Category Archives: Movie Reviews – C

Classic Movie Spotlight: “Charade”

by

30

Classic Movie SpotlightAny movie starring the suave Cary Grant and the gorgeous Audrey Hepburn automatically catches my attention. Yet for some inexplicable reason I had not taken time to watch “Charade”. Well now I have and I can say without hesitation that it’s a real treat. Stanley Donen produced and directed this 1963 film that plays in almost every genre. It can be considered a Hitchcockian thriller, a slick romance, or a side-splitting comedy. But more importantly all of these elements fit together nicely in what turns out to be a well conceived and sharply directed picture driven by some wonderful performances. And would you expect anything else when you have this kind of talent involved?

The movie begins with a murder. We see a quick scene of a man being thrown from a train that’s speeding through the French countryside. This turns out to be Charles Lampert and his death is what triggers the mystery component of the film. Hepburn plays his wife Regina who is winding down her skiing trip in the French Alps. It’s here that she first meets an alluring stranger who goes by the name of Peter Joshua (Grant). After returning to Paris and finding everything in her apartment gone, Regina is notified by the police that her husband had been murdered while trying to leave the city. At his funeral three mysterious and shady looking men “pay their respects”. In actuality, the three were past partners with Charles in an elaborate scheme to steal $250,000 worth of gold. They are determined to get the money and think that Regina knows where it is.

It’s this mystery that serves as the main course of the film. Who is it that murdered Charles? Who is it that would do anything to get their hands on the $250,000? Who can Regina trust? Can anyone trust Regina? These are all viable questions and the movie never tips its hand too early. Instead you find yourself suspicious of every character at some point in the film. Peter pops back up but it may not be by accident. Grant nicely creates an aura of suspicion mixed in with his character’s self-assured charm. I loved it every time he showed up. The three men from the funeral, wonderfully played by James Coburn, George Kennedy, and Ned Glass, throw aside the ‘honor among thieves code’ and are as untrustworthy as they come. Regina has to navigate through this cast of questionable characters but does so with the help of the CIA administrator named Hamilton Bartholomew played by Walter Matthau.

Cary Grant & Audrey Hepburn

There are several other things that help make “Charade” a really good film. I’ve mentioned how well the mystery element of the story works. But the movie also has its share of hilarious scenes particularly those featuring Grant and Hepburn’s playful banter. I also felt there was a believable romantic chemistry between the two that I bought into despite the noticeable age differences. And then there’s the great look of the film thanks to the fantastic cinematography of the brilliant Charles Lane as well as carefully chosen locations scattered throughout beautiful Paris. And I just have to talk about the cast again. Hepburn is lovely and you just can’t take your eyes off of her. Grant’s performance is a reminder that he was not only a very polished actor but he could also be very funny. This was one of his final roles, and even though he’s older and grayer, he still masterfully handles each and every scene. And while I’ve never been the biggest Matthau fan, he’s perfect here as is Coburn.

I have no idea why I waited so long to catch up with “Charade”. It’s a highly satisfying mishmash of several movie genres that I love and it’s anchored by two performances from two of Hollywood’s all-time greats. Fantastic direction, beautiful cinematography, and a perfect supporting cast give this movie a familiar yet distinct style that I truly loved and responded to. Now there are a few plot holes that you could nitpick about and there may be a couple of things that are a little too silly to buy into. But I found it to be an entertaining time and it’s a film that shouldn’t fly under any movie fan’s radar. If you haven’t seen it, don’t take as long as I did. It’s definitely worth your time.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Cold Light of Day”

by

26

Cold Light posterAbout a quarter of the way through “The Cold Light of Day” I was really wondering why everyone had been so hard on the film. I was already preparing for my defense of the movie and the ribbing I would be getting for it. But then things changed. Bruce Willis disappears, Henry Cavill takes center stage, and the bottom falls out. Now I usually don’t like to dwell too long on a movie’s bad points but sometimes you just can’t avoid it. Especially when the entire movie takes a nose dive right before your very eyes. Things definitely go bad here and the movie erases nearly every bit of promise it offers early on.

The idea of the movie is sound enough. Will Shaw (Cavill) arrives in Spain where he plans to spend the week with his vacationing family. We quickly learn that Will doesn’t have the best relationship with his father (Bruce Willis) and the tension between the two is evident. But Will doesn’t make things easy. He sulks and mopes and spends more time on his cell phone checking on his business in San Francisco. This self-centered immaturity pops up throughout the film. I mean even later, when Will is supposed to be ‘a new man’, his character reminds me of a 14-year old with some of the things he does.

