But this is a school story different from any I have ever seen. Set in a multi-ethnic Parisian high school replete with belligerent students, we might expect To Sir, With Love or Dangerous Minds -- dramas in which the earnest young teacher struggles at first but eventually wins the hearts and minds of his or her recalcitrant charges. Francois, the film's young teacher does struggle -- and he continues to struggle at the end of the film. There are small triumphs; there are probable tragedies. He's a good teacher, teasing marvelous stuff out of his students. He's a human, flawed teacher, engaging too often in verbal battles with his class and, on one utterly frustrating occasion, saying something he never should have said.

There are also scenes in the teacher's lounge where the faculty talk about their students and their frustrations. We here see that Francois is probably selling his students a bit short. The history teacher tells him he's covering the Ancien Regime in class and suggests Francois' students might read a little Voltaire, possibly Candide. Francois rejects the idea; he believes they are not capable of dealing with such texts. Yet later, one of Francois' least erudite students reports ingenuously that she has been reading The Republic. In scenes in which teachers formally review their students' performances, two students sit on the review council (actually mandated by French school policy). This representation is borne of good, if muddleheaded, intentions, certainly, but the bad behavior of the representatives has long range disastrous consequences.

On a personal note, I was naively surprised by how difficult it was for me to understand the French spoken in the film As a linguist, I should have been particularly aware of how much any language changes in 40 years -- the last time I studied French. On top of that, I only studied literary French (so when the students read from The Diary of Anne Frank in class, I had no trouble understanding the language). What this underscored for me was how futile it is for the French school system to persist in emphasizing the teaching of the conjugation of verb tenses that "only snobs use"-- imperfect subjunctive or passe simple, for example -- in the face of their natural disappearance from spoken language. (Note: I apologize I have not figured out how to make accents appear in this text.)

Well, enough of a linguistic rant. The second phase of my admiration for this film occurred when I read how it was made. The teacher, Francois Begaudeau, who "stars" in the film actually wrote a book about his experiences in the classroom. The director, Laurent Cantet, spent a year filming him, his fellow faculty, his students, and their parents (cinema verite style), but this isn't exactly a documentary -- even though everyone in the film is using his or her own name. The director had them all improvising their interactions. What results is a remarkably honest, compelling portrayal of a year in the life of a Parisian high school. At no point do we note self-consciousness on the part of the "actors." See it. It's a treat.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Angels and Demons

Review: Angels and Demons

Rating: *1/2

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 37%

I'm really glad I haven't read the book this film is based on. I'm sure it's similar to The DaVinci Code. Long on plot, but short on substance, character development, accuracy, and logic. Because the film relies so heavily on plot twists, however, it did hold my interest. I never knew what to expect -- beyond deep, meaningful clues hidden in Bernini sculptures and obelisks.

Here's my issue -- and I'm trying not to incorporate SPOILERS: When we finally find out what REALLY IS GOING ON, the byzantine plan is so unnecessarily complex and dependent on a myriad of coincidences that it truly strains credibility. I mean, there must have been a simpler way of getting what he wanted. Donchathink?

Wait for cable. Or go see Star Trek again.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Star Trek

Review: Star Trek

Rating: ****

Nonna's Rating: $$$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 95%

Those of you who know me will probably be disposed toward discounting my hyperbolic praise of this movie. After all, I do have a home office with Trek action figures on the walls. And, yes, I have been-- and always shall be -- a Trekker

But WOW! I kept realizing my mouth was hanging open during every exciting sequence in the movie -- and there were plenty of them. And I was with two friends who are not Trek fans, but they truly enjoyed the film.

Refreshing the franchise by playing with time travel and the timeline, J. J. Abrams, the director, manages to satisfy both viewers new to the series and those of us intimately familiar with the details of five separate television series and ten (I think) movies. Who among Trekkers didn't delight in Kirk besting the Kobayashi Maru scenario? (If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't worry. You don't have to know.)

