The Avengers

Runtime 142 minutes
OK for children

“The Avengers.”

It’s understandable how this film could have cost almost a quarter of a billion dollars to make. The special effects are incredible and it’s got a huge, A-list cast. But, except for the fact that it will probably mint the money, this is little more than 2 hours and 20 minutes of special effects and idiotic fights. The special effects are spectacular; the fights less than ridiculous. It was excruciating to sit through.

Since there’s virtually no story except aliens attacking the earth, there’s little requirement for acting. Take Gwyneth Paltrow, for instance. She’s listed as one of the stars, but she’s in so few scenes she probably shot them all on her lunch break from another film. That’s a nice way to earn a cool $10 million (I’m guessing).

This is a movie for people with short attention spans who like video games, so 3D makes it better, although the 3D is not really noticeable until the end when there are lots of flying aliens trying to kill New York. They fly at you and away from you and you do get the 3D feel and that’s kind of fun.

While there is speculation about whether or not there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, Hollywood has clearly taken the position that most aliens are either monsters or Neanderthals. It’s hard to believe that these are the people who have conquered space travel when we haven’t. The things fighting in this movie are some sort of mechanical-looking beings, but they can apparently die because the superheroes kill them.

The plot is that a god, Thor’s brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), comes to earth and absconds with the Tesseract, some sort of state-of-the-art electronic gadget that has superpowers itself. Loki wreaks havoc when he first appears so the Avengers team, Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), is assembled under the direction of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to save the earth, although Hawkeye is purloined by Loki to work on his side.

Loki starts out to be totally indestructible. But thematically that clearly won’t work, since he eventually has to be conquered or this is going to be a very unsatisfying movie, so he is soon captured and imprisoned, a segue from invulnerability to vulnerability so rapid it strains credulity to the breaking point, although credulity is the least of this movie’s concerns. Then he gets out and imprisons his brother. I couldn’t have cared less.

What ensues is some tongue-in-cheek dialogue, but mostly what we get are special effects and ludicrous fights. Let’s face it, there are six superheroes fighting what appear to be thousands of machine-like creatures. What chance do they have? Most of the superheroes can fly and appear to be resistant to injury. They can fall from great heights (thousands of feet) and can still jump up to continue the fight. Only in Hollywood and comic books.

Unlike good action films, director Josh Whedon makes it too light-hearted and comedic for there to be any tension at all. War of the Worlds (1953 and 2005), for instance, had the same basic plot, but were not comedies. Aliens wanted to kill everyone and if the good guys didn’t prevail everyone would be dead. There was tension in both films. Here, it’s like all the superheroes are trying out at the Improv to see who can give the best one-liner, which kills any possibility of a tense drama.

Since it’s not particularly funny and it’s not tense, what’s the point? Oh, yeah, money; well, so much for art. This is pretty much a waste of time unless you love special effects and comic books.

Tony: What made you think you wanted to be a lawyer?

Jackie: I took a class called Introduction to the Study of Law. The class required you to go into a courtroom one day a week in Santa Anna, and sit and observe and write a paper. I found myself so interested in what was happening in the courthouse that I realized that this was someplace I wanted to work for the rest of my life. I enjoy the simple theater of not knowing what is going to come out of a witness’s mouth, or the judges, and the whole dynamic of the courtroom.

T: How did you decide you wanted to be a prosecutor?

J: When I graduated I worked at a small firm and I was very bored by depositions. I couldn’t understand why lawyers would ask so many questions so many different ways. A friend of mine said to come over to the Santa Monica city attorney’s office because they were hiring. Then I became hooked by putting on my own trials, with persuading the jury, and helping victims and working with witnesses and police officers. I sort of stumbled into what I believe is my life’s calling.

T: How did you join the DA’s office?

J: The Santa Monica city attorney’s office only did misdemeanor cases and I wanted more challenging cases. I wanted to do felonies, so I applied and joined the DA’s office in 1986. I worked my way up through the chairs and I’m now the number two after 26 years.

T: Who has been the biggest influence in your life?

J: There have been many but certainly District Attorney Steve Cooley has been a big influence. He was the first mentor I had in the office that said, “I’m going to give you a chance. I’m going to give you opportunities and certain cases,” as he did with a lot of us who were under his watch. There are cases that are routine cases and then there are cases that are what I call career-making cases. Sometimes you will see a head deputy or supervisor give his or her favorite lawyer all of the important career-making cases. Steve’s position when he got in was that he took all his cases back and reassigned them so that everybody had a chance to prove themselves as a good trial lawyer. For someone like me who, at times, can be somewhat reluctant to brag on myself and to self promote, it was extremely helpful. I think because I was not a self promoter and because I did not brag a lot of what I did, I don’t think I got the opportunities that I would’ve gotten before Steve Cooley came along. There is one other person who has influenced my moral compass and that’s John Asari, who is a legend. He was very big on teaching young prosecutors to do the right thing no matter what. His message was, “Look, if the case isn’t there you have an ethical duty to dismiss it.” Those times that I spent listening to him have really influenced who I am today as a prosecutor. I’m tough in terms of violent crimes, but am always fair and measured and calm at the end of the day in terms of making rational decisions.

