Last night’s episode of Breaking Bad, titled One Minute, was possibly the best episode of the entire show.  Every week things get bleaker and bleaker for these characters and this one was no exception.  The last 5-10 minutes should be shown in film schools all over the world.

Kick-ass is not very good.  People defend it by calling it a satire.  I can buy that for maybe the entire first act.  After that it’s a typical action movie/power fantasy that is way too silly to allow the viewer to invest in the characters.  It’s also too over the top to offensive.

The Losers on the other hand was a whole lot of fun.  Despite a poor villain the movie still manages to entertain.  The casting is perfect with the team.  The characters are cool and the actors bring so much charm to the roles.  More roles like this and Jeffery Dean Morgan will have the career Gerrard Butler should have had.

Read both The Umbrella Academy trades last week.  Great superhero stuff done right.  Remarkable how much fun, awe, drama, and emotion are in those pages.  An excellent take on the superhero “family” genre.

Free Comic Book Day was last Saturday. Founded as an attempt to translate excitement for comic book movies into new readership for comics has lost it way.  What FCBD does instead is preach to the choir.  If they really want to bring new folks in they have to hold these events in bookstores, movie theaters, libraries, etc.  The day has now become mental masturbation for the comics community.  Epic Fail…

Questions or comments?  Send either to roner34@gmail.com or leave a comment!

It’s no secret that PIXAR is far and away the industry leaders in the animated movie game.  Their list of critical and commercial success are unmatched.  The runner-up is Dreamworks, their results are a little more flawed.  So what is the secret that propels one company while the other struggles?

PIXAR focuses on story and character first.  Sure there are cute and furry animals and plenty of opportunities for merchandising, but the story is king even if it’s risky.  Take a look at Up. The story of an elderly man trying to correct his life’s biggest regret doesn’t exactly scream mainstream success.

On the flip side of that you have Dreamworks.  They have found a niche of crowd pleasing yet bland films; The Shrek series, Madagascar, and Monsters vs. Aliens.  Not terrible but nothing that is particularly inspiring either.  But seemingly out of nowhere comes How To Train Your Dragon and suddenly Dreamworks shows they can get it right.

Hiccup is a teenage Viking growing up in a village called Berk.  The town seems to have one industry: fighting and killing the various types of dragons that attack on a regular basis.  Everything revolves these battles.  Most kids anxiously await their chance to participate in dragon training and take their places in the field of battle alongside their parents.

For those like Hiccup, whose talents clearly lay elsewhere, other jobs are found.  His job is that of an apprentice to the local blacksmith.  Hiccup wants to fight, but it just never seems to work out very well for him.  Until one night Hiccup gets off a lucky shot and manages to down a mysterious “Night Fury” one of the most feared types of dragons.

The next day he travels to the forest to track down the beast.  He finds it, still bound from his weapon and moves in for the kill.  Only he can’t, deciding instead to cut the creature loose.  Before too long Hiccup befriends the dragon he names Toothless, and learns that the vikings don’t know as much as they thought.

The films biggest strength lies in the filmmakers faith in the story.  Most family films feel the need to dumb down stories in an attempt to appeal to kids.  H.T.T.Y.D. never does that.  Take the scene where Hiccup first attempts to befriend Toothless.  After offering the dragon food the boy reaches out several times to pet the creature, who backs off each time.  It isn’t until Hiccup lays down everything that can be thought of as hostile and avoids eye contact that Toothless allows him the boy to pet him.  During this whole sequence there is very little dialog.  No needless exposition to describe what is on-screen.  A fine example of showing and not telling.

It’s Hiccups relationships that really drive the story along, not just how he interacts with the dragon but really with everyone in the film.  Especially his father Stoic, who wants nothing more than to see his son become a great dragon slayer.  However he has long given up on that particular hope and now wants to the boy to just stay out-of-the-way when all Hell breaks loose.  Hiccup is eventually put in the position of not wanting to disappoint his father, but at the same time he no longer dreams of killing the winged beasts.  It’s the tension of this dynamic that finally allows Hiccup to reach his unexpected destiny.

The action scenes are thrilling but it is the smaller and quieter moments that are the heart of the film.  There is a moment near the end of the film where one relationship is brought full circle and it one of the most touching moments of film I’ve seen in years.  These are the kinds of moments that can only be achieved with characters that feel real and genuine, not with the cardboard archetypes we typically see in these types of films.