The new (old) Enterprise crew manages to capture the idiosyncrasies of the original actors without becoming a trite parody. Zachary Quinto as Spock is particularly adept at conveying a Spock a bit green behind the ears -- if not his blood. There are new layers of complexity and a fascinating backstory here. Chris Pine as Kirk is even more impetuous than Shatner as the young captain. The predictably awkward beginnings of his storied bromance with Spock are handled with aplomb. Both characters grow and learn in this installment -- the first, I'm sure, of several.

See it on the big screen. Going to warp has never been so marvelously gut wrenching.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: The Soloist

Review: The Soloist

Rating: **1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 55%

My, how I wanted to love this movie. It had two marvelous things going for it: Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey. And they do deliver. I couldn't take my eyes or ears off Foxx whenever he began to speak. His verbal gymnastics recalled for me painful, frustrating experiences with two homeless schizophrenics whom I had known from their youth: there again was the brilliant connectivity of seeming gibberish describing the world through the lens of mental illness. And Downey inhabited his role as a reporter the way he always does -- with subtle nuances and doubtless sincerity.

Ironically, the problem with the movie is its verisimilitude, its unrelenting attestation that life is just more complicated than that. Downey's character (Lopez) sets out to rescue Foxx's (Ayers), a brilliant cellist derailed by his schizophrenia. Lopez's intentions are good; he does everything he can. He believes he can make a difference. But, in the course of the film, he learns that he has no control of the outcome of his actions: Ayers is not "fixable." Finally, Lopez recognizes that all he can really do is simply be there for Ayers with no hidden agendas, no desire to fix him. The film is worth watching for that insight alone, but, unfortunately, that story doesn't make for compelling drama. So, be prepared for a somewhat unusual movie-going experience. Instead of being entertained, you will be asked to ponder and learn. And is that so bad?

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: City of Ember

Review: City of Ember

Rating: **1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 50%

I'm giving this movie a strong 2 1/2 stars -- and, if you're viewing it with a pre-teen, taking him or her to a matinee is a fine idea. Serious films for children are far and few between lately. This one presents a post-apocolyptic world filled with children who have learned to adapt to dire circumstances. It's a film that challenges older children to confront the consequences of profligate use of resources -- but the final message is one of hope.

The stunning visuals will captivate kids and keep adults interested if not mesmerized. Supporting performances by Tim Robbins, Martin Landau, and Bill Murray contribute to the solid story -- headlined by Saorise Ronan and Harry Treadaway, children who can carry the movie. Released last October, it makes for a good family night rental now.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: State of Play

Review: State of Play

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 85%

Obviously, I'm the contrarian on this one. My expectations were high for this film. After all, Russell Crowe, Helen Mirren, Harry Lennix, and Jeff Daniels -- think of the possibilities. And, yes, Ben Affleck delivers a less than stellar performance, but he's not responsible for ruining the movie. The writers are.

It's a newspaper movie -- in the great tradition of All the President's Men , but falling far short of it. Crowe, paunchy and shaggy, plays a dissolute investigative reporter to a "T." Rachel McAdams does a passable job as the young, upstart blogging reporter. Helen Mirren is the crusty -- aren't they all?-- newspaper boss. The subtext of the byzantine plot is the speedy dissolve of the American newspaper as we know it and the rise of the Internet as the preferred source for news. But the film pays scant attention to this issue, resolving it by having Crowe and McAdams overcome their reporting-style prejudices and learning to cooperate to solve the mystery of "what is Ben Affleck up to anyway?"

At least, I guess they solved it. The ending left me with questions -- especially (and this is not a spoiler really) what the heck was that $26,000 about anyway? In a film like this one, ambiguity at the end is problematic; utter confusion is inexcusable. Wait for cable.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Changeling

Review: Changeling

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 61%

I decided to withhold judgment on this movie. After all, it was a Clint Eastwood film -- nevertheless, it did star Angelina Jolie, and I've never been wowed by her histrionics. And she did pull out all the stops (organ reference) for this one. After all, she plays the single mother of a kidnapped child -- a role made for scenery chewing cinema. When the child is returned to her with great fanfare by the LA Police Department, she insists that he is not her child while all around her insist that he is. An incredible nightmare. The story plays out and focuses on the venal, unbearingly corrupt LA Police, immortalized for their lack of a moral compass in films such as Chinatown, Mullholland Falls, and L.A. Confidential.

There are at least three places where the film should end -- but it goes on -- and on. Eastwood is faithful to the actual story; unfortunately, that doesn't make for good cinema. I found myself waiting to see what would happen next but ulitmately found the film dissatisfying -- like a too light lunch.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: I Love You, Man

Review: I Love You, Man

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 80%

I heartily recommend this movie. Yes, the humor can be crude and tasteless, but it is balanced by a pervasive sweetness. Peter, played by Paul Rudd, is engaged to Zooey (Rashida Jones of The Office). Zooey has a small crowd of friends who will be her wedding attendants; Peter, unfortunately, has no strong friendships with other men; he's not even close with his father or brother. So, Peter sets out to make some friends.

Some critics have said that this situation is totally unbelievable. I beg to differ. Most definitely, I have known men who were more comfortable around women, who enjoyed their company and felt socially inept around other men -- especially men who can be described as "guys' guys." Such women-loving men are not adept at sportstalk, the guy language of choice. They also don't spend much time complaining about women and their idiosyncracies -- or bragging about sexual conquests, the provence of men's men.

So, Peter decides to befriend a man, and his attempts provide a great deal of comic relief. He finally hooks up with Sydney, a guy secure enough to wear shorts and Uggs to walk his dog. As one critic points out, Sydney (Jason Segal) is a little bit like "The Dude" in The Great Labowski -- just not living so close to the edges of society.

By the end of the movie, Peter has learned more about himself and about his relationship with Zooey. Syndey also manages to grow up a bit. It's a delightful 90 minutes.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 73%

This one I did see in 3D -- and the effects were excellent. I heard on NPR that we can expect most feature-length cartoons from the big studios to be in 3D from now on. That will be fun -- but expensive because afternoon bargain prices do not seem to be operative for 3D movies. Eleven or twelve dollar admission is typical -- even for four-year-olds.

The film was entertaining enough for me, but my 11 and 4 "and a half" year old grandsons thought it was quite wonderful. To clarify their evaluations, I asked, "Was it better than Kung Fu Panda?" "No," they said. Panda is the gold standard in movies as far as they are concerned.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Adventureland

Review: Adventureland

Rating: ***

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%

One critic complained that movies about boring people with boring lives are boring -- and not worth making. Probably true, but I certainly didn't find these character boring people. Adventureland is a coming of age story. Like any bildungsroman, it is necessarily formulaic. A callow youth will grow from child to adult. He will be restless at first, discontent and somewhat cynical about his life as it is. As time passes, he will grow, usually making mistakes along the way. He will spend a good deal of time bashing his head against societal mores, but, eventually, he will be incorporated in that society in some meaningful way -- finally at peace. Well, maybe I'm claiming too much for this film, but I did not find it boring. It's a sweet, funny story with a great 80s soundtrack.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Duplicity

Review: Duplicity

Rating: ***

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 66%

OK, I confess. I had no idea what was going on in this movie. Don't ask me why they did this or that. I probably won't have an explanation. I could follow it well enough, but, when it was over, I started to ask questions like "Why didn't they just . . . ? Wouldn't they have accomplished the same thing if they'd only . . . ?"

The fact is that you don't really care about the answers. The film is only worth watching for two good reasons: Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. Both their delightful selves exude all over the screen. When they're not on camera, you really don't care. I guess that's star power. Without them, this film would never have been made. After all, they're spies who used to be in the CIA and MI5. Now, they just spy for corporations. No, not arms manufacturers. Pizza and beauty product manufacturers. Who else but these two could have made that interesting?

But I must mention one other standout performance in the film -- that of Paul Giamatti. Mr. Giamatti is the male Meryl Streep. He embodies his characters to the extent that we forget that Giamatti inhabits them. In this movie, he plays a corporate CEO for whom business is war. He should be nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor Oscar for one unforgettable scene in which he addresses his troops as effectively as Henry V at Agincourt.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: In Bruges

Review: In Bruges

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 80%

Two professional hitmen hide in Bruges after a tragically bungled hit. One of them, played by Brendan Gleason, is a world-weary, experienced caretaker of sort (and I use that term in the broadest of senses). The other, played by Colin Ferrell, is the bungler -- and a liability as far as their boss, played by Ralph Fiennes (very much against type), is concerned. I hesitate to reveal any more. The plot is full of twists and turns as well as blood and comedy.

The juxtaposition of gore and extremely funny situations works somehow. And the director and writer, Martin McDonagh, manages to deliver a story in which we actually find ourselves caring about a couple of hitmen. Of course, credit must also go to the actors. We learn very little about their histories, but we know their stories just by looking at their faces. Brendan Gleason's existential angst is palpable; his altruism is almost saintly -- in a world where Satan is god. Colin Farrell's performance is nothing short of brilliant. His eyebrows could win an Oscar. And Ralph Fiennes is one scary dude -- a devoted English family man in the tradition of Tony Soprano.

A few critics have found the ending contrived and artificial. I found it believable and satisfying. What goes around comes around.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Coraline

Review: Coraline

Rating: ***

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 88%

Coraline is a stunningly beautiful animated work -- and I didn't even see it in 3D. The stop-motion animation is far beyond herky-jerky earlier efforts like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.

If there is any drawback to this film, it is that it's really not appropriate for children -- perhaps even nine and ten-year-olds. Coraline is a little girl whose workaholic parents basically ignore her -- they practice a benign neglect. Coraline wishes for a different sort of life, and, yes, she gets what she wishes for. And it's one scary world through that secret door. Like Alice, she moves through the looking glass into an alternate reality. At first, it's heaven. Super-attentive parents indulge her every whim -- and her "mother" actually prepares elaborate tasty meals. Coraline, however, chooses to ignore the fact that these dream parents have buttons for eyes. All turns very dark when Coraline understands that she is trapped in this new world, and that she, too, must have buttons for eyes. I don't know about you, but that really creeps me out. Needles. Eyes. Yuk.

But I loved it.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Marley and Me

Review: Marley and Me

Rating: **1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$

Rotten Tomatoes: 60%

This film earns **1/2 not because it is exceptionally well written or well-acted, but because it's one of those rare movies adults can actually enjoy along with their children -- well, at least children who are a bit older and can handle some scenes guaranteed to get the tears flowing . It's engaging enough. Jennifer Anniston dutifully delivers her lines in a part (the wife) that's not particularly challenging or very different from anything else she's played. Owen Wilson, who seems to inspire either a "love him" or "hate him"response from moviegoers, manages to be his charming self and sets us up for a surprisingly philosophical -- and close to profound -- ending. Even though I'm not a dog owner, I was sucked into the sentimental appeal of the frustrating-but-lovable-puppy story. For about 20 minutes after the movie, I thought seriously about getting a dog -- that's how charming the film is. I was able to overcome my temporary insanity however.

Marley and Me has managed to do almost $150 million in U.S. box office receipts since its release at the end of 2008. Certainly, there's a natural appeal to dog owners, but that alone doesn't explain the film's success. When all is said and done, it's simply a charming film -- the kind people will buy for their video libraries. And they'll tell themselves they know what's coming, so they'll be convinced they won't cry. And then they'll find themselves weeping through the end -- the same way they do every time they view it.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Last Chance Harvey

Review: Last Chance Harvey

Rating: **

Nonna's Rating: $

Rotten Tomatoes: 69%

Ironically enough, here's a movie I really wanted to like and recommend -- but I can't. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson do an amazing job with an incredibly mediocre, trite, derivative script, but they can't pull off a miracle. I groaned audibly when Hoffman's character was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from showing up at their "Affair-To-Remember"-type rendezvous.

One insurmoutable problem in the film is that I sensed no chemistry between the soon-to-be-70 Hoffman and the soon-to-be-50 Thompson. But I don't fault the actors. The script calls for Thompson's character to fear emotional entanglements, to always withdraw from intimacy. Hoffman's character isn't exactly a relationship builder either.

Nevertheless, Hoffman especially still manages to have a few moments in which he takes this mediocre material and makes it soar.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: Revolutionary Road

Review: Revolutionary Road

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 71%

I had decided not to like this movie. Several friends told me it was depressing -- a downer. And I expected it to be imitative of Mad Men, the outstanding AMC series about the secret lives of ad executives in the early 1960s. In a way, it is like Mad Men. The story focuses on a marriage in trouble and people smoke and drink incessantly -- even while they're pregnant. But the movie transcends all this.

The story proceeds in a straightforward manner: a young couple meet, get married, move to the suburbs, discover that their dreams have dissolved, try to recover them,and fall apart. It sounds ordinary. It sounds dull and boring. It's not -- in part because Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio deliver excellent performance; in part because their story is the story of 50% of American marriages.

There is also a special time-long-gone poignancy in watching the lives of men and women of the mid-fifties -- men who had returned from war and women who wore dresses and heels to do their housework. I could not help but think of the lives of my parents and their friends -- their dreams and disappointments

My friends were correct. It's not a happy movie, but it is balanced in the way it refrains from assigning blame for what occurs to the husband or the wife. They are both culpable.

Kathy Bates as their neighbor/realtor is her usual marvelous self, but it is the performance of Micheal Shannon that is truly mesmerizing. Into the ordinary, suburban world of Kate and Leo, Shannon drops like an atom bomb, telling truth, pointing out inconsistencies and subterfuge. He definitely deserves his Academy Award nomination.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it

Review: The Wrestler

Review: The Wrestler

Rating: ***1/2

Nonna's Rating: $$$$

Rotten Tomatoes: 98%

I'm sure you've had the experience. You see a movie, and for a day or so, you can't get it out of your head. The images haunt you. You feel compelled to discuss it with others who've seen it; you feel compelled to recommend it to those who have not. The Wrestler has been such a picture for me -- and I'm still thinking about it after one week. Mickey Rourke's painfully authentic performance, his ability to inhabit the character he portrays, continues to remind me of -- of all things -- the gift of free will. God gave us the gift of choice and, everyday, we make one choice after another.

"The Ram," as Rourke's once-famous character is known, has made those choices, one after another, in his years of taking part in the bizarre ballet of choreographed professional wrestling. He had made those choices in his relationship with his wife and his child. And, yes, in his later years, in the movie, he still can choose one way or the other, but something deeper and more compelling than simple habit steers him toward choices that continue to chip away at his soul. We can pretend he's a "fringe" person, someone who lives outside of whatever "normal" is, but he isn't. He's an Everyman transmogrified by a myriad of addictions, including one to the idea and the glory of what it is to be "The Ram."

This isn't an easy film to watch. The wrestling scenes are brutal and bloody, made doubly horrifying by the obvious good will, affection, and camaraderie the wrestlers show one another in their dressing room. Rourke's performance is the reason to see the movie. His often subtle emotions play across his face, a face hardly recognizable to that of the young man who starred in The Pope of Greenwich Village. Some critics have said that Rourke's performance is not remarkable, that it only mirrors his own life experiences, that it is just Mickey Rourke on the screen.

Well, I say, that's enough for me.

Nonna's Ratings:

$$$$ = Worth paying the Friday evening price
$$$= Worth paying the Matinee price
$$= Worth a rental
$ = Wait for cable
# = Skip it