T: So it’s not a win at all costs proposition?

J: No, and it shouldn’t be.

T: Yes, but it happens.

J: Of course it does. I always feel like, how would I like to be treated if, God forbid, I were in that situation? You want to be held accountable, but you don’t want someone who is unfair, who hides evidence, who misuses the power that they have just in order to say, “I got a conviction.”

T: So have you dismissed cases just because you are convinced they were not guilty?

J: Yes. But most of my big cases have been well investigated and I was convinced that the person was guilty of the charges.

T: What was your most important case?

J: My most important case was a hate crime murder case that I tried. Back in the ‘90s there was a group of Nazi low-riders, young men and women who were trying to revive a lot of the racial violence of the past. They had a desire to elevate their status in the group. In order to do that, they had to kill a minority. So right around Thanksgiving they were in a McDonald’s and there was a homeless African-American man, Milton Walker, 46 years old, addicted to drugs, out on the street, no family. He got into an argument with another woman, who was also homeless. That caught their attention. They followed him after the argument and into a vacant lot and they literally beat him to death with objects they found on the ground, a 2 x 4 and a tire iron. They did it in order to earn the rights to get a lightning bolt tattoo. They were young, in their 20s. The crime was particularly cruel and vicious. It was a difficult case because they all made statements. We had to have three separate juries. So instead of one group, I actually had to argue to three different groups of 12 people for the same crime.

T: That must have been hard.

J: It was hard. You had to make sure you didn’t bring in statements from another defendant into that jury trial. I tried it in front of a famous judge, Lance Ito, and we got convictions in all three of those cases, and it was the first time in LA County history that anybody had been tried and convicted under the hate crime statute. It was a challenge. There was no second chair at all. I was all by myself.

T: Steve Cooley is a Republican and you’re a Democrat. How does politics get involved?

J: That’s true, but the race is a nonpartisan race. The district attorney ought to be nonpartisan, particularly when you’re talking about running a public integrity unit. Corruption can come in all different sizes and all different political parties. The last thing you want is for someone to claim that you’re going after me because I’m from the opposite political party. I’m a Democrat and he’s a Republican, but for the last 12 years, our management team has been made up with people from both political parties. And we work very well together because the mission is always the same: What is the right thing to do here? Not: What is the politically expedient thing to do?

T: He is supporting you over another Republican who is running.

J: He is supporting me over a Republican who’s running, over a Republican turned declined to state friend. I think that’s huge. I’m very proud to have his support. He’s had an opportunity to watch me work. When you know him you know that he doesn’t say things lightly. He’s measured. He could choose to stay out of this. He’s retiring; he could choose not to endorse anyone. But he cares so much about the mission of the office and we have worked together so successfully that he’s chosen to step out there and work to help get me elected.

T: Have you done any polling?

J: No.

T: So you don’t know how you’re doing?

J: No idea.

T: Do you have any organization?

J: I have a campaign team. I have a day-to-day manager, a fundraiser, and volunteers.

T: Are you going to do anything differently if you get elected?

J: First of all, I think the district attorney has done a great job. He’s been nonpolitical. Crime rates are at a 16 year low. He’s been courageous in a lot of the changes that he’s made. The challenges for me will be different. I will build a lot on what he’s already done. The district attorney really hasn’t had to deal with what we believe will be the lasting effects of realignment and A.B. 109, the shift of local prisoners to state prison. That is a sea change in our criminal justice system. What I would like to do is to expand the use of what are called alternative sentencing courts. That would mean we would put many people on probation who are suffering from drug addiction or alcohol related behavior or mental illness. I think that’s the way to go if we’re going to be dealing effectively with A.B. 109.

T: Has there ever been a person of color or a woman as district attorney?

J: Never. I’ll be the first.

T: So you’re groundbreaking two things. Has that been a problem?

J: It hasn’t been a problem. It’s been a big footnote to the election. This is the first time that a woman or a person of color has even had a chance to be elected district attorney. But more important, I happen to be the best qualified. I happen to be the only candidate who has had oversight over hard-core gangs, major narcotics, sex crimes, our juvenile justice system, all of these different things. I’m the only candidate who has ever successfully supervised more than a handful of people. Most of the people running have only supervised, at the most, 10 or 12 people. In my first position I supervised 200 employees. In my second position, I had roughly the same amount of employees. In my third position I supervised 500, which is half of the office. In my current position 2,200 people report to me. I’m responsible that 2,200 people report to work every day and do what they’re supposed to do. No one who is running can say that they’ve had that responsibility and handled it successfully. I have for the last 12 years helped the man in charge of the largest district attorney’s office in America run it. The other people who are running have no idea what that’s like. Most of the people who are running are excellent trial lawyers who are trying to skip over to immediately administer this large office. The skills that you need to be a trial lawyer are very different. As a trial lawyer, you must be a gladiator. When you are talking about leading people, it is a different skill set. To take a trial lawyer and put them at the top of a leadership position is almost an experiment. Because what you’re banking on is that they will be as successful in one role as they have been in another without any training whatsoever.

T: One of your opponents vowed that he would not run for this office when he ran for city attorney.

J: He promised. And he’s breaking that promise. So my question for him and the voters and his supporters is, what makes you think he’ll keep the next promise he makes? This morning I was at a café called Aroma in Studio City. When I introduce myself to people and when I tell them what I’m running for and who I’m running against they say, “You know, I don’t like that guy. Isn’t that the guy who promised he wouldn’t run for anything?” And it was a big public promise; it was a signed pledge. It was videotaped. He made a big deal out of saying that his opponent was a politician, using that office as a stepping stone to what, the DA? It is, and then to so quickly, two years later, do the same thing? He hasn’t proven himself in his current position. He’s got a small criminal division. What have they done? What has his leadership done or accomplished within the purview of the criminal division?

T: Will you be as nonpartisan as Steve Cooley?

J: Absolutely.

Safe

Runtime 95 minutes.
Not for children.

From l, Catherine Chan and Jason Statham in “Safe.”

When you pay your money to see a Jason Statham movie, you are paying to see Jason dispatch lots of bad guys single-handed. That’s what you get here, in spades.

Mei (newcomer Catherine Chan) is a ten-year-old math prodigy who is brutally taken from her family in China to be a tool for the Chinese mafia. Luke Wright (Statham) is a down and out fighter, former NYPD cop, whose family has been murdered and his life destroyed by the Russian mafia. As he’s contemplating suicide in the subway, he encounters Mei who is clearly in trouble, and becomes her protector against all the bad people in New York who need her, and that includes just about everyone who lives there. The result is that when the movie ends, it’s hard to believe that Jason has left anyone alive in The Big Apple.

The triad boss, Han Jiao (well played by James Hong), is a vicious manipulator who uses Mei with no regard for her welfare. Equally cold is Mei’s guardian, Quan Chang (Reggie Lee), who also has no feelings for poor little Mei.

Representing the NYPD is Luke’s old boss, NYPD Police Captain Wolf (Robert John Burke), who is just as unsympathetic as Jiao and Chang. What makes this movie so much fun is that the bad guys are really hateful, which makes their comeuppance from Luke all the more desirable.

Statham is more than just an action hero. He shows admirable range here in displaying the depths to which Luke has descended. But as the movie progresses and as Luke gets into the action, the joy of life returns to him as he risks it all to save Mei. This isn’t really a revenge movie à la Charles Bronson’s Death Wish films. In those, Charles was solely out to wreak vengeance. Here, Luke has accepted his fate to have his life ruined by the vicious criminals who killed his family until he meets Mei and realizes that it’s up to him to rescue her. That in the process he also gets back at the Russians who killed his family is just icing on the cake.

Ably written and directed by Boaz Yakin, in his first try at an action film, this is almost non stop action. Maybe it’s not for everyone, but the tension drives the film and the stunts are impressive, including lots of fine car chases.

Bernie

Runtime 104 minutes.
OK for children.

From l, Shirley Maclaine and Jack Black in “Bernie.”

This is based on a true story inspired by an article in Texas Monthly about the town of Carthage, Texas, generally, and two of his residents, Marjorie Nugent and Bernie Tiede. Director Richard Linklater, whose last film Me and Orson Welles (2009) was one of the three best films I saw that year, has once again hit a home run.

Tiede (Jack Black) is an assistant funeral director who was so nice he became one of Carthage’s most beloved residents, teaching Sunday school, singing in the church choir, and always being there when ever anyone needed help.

Marjorie Nugent (Shirley Maclaine), on the other hand, was Carthage’s most hated resident. She had a malign, cruel personality. Despite this, Bernie befriended her.

What happened next is told by the actual residents of Carthage in documentary style, cutting back and forth between Black and MacLaine playing the roles of Tiede and Nugent. Eventually the town’s ambitious District Attorney, Danny Buck Davidson (Matthew McConaughey) becomes involved.

It’s not often that McConaughey gets third billing in a film, since he is one of Hollywood’s more attractive leading men. However McConaughey has spent most of his career in inferior films, relying on his incomparable smile and charm to get by. Here he finds himself in a real film that requires real acting and he lives up to his promise. We can only hope that his days of insubstantial romantic comedies are over. Not that all romantic comedies are “insubstantial.” Well directed and well written romantic comedies require as much acting talent as Shakespeare. McConaughey has found him stuck in romantic comedies that are neither well directed nor well-written.

Black and MacLaine both give Oscar–quality performances. Hereto for Maclaine has generally relied on her beauty and charm. Here she is pictured as an ugly, shrunken, old shrew, and she pulls it off beautifully.

Black gives the best performance of his career as the sexually ambiguous funeral director who finally can’t take it anymore and finds himself accused of a heinous crime.

While all three stars give marvelous performances, the best performances in the film are by the actual townspeople of Carthage who knew Bernie. While I was watching the film, I fully believed that these people were actors because they were so natural. However, truth be told, all the townspeople are the actual townspeople who were in Carthage during the time Bernie was the assistant funeral director. This adds enormous verisimilitude to the film. Further, the outtakes under the closing credits show that Black spent some time with the real Bernie.

This is one of the more entertaining movies I’ve seen this year.

The Five-Year Engagement

Runtime 122 minutes.
OK for children.

From l, Emily Blunt and Jason Segel in “The Five-Year Engagement.”

“OK for children.” Who woulda thought that a film by smutmeister Judd Apatow, who favors crudity, genital jokes, and bathroom humor, would make a movie that was “OK for children?” Who woulda linked classy Emily Blunt with an Apatow movie? But that’s what we have here. Apatow showed in Funny People (2008) that he can do work that doesn’t wallow in the gutter. But Funny People didn’t do that well at the box office, so Judd, being a good businessman, has generally stayed where the money is. Even though this has an “R” rating due to some raunchy language, that’s a minor part of the film. It would be even better had Judd realized that this was a good story that would be nice for children to see because it emphasizes commitment and kept the smutty language out of it. There’s no female nudity and the love scenes keep Blunt clothed or at least covered up. Unfortunately, there are a few unfortunate scenes of Segel’s bare bottom that add nothing to the film.

Blunt shines once again in this sweet love story (written by costar Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller, who directed) about, well, an engagement that lasts five years. This is a film of surprising depth, getting into the nitty gritty of a relationship, that seems realistic.

It’s never adequately explained why Violet Barnes (Blunt) and Tom Solomon (Segel) choose to live together instead of getting married when their career opportunities diverge, but that’s a clumsy plot device that one must overlook to get into the spirit of the film.

Chris Pratt gives an engaging performance as Tom’s best friend, Alex Eilhauer (if it was explained why Tom and Alex have different last names, I missed it), who is described as not too bright, but who seemed plenty savvy to me. His appearances livened the film when it was dragging. Alison Brie gives a fine performance as Violet’s sister and Alex’s wife, Suzie, although she doesn’t appear in that many scenes.

The other negative of the film for me, other than why they just didn’t get married in the first place, was that it’s far too long. I thought it would never end. But that did give me extra time to watch Blunt, and that’s always a treat.

Elles

Runtime 96 minutes.
Not for children.

Juliette Binoche in “Elles.”

Straight-laced Anne (Juliette Binoche) finds herself corrupted by the two prostitutes, Charlotte (Anaïs Demoustier) and Alicja (Joanna Kulig), about whom she is writing an article in this NC-17 rated film. It examines why some beautiful young women become prostitutes and shatters feminist images about who is exploiting whom. Says writer/director Malgoska Szumowska,

“Before the start of the shoot, I wanted to meet some young female prostitutes. In Poland, I knew from reading the papers that many young female students are forced to sleep with the owners of the rooms they live in. The account of one young girl who was both beautiful and elegant made a great impression on me. From the start of the interview, she only talked about sex, what she did and what she liked to do. To be honest, I was shocked. Shocked by the fact that a girl this pretty and intelligent derived pleasure from sleeping with men for money. And it wasn’t only to meet vital needs such as food and accommodation, but also for pleasure and to have a more pleasant life. In fact, it was very different from the fantasy that most people have of prostitution.”

The film is as much about Anne, her relationship with her family, and her moral slide as it is about the prostitutes themselves. Unfortunately, Szumowska sprinkles the film with mundane scenes of Anne’s everyday life like bringing home groceries and dealing with problems with her refrigerator and blender that slow the pace considerably.

Counter-balancing this is an enchanting performance by Demoustier, which is worth the price of admission by itself. She is a huge star aborning.

As to Kulig, Szumowska says, “She wanted to be in the film so badly that she lied to me when I asked her if she could speak French. When I realized it wasn’t true, I thought she was very sassy. And in the end, in the film, she does speak French!”

In addition to the humdrum scenes of Anne’s ordinary life, the film is marred by lots of product placements, especially for Apple Computer (the King of Product Placement) and Mercedes Benz.

Although this is not hard core, it does contain female nudity and fairly specific scenes of sexual activity. In French and Polish.

Headhunters

Run time 100 minutes.
Not for children.

Aksel Hennie in “Headhunters.”

Jo Nesbø is a Norwegian writer of thrillers, most of which feature his protagonist, Harry Hole. This was his first book, written in 2008, in which Hole does not appear.

Roger Brown (Aksel Hennie, one of Norway’s most popular actors) tells us right at the outset that he is short, 5-6, and must overcompensate. He has a gorgeous live-in girlfriend, Diana Brown (Synnøve Macody Lund, a journalist and former model who makes her acting debut). Although he works as a headhunter, he supplements his income by stealing art, with his partner, Ove Kikerud (Eivind Sander). Diana brings him a person searching for a specific job, Clas Greve (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, one of Denmark’s most successful international actors). When Roger learns that Greve has inherited a painting that is potentially worth $100 million, he plots with Ove to steal it.

Alas, things go from bad to worse for poor Roger. At times things get so bad that this almost appears like a horror film, although that’s not what it is. Regardless, the acting is superb. Directed by Morten Tyldum, from a script by Ulf Ryberg and Lars Gudmestad, this is a first-class thriller with tension-enhancing music (Trond Bjerknæs and Jeppe Kaas), and Hitchcockian-quality cinematography (John Andreas Andersen).

Like all good thrillers, after the setup that takes place in the first 15 minutes the tension constantly increases. While Roger is a “headhunter,” in that his main occupation is finding people for jobs, the title attains a double meaning as the movie progresses.

Last year the best film I saw was the French thriller, Point Blank. This is another film in that mold. Many avoid foreign films because they don’t like to read subtitles. These films are so good you soon don’t even register that you’re reading the dialogue. This film, especially, is so visual that for most of it the subtitles are relatively irrelevant. In Norwegian & Danish.

Darling Companion

Runtime 103 minutes.
OK for children.

From l, Diane Keaton and Elisabeth Moss in “Darling Companion.”

This is ostensibly a comedy, albeit one with few laughs. The genesis was when writers Meg & Lawrence Kasdan adopted a dog from a shelter in Los Angeles. From that, the inventive Lawrence, who directed, developed this story about relationships, centered around a missing, but loved, dog.

Beth (Diane Keaton) and Joseph Winter (Kevin Kline), a surgeon, comprise a longtime married couple whose marriage is shaky. He’s in surgery most of the time while their last daughter, Grace (Elisabeth Moss) is still at home with no boyfriend, and Beth is feeling forlorn. On a drive with Grace, Beth spots an abandoned dog and rescues it. They take it to a vet, Sam (Jay Ali), and sparks fly between him and Grace. Joseph reluctantly agrees to adopt the dog, which they name Freeway.

A year later Grace and Sam marry at the family’s cabin in the mountains. After the newlyweds leave, Beth and Joseph and Joseph’s sister, Penny (Dianne Wiest), and her boyfriend, Russell (Richard Jenkins), remain along with Penny’s son, Bryan (Mark Duplass), also a surgeon, and the cabin’s caretaker Carmen (Ayelet Zurer), a beautiful, mysterious psychic.

When the dog gets lost chasing a deer, Grace insists on trying to find him and induces Joseph to forget about his waiting patients and stay in the remote location in what appears to be a quixotic quest to find the dog. While the movie’s credibility is severely shaken by something as unrealistic as this, it is exacerbated by Keaton’s annoying acting. There’s a scene in which Joseph is instructing her on how to make a painful treatment on him that is so irritating it would have driven me out of the theater if I hadn’t had to stay. I think the last time I saw Keaton when she didn’t annoy the heck out of me was in The Godfather, Parts II & III (1974 & 1990, respectively). She gave outstanding performances in both. Except for her performance in The Godfather, Part III, once she adopted her irritating persona and mannerisms in Annie Hall (1977) she has been virtually unwatchable for me.

This is not a dog movie in the mold of Marley and Me (2008), which was almost entirely about a dog. This is about people. In fact, for almost half the movie, the dog is lost and off screen.

The best parts of the film could have been the scenery, as it was shot in photogenic parts of Utah, but Director of Photography Michael McDonough doesn’t take full advantage out of what could have been colorful, mind-blowing visuals. What remained as the best part for me was the performance of Zurer, who is captivating in her short times onscreen.

Although well-intended, this is mostly a monumental bore.

Marley

Runtime 145 minutes.
OK for children.

“Marley.”

When I first went to the Virgin Islands to conduct business there several decades ago, I was warned about the inhabitants’ calypso patois. After I arrived, while it was sometimes difficult to comprehend, it was musical to listen to. Whenever they spoke I felt as if I were at a concert. It was more than charming.

This documentary about Reggae singer/songwriter Bob Marley, directed by Kevin Macdonald, is set mostly in Marley’s native Jamaica. The story is told through interviews with the people who knew him best and archival footage. They all speak the Jamaican patois. Because some of their accents are so heavy, sometimes what they say is shown in subtitles, as if they were speaking a foreign language. I felt that all of the dialogue should have been subtitled because it is extremely difficult to understand. Even so, it is magical to listen to them speak.

Made with the unprecedented cooperation of the Marley family this is as complete a biography as you could expect. It gives a little background of Marley’s parents and grandparents and then shows something of his childhood in a Jamaican slum.

The first part of the film is narrated through interviews with Neville “Bunny” Livingston, the only survivor of the Wailers, the breakthrough group Marley formed with Bunny and Peter Tosh, who tells Marley’s story from 1961 through 1973. Neville Garrick, the Wailers artistic director, who was with Marley through the remainder of his life, takes over after Bunny left the Wailers in 1973 when he split from the band.

Making McDonald’s task difficult is that there is no archival film footage of the Wailers’ performances through 1973, since they were just a local Jamaican band. The story is told using archival photographs with Marley’s music as a background. Also interviewed is Marley’s wife and several of his girlfriends, including Miss World.

Marley was of mixed race; his father was white and his mother was black, and several of his close friends explained that that was a stigma that Marley felt deeply. The film also traces his belief in Rastafarianism and how it influenced his life.

McDonald does an exceptional job of presenting Marley in a way that the audience gets to know him. He became a huge political force in Jamaica and this is also reflected in the film. But he wasn’t perfect. He had skewed morality, fathering 11 children with seven different women. His daughter by his wife displays how much she was hurt by his relationship with her by her attitude in being interviewed for the film.

It’s not the purpose of my reviews to tell the whole story of a movie. This is a fascinating tale told by people who know how to tell a story, accompanied by wonderful music. My main objection to the film is that Marley’s music is shown in short clips, instead of complete songs. But that’s a minor criticism, and he wrote so much music that the film is filled with it. This is one of the best documentaries I’ve seen.

American Reunion

Runtime 105 minutes.
Not for children.

From l, Seann William Scott and Jason Biggs in “American Reunion.”

This is a modern screwball comedy. Unfortunately, that means that it’s diminished by some disgusting sexual scenes and full frontal male nudity. But it also contains some laugh out loud scenes that are reminiscent of director Allan Dwan’s classic screwball comedy, Up in Mabel’s Room (1944).

Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, the six guys who played in the original, American Pie (1999), and the two sequels, American Pie 2 (2001), and American Wedding (2003), Jason Biggs, Seann William Scott, Chris Owen, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas, and Eddie Kay Thomas, return to attend their high school reunion. The story centers around Jim Levenstein (Biggs) and his wife, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), who are having marital problems, naturally. But the other guys have their problems, too. They all get together and circumstances naturally create their own problems, mostly with former girlfriends, played by Tara Reid, Shannon Elizabeth, and Mena Suvari. The entire cast returns from the previous films, so it really is a reunion.

The highlights of the film are provided by Scott, who plays Steve Stifler, the bad boy who never grew up. Scott gives a wonderful performance as a character that needed talent to be portrayed. When he’s onscreen, the film really picks up. He reminded me of two people I know. Maybe everybody has known someone like Stifler.

But there are other good performances, most notably by Hannigan as the unsatisfied wife. Biggs is the glue of the film and carries it off well, especially when he gets entangled with gorgeous Kara (Ali Cobrin), the next-door neighbor of Jason’s father (Eugene Levy) for whom Jason used to baby sit. Kara is now a shapely 18 and wants Jason. His problems with her provide the movie with its funniest parts, approximately 2/3 of the way through. It doesn’t hurt when she takes off her shirt, either. But that’s not to diminish the performances of Reid, Suvari, and Elizabeth, all of whom add to the enjoyment of the film.

There are some raunchy parts that are more disgusting than funny that could have been left out, all involving Stifler. But all in all, the funny parts outweigh the raunchy parts and the feel good ending is appropriate, if hackneyed.

Wrath of the Titans

Run time 99 minutes.
Not for children.

Sam Worthington in “Wrath of the Titans.”

Why do studios continue to make rubbish like this? Money. The first in this series, which will probably continue, Clash of the Titans, made $163 million to rank 192 on the all time list of money makers.

This is just more of the same. While the film ballyhoos that it “stars” Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, they couldn’t have been on the set for much more than a week, so few scenes do they occupy. The only person onscreen for an extended period is Sam Worthington, who plays Perseus, the demigod son of Zeus (Neeson). It’s Perseus who has to go to battle with demons and monsters and all.

This is the classic new Hollywood movie that is virtually nothing but special effects. This one is in 3D. It was actually filmed in 3D, so the 3D is pretty good, and it doesn’t mute the color like the post production 3D (which marred the first one) does, if you can stay awake through all the inane action scenes.

Louis Leterrier directed the 2010 remake of the 1981 original. This directing chore falls to Jonathan Liebesman, no stranger to action films that rely on special effects. His last, Battle of Los Angeles (2011), was pretty good, but it was almost all action and special effects. This is much of the same, just switched in time from today to 3,000 years ago. There is really no story and no acting. Just one impossible fight between Perseus and the next monster, be it giant Cyclops or a creature composed entirely of fire.

This film shows Hollywood at its reprehensible worst, glorifying and minimizing senseless violence which can desensitize younger viewers to horribly violent actions that have no apparent consequences. Worthington’s brother beats him unmercifully, slamming his head against concrete time and again, to virtually no effect on Worthington (unless Worthington’s head has been so battered he can no longer make an intelligent choice of films in which to act).

Almost laughably, there are lots of writing credits here, Dan Mazeau & David Leslie Johnson for a screenplay and Greg Berlanti & Johnson & Mazeau for a “story by.” When you look at all the special effects that are bombarded at the audience and the meagerness of the story and script, one wonders at all the credits for a “story” and “script” (or why one would desire a credit for something like this).

As such, it really doesn’t require acting. Fiennes realized it and just mailed in his performance. Neeson is always good, even with stuff like this. Worthington has the potential to be a fine actor, but he needs to direct his efforts at something that actually requires talent.

One thing was pretty funny, however. Toby Kebbell plays Poseidon’s demigod son, Agenor, with a heavy British accent. Remember, this is in the second millennium B.C. I don’t know who was occupying the British Isles then, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t speak the Queen’s English.

This is nothing but mindless special effects. If you like them, this is your cup of tea. It wasn’t mine. But the movie left one with something to desire as before he dissolves into sand, Neeson tells Worthington, “There will be no more gods.” One can only hope.

Damsels in Distress

Run time 99 minutes.
OK for children.

Greta Gerwig in “Damsels in Distress.”

This doesn’t even rise to the level where it could be called a “bad chick flick.” Near the end of the film one of the characters says, “I don’t think my brain was fully formed or functioning properly.” This could describe every character in the film.