The group takes a sailboat off the coast for a day, but Will and his father have a huge argument leading Will to swim into town to get supplies and cool off. When he gets back to the beach to he notices that the boat is gone. He walks the beaches searching until he finds it in a cove. Nobody is on board and it appears there was a struggle. Neither the police or American Embassy are willing to help and Will begins to find out some interesting things about his father. I don’t want to give away any of the few surprises (and I mean very few) this movie has so let’s just say he ends up with a host of people chasing him through Madrid while he tries to find a way to save his family.

CA.0822.the.cold.light.of.day.

One of the biggest problems with “The Cold Light of Day” is that things get so blasted silly. The film takes so many convenient, out of the blue turns and the characters do some of the most idiotic things. Sigourney Weaver, a talented and accomplished actress, enters the picture and you would think she would be a stabilizing force. Not so! Her character is as cheesy and corny as they come and I often found myself just shaking my head at her flailing attempts at tough guy dialogue. Her character’s angle as well as several other aspects of the story are completely predictable which cuts into any of the suspense the film was hoping for. And any type of plot that happens to catch you by surprise still feels totally contrived.

None of this is helped by Henry Cavill. If I may be unapologetically blunt for a moment, Cavill is absolutely awful here. Now to be fair it doesn’t help that he’s given such boneheaded dialogue. But his performance even sinks below that. Cavill is at his best when he’s sprinting through the streets, jumping over cars, and ducking for cover (and he does a ton of that). But once he’s asked to say a line or show some emotion, well lets just say I’m suddenly a little worried about the upcoming “Man of Steel” movie.

Now this movie features some good camera work and it’s shot in some gorgeous locations. I absolutely loved seeing the sights of Madrid as the movie moves from one part of the city to another. I enjoyed the first third of the film and thought it opened itself up nicely. It also moves at a good crisp pace and at 90 minutes it doesn’t drag things out longer than it should. But the pluses don’t absolve the movie of its clear transgressions and as it moves forward things completely fall apart. I remember when I first saw the trailer for this film. I thought it had a lot of potential. It did. Unfortunately the movie wastes practically all of it.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

REVIEW: “Chernobyl Diaries”

by

23

CHERNOBYL Popster

I remember the first time I saw the trailer for 2012’s “Chernobyl Diaries”. I thought it looked pretty good and I wondered if it might be the shot in the arm that the struggling horror genre desperately needed. Modern horror films have become lazy, uninspired, and derivative. Unfortunately those three words also perfectly describe “Chernobyl Diaries”. It turned out to be a classic case of the trailer being better than the movie. Every good scene is found in the trailer and some could reasonably argue that even those scenes are lacking. Yet another example of how the genre is stuck in a rut and just spinning its wheels.

I’ll give “Chernobyl Diaries” credit, the premise for the film is a pretty good one and it seemed ripe with potential. Three twentysomethings, Chris (Jesse McCartney), his girlfriend Natalie (Olivia Dudley), and her best friend Amanda (Devin Kelley) are on a European trip. After stops in London, Paris, Rome, and Prague, the three visit Kiev where Chris’s brother Paul (Jonathan Sadowski) lives. The next stop on the itinerary is Moscow but before they go Paul convinces the group to take a day trip to Chernobyl and the ghost town of Pripyat which is built around it. Their tour guide is a man named Yuri (Dimitri Diatchenko) who specializes in “extreme tourism”.

Chernobyl 2

Just to freshen your memory, the Chernobyl catastrophe was a devastating Soviet nuclear incident that happened in 1986. A massive explosion in Chernobyl reactor four shot radioactive fallout into the atmosphere where it spread for miles across the Soviet Union and Europe. A Soviet coverup followed and the true death toll of those effected throughout the following years is unknown. The town of Pripyat, with its population of almost 50,000 people at the time, had been originally built to house the Chernobyl workers and their families. Due to its close proximity, the town was the hardest hit. It was instantly vacated and remains a ghost town today. This is where our four young tourists, Yuri, and another signed up couple pay a visit.

The brief history lesson I just gave is probably more entertaining than anything you’ll find in the film. Obviously when the group arrives there and begin to tour the abandoned city things go afoul. We know that’s going to happen. What I didn’t know was that the movie would take this interesting premise and ruin it almost immediately. It didn’t take long before I started noticing the same repetitive tricks, none of them effective. There’s honestly not one genuine scare in the entire picture and the movie never does anything to create a creepy atmosphere. Constantly walking in the dark with a flashlight or down tight hallways doesn’t constitute horror. But obviously that’s all the filmmakers had, creatively speaking.