With the surprise of Kung Fu Panda a couple of years ago and now How To Train Your Dragon, Dreamworks is showing a willingness to ditch formula and tell bold and original stories.  If they can build on the momentum of these films they will be equal to PIXAR in no time.

How To Train Your Dragon is the perfect example of everything a family can and should be: an enjoyable film that mixes enough elements to appeal to every family member individually.  But more than this it is easily one of the best movie of the year.

***** out of *****

You can’t control it and that is the frustrating part. Everyone goes through rough patches and gets depressed, maybe not clinically, but we all deal with it.  It’s just some folks like Frank (Nicholas Cage) have it worse.  Little wonder when you consider he’s a paramedic in New York City.  Every night he must go out and try to save lives.  Sometimes its fathers, sometimes it’s babies, and sometimes its people who don’t want to be saved.  But the central question behind Bringing Out The Dead is who or what is going to save Frank?

The movie takes place over the course three days and follows Frank during his journey in a personal Hell.  It seems that a few weeks back he lost a patient, a young woman name Rose, and she has been haunting him ever since.  Every where he goes he sees the young woman with the mournful eyes.

His problems don’t just come from patients he’s lost  but also some he’s saved.  Crackheads who will quickly be back on the junk.  Drug dealers who claim they are going to reform but no one thinks they will.  Even just a retiree who has a heart attack and doesn’t want to live a debilitated lifestyle.  Frank must do his best to save all these lost souls.

Director Martin Scorsese has crafted a remarkable film.  Bold colors, surreal imagery, and off kilter camera angles help set the mood.  Like most Scorsese films the film has a great soundtrack with artists like Van Morrison, R.E.M., Frank Sinatra, and The Who.  The music is fitting and underscores each scene beautifully.

Brining Out The Dead never gets too despairing.  Oh it gets pretty bleak, but there is always the littlest bit of hope for salvation to it.  An entertaining film that ranks as of Scorseses’ all time best.

***** out of *****

I have a problem with family films.  Okay, not all family films, but most of them.  It’s not that I’m against them, but most of the time they’re not family films so much as kids films.  A good family film should appeal to everyone from little five-year old Johnny, all the way up to Grandma.  Instead what we normally get is a movie marketed to kids with a few double entendre jokes thrown in.  It’s a rare film that engages an older audience while not being dumbed down for kids.

Explorers does its best to walk the line but unfortunately falls terribly short.  It begins with a dream, Ben’s (Ethan Hawke) dream actually.  In it the sci-fi obsessed teen is flying over a neon-lit landscape.  Just before awaking he notices a certain pattern which he sketches upon waking.  The next day after school Ben and his new friend Darren (Jason Presson) join Wolfgang (River Phoenix), a fledgling scientist, at his lab.  Wolfgang has created a circuit board made from Ben’s design.  Once connected to a computer it creates a bubble that can travel with no inertia and great speeds.

The boys decide to craft a makeshift spaceship from an old carnival ride they find at a junkyard.  After a very eventful test flight the boys soon understand that they are being called.  These dreams aren’t just random images, but messages from somewhere.  Having no choice but to follow they embark on an adventure in space.

The boys do a great job with just a look or their body language of imparting emotions of adventure , longing, and mystery.  Behind their eyes you can tell not only how much fun they’re having, but how meaningful it is.

The science behind it feels real enough to be believable.  There is a nice touch about there being no inertia inside the bubble.  This allows them accelerate to hundreds of miles an hour in seconds or stop suddenly and not be crushed.  Is such thing a possible?  Who knows, but that is not the point.  Screenwriter Eric Luke addresses the issue just enough to make suspension of disbelief easier.

So why does a movie that works so hard to smart and entertaining resort to a horrendous third act?  I don’t want to spoil anything except to say that the answer to all the mysteries is a bit… campy.  It is a shift in tone that in many other films could be not only forgivable but enjoyable.  However in Explorers it derails the nearly perfect movie that precedes and derails the experience of the movie.

**** out of *****

Now I could go on about the history of the show and it’s impact on film criticism, but quite frankly I’m probably not best suited to do so.  Besides, Tribune columnist Phil Rosenthal does a better job of it than I ever could.