Written, produced, and directed by Whit Stillman, the film stars Greta Gerwig, accompanied by a bunch of relative unknowns. Although there are no special effects, the characters act and speak as if the film is a total fantasy. No real person acts, thinks, or speaks as do these women. They are as unrealistic as the monsters I just saw in Clash of the Titans.

Three of them, led by Gerwig, entice an incoming transfer student, Analeigh Tipton, to join their weird group. I say “weird” because they run a suicide prevention center that is based on counseling students not to kill themselves by devoting themselves to good hygiene and dance.

The most annoying thing about most bad chick flicks is the way they speak with one another. This film takes it to an entirely different level. They are all looney. The men in the film are a little more normal, but the fact that they would waste their time on goofy women like these means that there is something desperately wrong with them, too.

Apparently intended as a comedy, the dialogue is excruciating. I actually heard groans from different people in the audience at various places in the film. I kept groping for some deep meaning, for some big message the film was trying to make. If it existed, it was beyond me.

Mirror, Mirror

Run time 106 minutes.
Marginal for children.

From l, Julia Roberts and Lily Collins in “Mirror, Mirror.”

This fanciful retelling of the Brothers Grimm’s fairy tale, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, strays far and wide of the original. Oh, there’s a beautiful young princess named Snow White (Lily Collins, not as fair a princess as I would have expected), a wicked stepmother/ queen (Julia Roberts), and there are seven dwarfs, and there is a handsome prince (Armie Hammer) all right. But the plot is changed considerably. One thing missing is the mirror and the dialogue between the queen and it. Julia never asks, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?”, and since Julia never asks, she never gets the famous response. Since she never gets the famous response, her jealousy of Snow White has to come from something else.

The script is pretty tongue in cheek. Some may find it light-hearted and humorous. I found it merely tedious. The dwarfs seem to be all standup comedians, competing with one another for the best one-liner.

There is a pretty good sword fight between the prince and Snow White.

One thing that really stands out in the movie is the production design (Tom Foden). The sets are beautiful and colorful. Although there was quite a bit of green screen, much of the film was shot on actual, but oversized, sets. The costumes are equally impressive, done by the late Eiko Ishioka in her last film, passing away in January 2012. According to director Tarsem Singh, “She didn’t just design pieces of clothing, she created works of art.”

So the film has some good points to it. I didn’t think it was as funny as it was intended to be. The comedy between Nathan Lane and Roberts falls flat. While Lane is an accomplished comedian, the lines aren’t there and Roberts has little comedic talent. They are a mismatched pair when it comes to creating laughter.

The film just tries to be too cute. Just as an example, at the end there are graphics telling what each character (including each of the seven dwarfs) ended up doing with his or her life, as if this were a story based on real people.

And it’s far too long. This is yet another film in which a simple story is dragged out to the detriment of the film. There’s no reason why it couldn’t have been told and wrapped up in 90 minutes. The extra 16 minutes make it even more wearisome.

The Hunger Games

Runtime 142 minutes.
Not for children.

From l, Elizabeth Banks and Jennifer Lawrence in “The Hunger Games.”

Despite all the ballyhoo, this is basically a standard thriller set in the future. Apparently the books are a big hit with teenaged girls, so I feared the film would just be more of the same that we got with the Twilight films. But that’s not the way it is. This is actually very entertaining and well done, with a stellar cast.

Set in a despotic country in the future, each year 24 teenagers between 12-18, two from each of the country’s 12 districts, a male and a female, are chosen to compete in a reality TV game fight to the death with only one winner. That means that 24 teenagers are chosen and 23 will die.

When Jennifer Lawrence’s young sister is chosen, Jennifer volunteers to take her place. The boy chosen from the district is Josh Hutcherson, who has loved Jennifer from afar. That means that in order to survive, one will have to kill the other.

The teenagers are turned loose in the forest to either run from each other or to search each other out to kill. All the while they are monitored by the government, who also manipulates the outcome, or tries to, anyway. It’s not as bloodthirsty as it sounds.

Stanley Tucci is very good as the syrupy TV host, as are an almost unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson. Lawrence does a fine job, but not much is required of her, as it was in 2010 in Winter’s Bone, one of the best of that year, a film that required acting to make it work and for which she received an Oscar® nomination. This really doesn’t. She’s out there in the forest and she’s mostly running and hiding.

One technical aspect I really liked was the archery. I took archery at UCLA (and was the class champion, although I never split an arrow like Robin Hood), so I generally cringe when I see actors in films requiring archery pretending that they know how to use a bow and arrow when they clearly don’t. There are many shots of Lawrence using the bow and arrow and she does it exactly the way I learned. Bravo!

I had heard a lot of misleading things about brutality, but, while there is some killing, it’s not graphic and it isn’t profuse. This is mostly a film about chase and survival, although it takes about an hour for the games to actually begin. While director Gary Ross (who also has a writing credit with Billy Ray and Suzanne Collins, the author of the books) keeps the film moving, I can’t for the life of me figure out how he stretched this out to almost two and a half hours. There just isn’t that much story there. It didn’t pass the watch test, because I checked mine innumerable times.

I don’t know if the filmmakers were trying to make a statement about totalitarianism, but it’s there if you want to see it.

The Deep Blue Sea

Run time 98 minutes.
OK for children.

From l, Tom Hiddleston and Rachel Weisz in “The Deep Blue Sea.”

Director Terence Davies attempts to translate Terence Rattigan’s 1952 play about a misbegotten love triangle into film. Shot as if it were a play, Hestor (Rachel Weisz) is a 40-year-old woman who leaves a life of ease with her husband, Sir William (Simon Russell Beale), to live with a young ex-RAF pilot, Freddie (Tom Hiddleston).

Rattigan’s play apparently showed a lot more of the reasons Hestor and Freddie act the way they act than Davies’ film does. As a result the way they act is virtually incomprehensible. This boils down to the story of three people, two of whom love someone who is not worthy of their love. The film shows Hestor desperately in love with Freddie, but all we see, except for an early scene of them naked in bed together, is Freddie treating Hestor despicably. Similarly, Sir William’s unrequited love for Hestor is almost as inexplicable, considering the cold way she constantly rejects him.

The film needs a lot more exposition of why Hestor would be so deeply in love with Freddie. To the ordinary moviegoer her desperate love makes no sense whatsoever. Instead of exposing how the relationship between Hestor and Freddie developed, Davies spends enormous amounts of time and scene after scene after scene of Hestor thinking and looking out the window and thinking some more and then thinking some more.

Whenever she tries to get Freddie to come back to her, he always responds that if he comes back to her she’ll just start talking. But we never see her talking. If Davies had given a couple of scenes of Hestor talking to Freddie it would show what Freddie was complaining about. But as Davies shot the movie, the audience doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

Similarly, the film starts out showing Hestor hopelessly trapped in a cheerless marriage with Sir William, who looks to be twice her age, and with Sir William equally hopelessly cowed by his domineering mother. One wonders how Hestor lasted as long as she did as Sir William’s wife.

Rattigan apparently intended his play to be an exploration of how the idea of love is inexplicable in terms of logic. The problem with the way that Davies tells the story is that the reason for the love among these three people is never shown. If one can’t understand the basis for the germination of the love that apparently developed, the rest of the story makes no sense.

About the only positive things I can say about this film are that the acting is very good and the ambience is fittingly depressing. Hestor is an inscrutable protagonist and the ending is appropriately abstruse.

21 Jump Street

Runtime 109 minutes
Not for children.

From l, Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum in “21 Jump Street.”

Ice Cube, Channing Tatum, and Jonah Hill, in that order, make this teen comedy truly funny. Phil Lord and Chris Miller direct a good script (Michael Bacall from a story by Bacall and Jonah Hill and based on the TV series by Patrick Harburgh and Steve Cannell). This could have been excruciatingly bad, but the pace is well maintained and Tatum’s acting as a dunce stays on the right side of a fine line between comedy and stupidity.

The funniest parts of the movie are when Ice Cube appears as the profane, angry boss of Hill and Tatum.

The film is filled with F-bombs and scatological jokes that some might find offensive, but it is a high school movie and the off color jokes and language are generally humorous, unlike most high school movies. Adding charm to the film is Brie Larson as the high school girl who captures Hill’s heart. But other supporting performances also stand out, particularly Rob Riggle (a former combat-hardened marine in real life before he became an actor), who plays a coach at the high school, and Chris Parnell, who plays a goofy acting teacher.

The plot is that Tatum and Hill are two mismatched former high school classmates who become policemen and are assigned to go under cover at a high school to catch drug runners. This is a fine screwball comedy in the old tradition that had me laughing out loud.

Project X

Run time 90 minutes.
Not for children.

“Project X.”

Contrasted with the quality of 21 Jump Street, this high school movie never crosses the line between comedy and stupidity, always staying well to the wrong side. Producer Todd Phillips is from the Judd Apatow mold of comedic producers/directors. He eschews intelligence and wit for crudity and shock value.

In what is probably the lowest cost film of the year, he gets rookie Nima Nourizadeh to direct a bunch of unknowns who were cast through a nationwide talent search, so I won’t waste your time naming them. Three 17 year old seniors want to create a reputation among the cool kids in school so they throw a wild party at the house of Thomas Mann when his parents leave for the weekend. His father put his trust in Thomas to take care of the house.

Naturally it’s destroyed as Thomas gets thousands of teenagers to party, drink, and rut in the house, backyard, and swimming pool. There is a plethora of drinking, drug use, nudity, lots of quick shots of nubile girls’ breasts, and sex. What’s lacking is humor and morality.

In fact, the moral of this tawdry film is that even though Thomas betrayed his parents’ trust, destroys the house, forces his father into bankruptcy, and turns the neighborhood into anarchy, in the end Phillips’ moral is that this was exactly the right thing to do and Thomas gains his father’s respect. Maybe there are parents in this world who are as bereft of common sense as Thomas’ father, but I hope there aren’t many.

I wonder how many impressionable teens will be encouraged to disrespect their parents’ trust after they see this movie that glorifies idiotic, depraved behavior. While the staging and cinematography (Ken Seng) are exceptionally good, this is a despicable movie and Warner Bros. should be ashamed of itself. It seems intended to appeal to immature teens and young adults to influence them to think that this sort of behavior is the way to become liberated.