Another big flaw in the film deals directly with the “threat” the group is facing. We are never really given a satisfying explanation of who or what they are and we never really see them. Now in much more capable and competent horror movies this might have added to the mystery and intensity of the film. Not here! I kept thinking that maybe the baddies could bail the movie out of the dull and lethargic hole it was in. Instead they’re just a faceless group that feel like retreads from other films. The movie tries to explain who or what they are in the final scenes but it’s so poorly done and I honestly didn’t even care at that point.

Chernoby 1

The movie also isn’t helped by its pretty shoddy acting and paper-thin characters. It’s funny watching the film try to give them some depth early on. We get some details about some past family drama between the brothers and the relationship between Chris and Natalie is about to take a turn. Yada, yada, yada. None of it adds an ounce to the characters. But apparently the filmmakers cared as little about the characters as I did. I don’t think any of them were actually killed on screen and one of them was completely forgotten.

One good thing about “Chernobyl Diaries” that it doesn’t prolong the agony. At a running time of under 90 minutes, I was quickly able to go about my business of forgetting the forgettable. Now the film was running on a small budget and that’s evident. But capable filmmakers have made really good films with even less money. This is an example of squandered potential but it’s also pretty crappy filmmaking featuring a pretty crappy cast built around a pretty crappy screenplay. In other words, I think it’s safe to say that “Chernobyl Diaries” won’t be credited for kickstarting the horror genre. In fact it shouldn’t be credited for much of anything.

VERDICT – 1.5 STARS

“Chocolat” – 3 STARS

by

12

Chocolat POSTERIn the 2000 romantic drama “Chocolat” a woman comes into a small French village and attempts to inject new life into the prudish community through her scrumptious chocolates. Sounds a little odd, right? Well in some ways it is but the film also delves into several heavier social and family issues sometimes convincingly but not always. It does have plenty of entertaining moments and it features some fine performances, but I’m still not convinced it’s a film worthy of the Oscar Best Picture nomination it received.

The story is based on Joanne Harris’ novel and written for the screen by Robert Nelson Jacobs. It takes place the a fictional French hilltop village of Lansquenet-sous-Tannes. One day a strong north wind blows Vianne (Juliette Binoche) and her young daughter Anouk (Victoire Thivisol) into town. The two newcomers quickly rent an abandoned patisserie and the apartment above it from the crabby Armande (Judi Dench). Vianne turns the place into a chocolate shop and begins to capture the attention of the locals.

One such local is Comte Paul de Reynaud (Alfred Molina), the town’s mayor who rules the community with an iron moral fist. He’s particularly turned off by Vianne for her more provocative attire and her insistence on opening a chocolate shop at the start of Lent. Reynaud goes to great lengths to sour the people’s view of Vianne but as more people taste her magical chocolate concoctions a profound change begins to take place in the village. Several townsfolk find that her chocolates cure personal troubles in their lives. They spark a new romance, they lead someone to independence, and in another case they even work as supercharged Viagra.

chocolat 1

It seems that organized religion may serve as the punching bag in this film. It’s portrayed as stuffy, intolerant, and overbearing. But it’s the concept that’s the target more than the people. The people are treated more as simple-minded followers with Reynaud being the moral dictator and true mouthpiece of the church. But I was never fully convinced that Vianne was such a great person either. She certainly exposes several of the churches hypocrisies and she makes the lives of several people better. But she also uses some pretty disrespectful tactics including usurping parental authority and planning a fertility celebration on Easter Sunday clearly to be confrontational. The film treats these moves as positive but that’s not the way to win me over to her perspective. And what exactly is she? Is she a witch, a chocolate magician? I never did figure it out.

The film’s strongest point is its acting. Binoche is brilliant and she has always amazed me with the believability she brings to ever performance. Judi Dench was also great as Vianne’s grumpy landlady. Dench does ‘surly’ well and she’s a real treat here. I also loved the always underrated Alfred Molina. He was fantastic as a character who’s a lot more complex than you may think. Johnny Depp even pops up in a smaller role as a river drifter who catches Vianne’s eye. There are several other fine performances worth mentioning from Lena Olin, Carrie-Anne Moss, Leslie Caron, and Peter Stormare.