But what I want to talk about is the impact the show had on me.  Anyone who knows me, knows I’m a big fan of Roger Ebert.  I’ve been lucky enough to have been to his Ebertfest film festival several times.  Got to meet Roger, shake his hand and thank him for everything.  Granted it’s a meeting he probably forgot the second I walked away, but it’s a moment that will stick with me forever.  I don’t always agree with his viewpoints, only an automaton would blindly agree with any critic, but I’ve been reading him long enough to know where he’s coming from.  If he likes or doesn’t like something I know why and how it relates to my opinions.  I trust his opinion and will use it to help influence what I will or will not see.

But it all started with movie clips.  After Siskel and Ebert took the show off WTTW it aired locally on the CBS affiliate on Saturday afternoon.  Now this was the early eighties and way before the internet or even VHS.  The only time you could really see clips from upcoming films was by watching the  trailers when you were at the movies.  The problem with that is I was only on the edge of being a teenager and the family didn’t get out to the movies much.  But on the review shows they would always play a clip or two from the movies they reviewed.  In many cases this was the only exposure I’d have to a movie until it was on HBO.

I would watch with great anticipation for that maybe half a minute clip of Return of the Jedi or Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. So I would sit through reviews of historical dramas and documentaries waiting for my half a minute of bliss.  It wasn’t ideal but it was all I had, and it honestly, it made me happy.  I didn’t pay much attention to what the dudes were actually saying about the movies, it was just a necessary evil.

Like everything else in life, things began to change. The VCR became more prominent in our lives.  We got one and a whole new world of movie watching was opened up to me.  A video store opened in town with hundreds of movies I’d never heard of. I wonder what was good.  So now I could watch “At The Movies” and get previews of what I would be watching months from now when it came to my small town video store.

But it also created a problem, what was worth watching?  So I watched the show and, *gulp*, actually started to listen to what these guys had to say!  Of course they hated everything my 14-year-old brain loved and I went through a “if the critics hate a movie then I’ll love it” phase.  After awhile questions came to me, “Why do they hate all the cool stuff?” and “What do THEY like, and why?”.  So I listened and thought about the things they said.  Not knowing at the time that Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were teaching me to think critically about film.

Flash forward a few years later and a crazy thing happened, the State of Illinois deemed me qualified to operate a motor vehicle!  This is where my love of the theater took hold, if I had the money I could go anytime I wanted! By this time I was trusting them enough to helm me figure out what to see.  A typical Saturday night would include me watching the show at 6:30 and deciding what to see later that night.  Sometimes I liked the movies they suggested, sometimes I hated them, but more often than not they got me to really think about what was on the screen.

And that is how it went for years.  Trends came and went but “At The Movies” was the one constant.  It came as blow when Gene died in 1999.  In all the years I watched the show, and then started reading the reviews, Roger was my favorite but Siskel was a close second.  He was like that adult you loved as a kid because he didn’t treat you like a kid.  But the show had to move on and make the best of a bad situation and they began the rotating panel of guest hosts.  The fun thing about that, was now being in the age of the internet, I could learn more about all these people.  This period of of the show opened me up to a lot of new critics who I still read today.

I kept on in the Roeper years (He’s good but not my favorite), toughed out the Ben and Ben year (Dear God!), and have really enjoyed Phillips and Scott this season.  But now it’s going away.  Sure it’s not the same as the old days and an argument can be made that it really died with Gene.  Though I disregard that, too many valuable thoughts have been shared since then, to discard them would be a crime.

Like most Hollywood franchises this does not really mark the end.  Roger Ebert recently posted on his blog plans to produce a new show. Michael Phillips and Tony Scott will continue to review films in print and the web.  Thanks to the internet film fans now have a plethora of podcasts and blogs to choose from.  But still, for almost 30 years “At The Movies” has been my own personal film school in 30 minute chunks.  The professors have all been laid off and the doors are being locked for good.  This makes me sad…

www.filmspotting.net

For my money the best movie podcast out there. Adam and Matty offer up some insightful film discussion every week.  One of the weekly segments is Massacre theater, where the hosts recreate a scene and the listeners try to guess what movie it’s from.  Throw in reviews, listener feedback, marathon segments, and the weekly top five and you have a recipe for fun!

http://cinebanter.blogspot.com

Like Filmspotting, Cinebanter offers up good film talk.  Michael and Tassoula discuss films in a fun and informative fashion.  Their trademark feature is the Last Five, a look at the last five things watched.  Good show that is well worth your time.

www.betweentheropes.com

Like wrestling?  Host Brian Fritz, along with Big Vito and D’Lo Brown, brings you a very good radio wrestling show.  News, opinions, and interviews about the wonderful world of pro wrestling.

http://www.puckpodcast.com

Doug and Eddie are two passionate and smart hockey fans.  Each week they take you through the highs and lows of the NHL week that was.  It’s a great way to keep up with the sport.  Go Blackhawks!

The Deliberate Noise Network of podcasts

I don’t think I know anybody who loves to podcast as much as Derek Coward.  He has podcasts devoted to music, movie, comics, wrestling, Sci-Fi, etc.  Just check the link and find ones you like.  I’m a staple in the Saturday morning 2 people talking podcast chat on Ustream!

Creative Screenwriting Magazine podcast

Each week host Jeff Goldsmith brings an always interesting and educational Q & A with a screenwriter.  Not only is it an invaluable resource for writers but serious movie fans will find it interesting as well.

These aren’t everything I listen to but the ones I listen to most often.  Questions? Comments? Recommendations? Leave a comment below or drop me an email at roner34@gmail.com!

Colin Firth has been nominated for his role as a grieving gay man in 1960′s Los Angeles, and it’s well deserved.  The story follows George (Firth) on a very difficult day.  His partner has died in a car accident and George is lost.  He can’t even attend the funereal since they were closeted to even family members.  He takes little solace in day-to-day life, but it’s not enough.  He has made a choice, at the end of the day he will kill himself.  He spends the day tying up loose ends and making final preparations.

This film is very stylish.  It was directed by Tom Ford, a former fashion designer.  His background really pays off in the look of the film.  Many times when making films set in the sixties or seventies, art directors will get kitschy.  But here, everything feels so authentic, from the decor of Charley’s (Julianne Moore) house to the console record player/stereo at George’s place.  It’s real easy to get lost in the look of the film.

A Single Man is Fords first movie and his direction shows that.  For the most part it’s solid but, there are moments his artistic side gets out of control.  Early in the film George drives by a house with a typical American family.  The young daughter is out front playing jump rope, as passes by in slow motion, pondering what a different life might have offered him.  But the scene carries on too long, with almost operatic music playing.  Very stylish but also distracting.

A Single Man is a solid flick that really captures what it’s like to be a true outsider.  Imagine losing a loved one and not being able to properly grieve.  No funerals or comforting family.  Just loss and pain because you don’t belong.

**** out of *****

Brothers

It’s kind of funny how similar the themes in Brothers and A Single Man are.

Sam (Toby Maguire) is a good husband and father.  He is married to Grace (Natalie Portman) and they have two young daughters.  His love for his family just oozes out of his smile and in his eyes.  He also loves his country, he’s a marine who has already been to Afghanistan, and is preparing for another tour of duty.  But before he leaves he picks up his brother Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal) from prison and offers a helping hand.  We get a feeling that there is some tension in the family, most of it comes from their father (Sam Shepard).

Sam goes off to war, his helicopter is shot down and all are believed dead.  Back home Grace mourns her loss and does her best to carry on.  One night after a bender Tommy calls her because he needs money or will go back to prison.  She helps and the two start to bond.  He becomes a surrogate father to the girls and helps out around the house.

Now, the set up sounds very cliché.  But as Roger Ebert once said, “A movie isn’t really what it’s about, but how it’s about it”.  Every time the movie starts to feel like a typical movie, it swerves.  The burgeoning relationship between Tommy and Grace never gets out of control.  The writers let the characters bond, but never let them forget the gravity of their situation.  These are two people who deep down want to get together, but also realize it may not be the best thing for everyone involved.

When Sam comes back he is a full of guilt and jealousy.  The helping hand that Sam offered early on was that of someone on the inside.  Sam was the family man who was happy to be a part of something bigger than him.  He feels an almost pity for his brother who was the odd man out.  But now the roles are reversed, Sam has changed in ways only a soldier can understand.  In his absence Tommy has become the de-facto family man.

Brothers is a remake of the 2004 Denmark film, Brodre.  I’m really curious to see that film now, this story feels so American it’s hard to imagine the scenario taking place in another country.  Brothers has solid acting from the three leads and an excellent screenplay.  It’s akin to The Hurt Locker in that it is a story about the people in a war, but offers no messages or easy answers.  It succeeds where a film like Stop-loss fails, showing how war affects soldiers and their familyies even after the fighting is over.