“Chocolat” is a movie that’s entertaining despite its occasional heavy-handedness and familiar storylines. It does suffer from a few periods of dullness and the conventional ending seems a little disjointed considering how most of the film seems quite unconventional. But it’s the performances that carry this film and there are enough interesting developments in the story to keep things moving. Yet despite that, there were some things that kept pushing me away and I can’t help thinking that there was potential here for a little more satisfying experience.

REVIEW: “Conan the Barbarian” (2011)

by

12

For the past few years Hollywood has been consumed with remaking movies from the 1980’s. I have to admit, “Conan the Barbarian” was one I could see being remade with satisfying results. I’m a fan of the original 1982 fantasy film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was a gritty and violent movie jammed with swordplay and sorcery. This time Jason Momoa takes on the role of Conan and while he does a good job channeling the Barbarian’s grunts, growls, and muscle flexes, ultimately the movie’s story runs out of gas and the special effects don’t live up to what you would expect from a 2011 movie.

We’re introduced to Conan at the time of his birth on the battlefield during an intense attack. His mother dies and he is raised by his father Corin (Ron Perlman), the leader of a tribe of barbarians. Conan grows into a young boy who’s agility and skills with the blade are beyond his years. It’s during this time that his village is attacked by an evil warlord Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) who is seeking the pieces to an ancient mask he believes will resurrect his deceased wife and eventually lead to his rule over Hyboria. Doesn’t it always come down to that?

Zym and his army destroy young Conan’s village and leaving the boy to witness his father’s death. The story then catapults ahead to an adult Conan working as a mercenary. Still thirsty for revenge, he finds a trail that he hopes will lead to Zym. Zym still hasn’t figured the mask out and now is seeking a monastery that houses a pure-blood descendant (Rachel Nichols), blah, blah, blah. Conan ventures from location to location before tracking Zym down, falling for the descendant, and getting caught between saving her and carrying out his revenge.

The story has promise especially for those who love these types of fantasy films. It has moments that captures what made the original film a cult favorite particularly during the first half. But it hits a point where it begins to lose steam, turning into becomes a conventional and predictable fantasy tale. There are plenty of action scenes featuring snarls, sword twirling, and blood splatters. Some of them work well, but much of the action lacked context and seemed like nothing more than dressing. And I also found the finale to be as underwhelming as the buildup to it.

It’s also surprising to see how bland the special effects turned out to be. Many of the location shots look like hazy paintings instead of lived-in lands. There is also a creature battle close to the end that certainly doesn’t stand up to the visual accomplishments of today’s effects. But there is a really good effects-driven sequence where Conan is battling a group of sand warriors conjured up by Zym’s witch daughter Marique (Rose McGowan). It’s clearly the best the movie offers.

As I mentioned, Momoa is a soild Conan and Nichols is a good match for him on the screen. Perlman is a nice choice for Conan’s father even though it’s a relatively small role. Stephen Lang isn’t as bad as he was in “Avatar” but once again he seems to be following the “How to Play a Movie Villain” handbook. He overplays several scenes and he’s never the slightest bit menacing. McGowan, his co-antagonist, feels like a bigger threat even though her character is pretty shallow and forgettable.

Forgettable is also a good way to describe “Conan the Barbarian”. It’s not a terrible movie but it squanders a lot of potential. It does do a few things right especially in the first half. There are also moments that made me reflect back to the original film and how I responded to it as a kid. Unfortunately this one can’t sustain a compelling story and the visuals don’t feel like a worthy enough upgrade. This was one remake that I expected a lot more from.

VERDICT – 2 STARS

2-stars

REVIEW : “Cloud Atlas”

by

26

“Cloud Atlas” has already stirred up quite a discussion between moviegoers. It’s safe to say the film has earned its fair share of fans. But it’s also true that it has its share of detractors. To be honest I can see where people could either love it or hate it. It’s a highly ambitious picture that pulls off an incredibly clever storytelling technique. But it could also be viewed as a three-hour grind that features many of the Wachowski’s familiar self-indulgences. So how was it for me, a groundbreaking cinematic accomplishment or an epic sized disaster? Well neither, But I did find it a chore to sit through despite the things it does right.

It’s practically impossible to give any kind of brief synopsis of the plot of “Cloud Atlas”. It’s basically six individual stories that take place at different points in time. The first story is set in the 1800s and follows a young lawyer handling business for his father on a voyage across the Pacific. The second story takes place in England during the 1930s as a young unfulfilled composer is hired to help an older accomplished composer create his music. The third story is set in the 1970s as an investigative reporter finds herself in danger after uncovering a nuclear energy conspiracy. The fourth story, set in 2012, follows a writer and publisher who finds himself in debt and in deep with some local mobsters. The fifth story jumps to a futuristic high-tech Seoul, Korea where a clone is believed to hold the keys to the future. The final story leaps further into the future where mankind is left to live in a barbaric caveman-like world.