**** out of *****

Country music has changed over the years.  There was a time when many country singers had that “Outlaw” persona, a hard drinking nomad type of singer.  It wasn’t until later that country became aggressively marketed.  It’s actually become tough to tell the difference between country and pop.

Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) and Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell) each represent the two extremes.  Bad is traveling the country playing in front of crowds of only dozens in bowling alleys.  Tommy plays before thousands every night, that is when he’s not off acting in movies.  Bad was Tommy’s mentor until the two had a falling out.  One wonders how much it had to do with whatever the disagreement was and how much was Bad just not being a part of a the new country scene.

Being a dinosaur is the least of Bads problems.  He smokes too much, drinks too much, and has married too much.  A doctor warns him if he doesn’t change soon, he will die.  At the same team he receives the warning he starts dating Jean (Maggie Gyllenhall).  They seem like a good fit together.  He immediately falls for her and her four-year old son, Buddy.  The three become a de-facto family.  Bad enjoys it so much he doesn’t drink if front of the boy and is soon re-evaluating his entire life.

If you think you know how the story ends you’re probably right.  This is very familiar territory but, as Roger Ebert once said “A movie isn’t really what it’s about, but how it’s about it”.  The strategy here is to make it a character study.  Jeff Bridges has gotten an awful lot of attention over this role. The danger in playing an alcoholic is the risk of an over-exaggerated performance, Bridges understands and stays suitably restrained.  So far he’s won the Golden Globe and he’s the front-runner for the Oscar.  It’s well deserved, even with the standard plot Bridges’ acting is extremely entertaining and authentic. .  Who knew “The Dude” was a crooner?

It’s too bad that not as much thought or effort was put into the other characters.  Maggie Gyllenhall simply  goes through the paces.  She’s not bad but not exactly memorable either, but some of the blame lies in the script itself.  Based on her knowledge of Blake’s drinking Jean makes some questionable choices.  Later in the film she even calls herself on it.  But that doesn’t justify the decision in the first place.

The film moves along at a nice pace.  The plot advances in each scene, but time is still taken to enjoy the details: the long nights in the small towns, the concerts, the mock family life, etc.  But at the same time screenwriters didn’t seem to know how end it.  Some pretty big events the final act seem rushed, although the last scene is very well written.

Crazy Heart is a good, but not great movie.  Sure there are few surprises, but it’s not that kind of movie.  It’s the kind of film you just get lost in and enjoy its company for two hours.  Bridges performance goes a long way into keeping the movie enjoyable but the rest of the film is perfectly passable.

**** out of *****

All over the country are small venue theaters, the kind of places that seat 1,500 maybe 2,000 people a show.  Former palaces that all the big name acts used to play.  Now the big names stick to larger arenas that hold 20,000 a night.  But what about those old theaters and acts?  Don’t people still want  entertainment from the acts they remember?  Don’t the old theaters still need attractions to put butts in the seats?

The Great Buck Howard tells the story of a law student named Troy (Colin Hanks) who discovers he’s not happy learning the law. Dropping out of school he soon takes a job as road manager for Buck Howard (John Malkovich).  Howard was once a world-famous “mentalist”, playing all over the world and appearing on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson 61 times.  Now he plays to small time crowds doing the same act that once made him popular.  The crowds are smaller but people still seems to enjoy what he does.

The movie, inspired by real life magician “The Amazing Kreskin” is a nice character study.  Balancing the sadness of a performer past his prime, with the idealism a young man looking to find his path in life.  Though he lives in denial of it Buck knows he’s hardly relevant but keeps hoping for that one big “effect” that will bolt him back to stardom.  While he still enjoys playing to half filled theaters, it bothers him that he’s not a bigger star.  No one wants to feel like their life’s work has become a joke.

Troy meanwhile refuses to view Buck as a pathetic figure.  He sees him as a talented performer who still entertains.  Troy faces pressure from his father (Tom Hanks) whose concerned his son is throwing his life away.  In spite of this Troy finds meaning in being a part of Buck’s show.  A quiet dignity that law school would never give him.

The Great Buck Howard had a very limited but interesting release pattern.  It first played on HDnet movies and on demand before getting a small release on the art house circuit.  Now out on DVD it will hopefully find a larger audience that will appreciate it.  The movie is much like the title character.  It won’t reinvent the wheel, it may not show you anything you haven’t seen before.  But give it an hour and half and it will entertain you.

**** out of *****