Now there’s a process to watching “Cloud Atlas”. First the audience must adjust to the fractured form of storytelling. The Wachowski’s and co-writer and co-director Tom Tykwer don’t tell the six stories separately. Instead, the movie jumps from one story to another requiring the audience to keep up. For this to work, we first have to get to know the characters. For the most part the introductions work pretty well although I did struggle to connect with some of them. Once the characters and their stories are laid out then the audience can sit back and watch things unfold. This is when the movie was most effective. In fact, I found myself completely absorbed in what I was seeing during the middle of the film. Then the audience has to piece each of the stories together, some through more obvious and straightforward connections and others through more cryptic and allegorical meanings. This is another place where I felt the film really stumbled.

I want to start with the positives. The storytelling technique employed in “Cloud Atlas” could have potentially been a disaster. Earlier I used the word ambitious and for good reason. Taking pieces of six individual stories, breaking them up, and interweaving them together while maintaining a good strong narrative is an incredible challenge. I was blown away with how well it was done in this movie. We seamlessly move back and forth from story to story and the filmmakers are able to keep total control of the narrative. Even later when the transitions seem to come quicker and quicker, the broader story never loses its sense of cohesion. It’s intelligently crafted and executed and it serves as a great reminder of the power of cinematic storytelling.

There are also some amazing special effects and spectacular cinematography. The overall visual presentation of “Cloud Atlas” gives it a true epic motion picture feel and it beautifully captures the various time periods that it dabbles in. I loved the period-perfect look of the 1800s as well as the futuristic landscapes and technologies from the later period. Every place we visit in time looks and feels perfect. It also helps to have such a superb cast involved. The movie is loaded with strong performances from actors and actresses playing multiple roles. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Hugh Grant, Bae Doona, and Jim Sturgess all do great work in bringing this complex story to life. Each play a variety of different characters in the different storylines often in heavy prosthetics and sometimes in full drag. This is a good lead-in to some of my questions and concerns about “Cloud Atlas”. I’m not certain why it was necessary to have these actors play multiple roles. I’m assuming the filmmakers felt it added a sense of connection between the stories. Or maybe there was another underlying intention that I just don’t care to figure out. Regardless, do we really need to see Hugo Weaving dressed up as a husky female nurse?

Then there is the issue with how some of the individual stories end. There are a couple that I found quite satisfying. But then there are those that feel a little too tidy and borderline conventional as well as one that’s just flat-out silly. Also I never felt as though I made the full connections between some of the storylines. The movie simply doesn’t tie them together sufficiently. Now to be fair, a movie like this almost begs to be viewed a second time. I’m certain there are little nuggets of information that I missed. But the problem is that I’m not sure I want to tackle it again and that’s in large part due to the sometimes laborious 3-hour running time. Now I don’t mind long movies, but there were stretches in “Cloud Atlas”, particularly in the first and third acts, where the film seemed to be spinning its wheels. This isn’t unusual for the Wachowskis and I had a similar problem with their Matrix series. Much like those movies, this film at times feel bloated and self-indulgent. I also found the social commentary to be obvious and heavy-handed. Even in the instances where the message is good, they sometimes come across as blatant and contrived. Now to be perfectly honest, I’m not at all familiar with the source material, but I can’t imagine it being as glaringly in-your-face as the film can sometimes be.

“Cloud Atlas” is a difficult movie to process. It can sometimes be exhilarating cinema and at other times a frustrating chore. From a technical standpoint the film is astonishing. Both the visuals and sound design are phenomenal and the ability to capture the uniqueness of each time period is quite amazing. Even more impressive is the artistry involved in the unconventional storytelling method. There’s a crisp lyrical harmony to how we’re moved back and forth from one story to the next. Unfortunately there are a host of other problems, including those mentioned above, that keeps “Cloud Atlas” from being a really good film. But I haven’t asked the bigger question surrounding this movie. What’s it really about? Is it above love conquering all? Is it about choices and the blessings or consequences that follow them. Is it about a deep interconnection that all mankind share? I’m not sure, but in the end “Cloud Atlas” is a relatively small movie hidden underneath its lavish ambition and grandeur. It’s an exercise in style over substance that has enough flaws and misguided conceits to overshadow the things it does really well. That’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS