Romeo & Juliet

Posted on October 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm

William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” is the most-filmed play of all time, with dozens of versions and variations from the sublime (the Franco Zeffirelli and Baz Luhrmann versions, “West Side Story” and “Shakespeare in Love”) to the outlandish (the cute Gnomeo and Juliet, the robot short “Runaway Robots! Romie-O and Julie-8”) and the downright ridiculous (Norma Scherer and Leslie Howard were in twice the age of the characters they were playing). The story of the “star-cross’d lovers” has immediate appeal — impetuous teenagers, disapproving parents, missed messages, and swordfights. All it needs to succeed is leads with a lot of chemistry and the ability to adapt to the rhythms of iambic pentameter and the glorious language of the greatest writer in the history of English. This movie fails on all three. The leads have no chemistry with each other or with the glorious poetry of the dialog. And “Downton Abbey’s” Julian Fellowes has mangled the adaptation, changing some of the lines and scenes. It is not a terrible movie, but it is not an especially good one and with so many better alternatives it is an unnecessary one.

It begins with a useless added scene in which the Prince (Stellan Skarsgård) holds a tournament to settle once and for all the dispute between the feuding Montagues and Capulets. It doesn’t work. Soon a fight breaks out between the servants of the two houses that are “alike in dignity” (the play’s first scene) and the Prince is furious. If they cannot keep the peace, there will be trouble. Romeo (Douglas Booth), a Montague, is in love with a Capulet cousin named Rosaline. When he finds out that the Capulets are having a masked party and Rosaline will be there, he and his friends attend the party so Romeo can see her.

But Romeo sees the Capulet daughter, Juliet (“True Grit’s” Hailee Steinfeld), and they are instantly struck by love. In the play, their perfect unity is demonstrated by their first conversation, witty flirtation in the form of an exquisite sonnet. It is one of the best-loved pieces of writing in history. Yet this version mangles it by ramping up the intensity of the attraction right from the beginning so there is no sense of build-up. More important, the utter lack of chemistry between the very pretty but bland Booth and the game but not up to the task Steinfeld makes us long for Bella and Edward or even Bella and Jacob.

There are some strong performances, unfortunately just making the two main characters look worse by comparison. Lesley Manville (“Topsy Turvy”) give the nurse a warmth that is often lost in the usual caricatured portrayals. Natascha McElhone is a sympathetic Lady Capulet and Paul Giamatti is superb as Friar Laurence. The standout, though, is Christian Cooke as Mercurtio, whose energy is much missed once he is out of the picture.

Most appallingly, Fellowes has decided to make the text more “accessible” with some trims and edits to the language. The slight gains in “accessibility” are overwhelmed by the loss of the music in the words and the poetry of the rhythm. I bite my thumb at him.

Parents should know that this movie includes Shakespearean sword-fighting with many characters injured and killed, sexual references and non-explicit situations, and suicides.

Family discussion: Did the novice make the right decision? Why couldn’t Romeo and Juliet tell their parents the truth?

If you like this, try: the other versions by Baz Luhrmann and Franco Zeffirelli and adaptations like “West Side Story” and “Warm Bodies,” a zombie romance where the characters are named R and Julie)

A.C.O.D.

Posted on October 4, 2013 at 7:30 am

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language and brief sexual content
Profanity:	Very strong language, some crude
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drug references
Violence/ Scariness:	Tense family confrontations, some shoving, fire
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	October 4, 2013

Are today’s 20-and 30-somethings the least-parented generation in history, as a character explains in this film? To quote Rosie O’Donnell in “Sleepless in Seattle” about another depressing statistic, “It’s not true, but it feels true.” While the generation that came of age in the 1970’s and early 80’s were self-actualizing and consciousness-raising and yuppifying, their children were being raised by adults who were too often acting like, well, children.

Adam Scott (“Parks and Recreation,” “Party Down”) produced and stars in “A.C.O.D.,” which stands for “Adult Children of Divorce.” It’s an apt oxymoron. Scott plays Carter, who is very much the adult in his relationship with his long-divorced but still-warring parents and with his younger brother, Trey (Clark Duke). He is also the adult in his professional life, as the owner of a trendy restaurant. But that has a considerable advantage, he points out. “It may be like a family, but I could fire the ones I don’t like.”

Trey’s engagement creates some immediate problems. He and his fiancée Kieko (Valerie Tian) have only known each other four months. Trey cannot support himself; he is living in Carter’s garage. But those are minor concerns compared to the “9 year marriage turned into a 100-years war” — their parents, Hugh (Richard Jenkins) and Melissa (Catherine O’Hara). Trey wants them to come to his wedding and be civil to one another. Even though both have re-married (Hugh twice), their toxic mutual hostility is still the most powerful and all-consuming force in their lives.

Carter, himself allergic to marriage due to the childhood trauma of his parents’ divorce (and their self-absorption, bitterness, manipulation, and use of him as a go-between and subject of endless custody disputes), knows that Trey’s plans are unrealistic. But he can’t help being captivated, even a little wistful and the optimism and certainty of the couple. And he knows it is in part because he has worked so hard to protect Trey from the worst of his parents’ battles.

The stress of negotiating with his parents is so unsettling, Carter seeks help from a woman he saw after his parents split up (Jane Lynch). She is glad to see him again, but informs him that she was not his therapist. She was interviewing him for a book about the impact of divorce on children. And it became an international best-seller. This puts him even deeper into a tailspin, as he reads the book for the first time and discovers what his middle-school turmoil looked like to an observer. “Am I living in a shell of insecurity and approval-seeking?” It is even more disconcerting that the book is a best-seller (“Fourteen printings and Margot Kidder did the audio book.”)

Meanwhile, his efforts to get his parents to be civil to one another has had some very disturbing repercussions. And Carter’s sympathetic and supportive girlfriend of four years (the magnificent Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may not put any pressure on him, but she does point out that it would be nice to have a key to his apartment.

The storyline may be weak in spots, but the spectacular cast (Scott’s “Parks and Recreations” co-star Amy Poehler plays Hugh’s third wife) makes the most of the sharp dialogue and depictions of world-class boundary issues. A credit-sequence coda with the movie’s real-life crew discussing their own A.C.O.D. issues is, like the film itself, sobering but still a reminder that ultimately, no matter how dysfunctional our origins, we get to decide who we want to be.

Parents should know that this film includes explicit sexual references and brief situations, rear nudity, very strong language, drinking, smoking, and drug references.

Family discussion: Why was Carter unhappy about the way he was portrayed in the book? How did he try to be different from his parents?

If you like this, try: “It’s Complicated” and “The Baxter”

Gravity

Posted on October 3, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for intense perilous sequences, some disturbing images, and brief strong language
Profanity:	Many s-words, one f-word
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense and prolonged peril, characters killed, disturbing images of dead bodies
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	October 4, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	February 24, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00H83EUL2

In space, there is no oxygen and no sound. There is no up or down. Everything is weightless. When you cry, the tears float away instead of running down your cheeks.

“Gravity” is one of the once-to-a-generation films that transform our sense of the immensity of space and the potential of film. Like “2001: A Space Odyssey” and “Avatar,” it makes use of technology to create unprecedented visual splendor that recalibrates our notions — literal and metaphorical — of our place in the universe. I have two recommendations: see it on Imax 3D to get the full effect. And see it soon, before you are exposed to spoilers that give away too much of the story.

I’ll do my best to omit comments that give too much away but you may wish to skip the rest of the review until you’ve had a chance to experience the movie’s suprises fully.

Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is a doctor who is up in space to get data, “a new set of eyes to scan the edge of the universe.” It is her first time in space and she has had just six months of training. She is nervous and, if the word applies where there is no air — airsick, or, if the word applies where there is no gravity — motionsick. “Keeping your lunch down in zero gravity is harder than it looks,” she says a little grimly. And it is a challenge to use tools that float away while wearing a spacesuit with thick gloves. “I’m used to a basement lab in a hospital where things fall to the floor.” But she is intent on completing her work. And she likes one thing about space: “The silence. I could get used to it.” In charge of the mission is Matt Kowalsky (George Clooney), a genial, experienced astronaut who enjoys annoying mission control in Houston (Ed Harris) with corny jokes, shaggy dog stories, and Hank Williams, Jr.

And then Houston warns them that debris is headed their way and that it may knock out communications and destroy the spacecraft. And then it arrives. The damage is devastating. Stone and Kowalsky are stranded somewhere between earth and the moon. “I am off structure and I am drifting. Do you copy? Anyone?”

Bullock gives an extraordinary performance in a role that calls on her to spend most of the movie by herself, with only her voice and eyes to convey the shifting emotions: terror, resolve, submission, transcendence. While her visceral first response is an adrenaline-fueled elevated heart-beat and rapid breathing, Kowalsky reminds her that she has to slow down to conserve her limited oxygen. He chats with her to help her calm down and we learn that nothing that can happen to her in space can make her feel as lost, isolated, and devastated as what she has already experienced on earth. She has walled off every part of herself outside of the narrow scope of her mission. Her biggest challenge in space will not be technical or physical but finding in herself the courage and the spiritual bandwidth to take in what is happening to her. “You’re going to have to learn to let go,” Kowalski tells her.

There is something both reassuring and chilling in the understated vocabulary the astronauts learn to use to describe catastrophic failure in place of the more obvious”OMG! We’re going to die!” “It’s not rocket science,”Kowalski says reassuringly, if inaccurately.

Alfonso Cuarón, who directed and c0-wrote “Gravity” with his son, Jonás, is a master of storytelling through camera movement and striking images. There are brilliantly choreographed near-misses and almost-failures. Watch how the literally breathtaking continuous shot that begins the film breaks only when Stone’s connection to the spacecraft is severed. Watch again as our understanding of the crucial importance of the lifeline that is attached to something or someone is upended and turned inside out when Stone is tangled in strings that hold her back when she needs release. In another scene, Stone gets some literal breathing room when she is able to remove her spacesuit and float in her underwear as though she is protected by amniotic fluid, a moment of profoundly tactile, ecstatic, sensuality. Every reflection in every shiny surface helps to set the scene and tell the story of her spiritual rebirth and reconnection. A weightless Marvin Martian doll, a family photo, the earth, seen from almost 700 km above — each image is telling, moving, meaningful. The script, especially the last half hour, is not up to the level of the visuals, but the setting (I hereby predict Oscars for visual effects and sound editing) for the of inner and outer exploration implied by the title is exquisitely conveyed.

Parents should know that this film has very intense and scary peril and some disturbing images of injuries and dead bodies. There are some mild sexual references, and characters use some strong language and drink alcohol.

Family discussion: What makes Ryan change her mind? Which was the most difficult moment for her and why?

If you like this, try: other outer space classics like “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Silent Running,” and “Apollo 13” and the television miniseries “From the Earth to the Moon”

Don Jon

Posted on September 26, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt has made a remarkably assured debut as writer/director, putting him in the front ranks of today’s filmmakers. Gordon-Levitt also plays the lead role, Jon, a New Jersey guy with a high and tight haircut and a spare and immaculate apartment decorated in gray and black. He reels off the list of things he cares about: his body (for working out), his car (for driving and looking cool), his boys (friends), his girls (for sex), his church (for confession), his family (for Sunday dinners), and porn (you know what that is for). Those are the parameters of his life, and that seems fine to him because he knows who he is and how things fit together. The title is a reference to the legendary libertine who symbolizes all men who seduce many women without forming any attachments to them.

Jon and his friends like to go to the club and rank the ladies, an endlessly fascinating conversation about various body parts and the optimal shapes and proportions of each. Sex with those ladies is primarily a contest between the men, and Jon is by far the leader. His success with nines and “dimes” (a ten) is about status and competition, and he tells us that he prefers pornography to sex with real girls. One night, Jon sees a solid dime named Barbara (Scarlett Johansson). For the first time, he becomes involved with a woman who is more than a one-night stand and he has to earn her affection. She has her own ideas of what a “dime” equivalent looks like, and he finds himself going to romantic comedy movies and taking a community college class. He even brings her home to meet his family, where she gets a very enthusiastic response from his parents (a wonderful Glenne Headley and Tony Danza).

And then things get more complicated. Gordon-Levitt has crafted a whip-smart, richly cinematic film with some very funny moments and a lot of heart. He makes it clear that Jon is not the only one who is numbing his feelings. His father is more absorbed in watching the football games than in talking to his family and Barbara’s aspirations are almost as based on fantasy as the images Jon connects to online. Watch how the settings help tell the story, and style of the movie changes as Jon goes from the techno-pumping macho world of his friends to the more romantic, orchestral environment of dating. And then it shifts again as other changes happen. Keep an eye on Jon’s sister, played by the superb Brie Larson (“The Spectacular Now,” “Short Term 12”), who appears to be as addicted to her devices as Jon, never saying a word to her family as she stares into her phone, texting back and forth. She will make it clear that she has been more connected to what is going on with the people she loves than anyone else in the film. And Julianne Moore gives an earthy but sensitive performance as a classmate of Jon’s who surprises and disconcerts him with her honesty.

Seeing Jon begin to learn to interact with the world with feelings, not just sensations, is a pleasure. But seeing one of today’s best young actors bloom into one of tomorrow’s best young filmmakers is even greater.

Parents should know that this movie is about a young man who is addicted to pornography. It includes very explicit sexual references and situations, nudity, very strong and crude language, drinking, and drugs.

Family discussion: How did other characters aside from Jon find ways to avoid their feelings? How did Joseph Gordon-Levitt use different film-making styles to show the different moods of his time with his friends, with Barbara, and with Esther?

If you like this, try: “Thanks for Sharing” and some of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s other films like “Brick” and “Mysterious Skin”

Related Tags:

Comedy Date movie Drama Romance

Rush

Posted on September 26, 2013 at 6:00 pm

The immensely gifted screenwriter Peter Morgan reunites with his “Frost/Nixon” director Ron Howard and returns to his favorite theme, a real-life drama about the clash between two brilliantly talented but flawed figures. This time it is the bitter rivalry between Formula One race car drivers James Hunt (“Thor’s” Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (“Inglourious Basterds'” Daniel Brühl). The British Hunt is Maverick to the Austrian Lauda’s Iceman, the Michael to his Sonny, the id to Lauda’s superego.

Both were the rebellious sons of wealthy fathers. Hunt is handsome, careless, and catnip to the ladies. “He will have you pulling your hair out nine days out of ten,” a character says, but on the tenth day, when you need him, he will deliver. Lauda is methodical and analytical. He calculates the odds. But they both know that they are among the very few who know what it feels like to get into a car that is essentially a bomb on wheels and speed it around a racetrack. They both do it not because they like driving in circles but because they like to test themselves. They both like to win, even need to win. And, as they remind us perhaps one or two times too many in this film, they both know that the best way to do that is to compete against one another. “The only people I can get along with are those who can drive fast,” Hunt says. He does not really get along with them, either.

Hemsworth, 30 pounds lighter than his Thor/Avengers muscled-up Norse god look, is able to make Hunt magnetic even in 70’s hair. We meet him as he walks into an emergency room with a bashed nose, not from a racing accident, from a jealous husband. The pretty nurse (Natalie Dormer) asks what he did to anger the husband and he rakishly offers to show her. The curtain rings squeal against the rod as it is quickly swung around and soon he is introducing her to his pit crew as “Nursie.” No time to learn her name, and no need.

Hunt was the James Bond of race car drivers, sexy, sophisticated, and fearless. But I don’t think James Bond ever threw up before a confrontation. “Rebels, lunatics, dreamers,” he tells us about race car drivers. “People who are desperate to make a mark and willing to die for it.” Formula One averaged two deaths a year. But, he adds, “The closer you are to death, the more alive you feel.”

Lauda says his brain is not that strong but his ass is very smart. He can tell from a car’s vibrations under the seat that a fan belt will be in trouble and which tire needs air. He negotiates his driving deals the way he drives, calmly but ruthlessly. He gets up early to walk the track. He calculates risk constantly and accurately. When he explains that one race should be called off because the heavy rainstorm has made conditions unsafe, Hunt, behind on points, persuades the other drivers to vote to continue. Lauda is very badly injured, including burns on his face and severe lung damage. In one of the most extraordinary comebacks in the history of sports, Lauda was back on the track 42 days later, against doctor’s orders but able to compete. In what passed for cheerfulness from the dour Austrian, he told the press that there was one advantage to the skin grafts on his forehead. They don’t sweat, so he would no longer be bothered by sweat dripping in his eyes. And, has his wife told him, you drive with your foot, not your face.

Howard conveys the pressure and the thrill of Formula One racing, giving us the view from inside the helmet, and showing us that Hunt’s air of casual mastery is accompanied by a nervous habit of playing with the cap on his cigarette lighter. He shows us how Hunt and Lauda are always racing, whether it is Hunt visualizing the track or Lauda walking it, competing for the best cars and sponsors, or exchanging barbed comments about whether it is more important to be feared than loved. The action is electrifying, on and off the track.

Parents should know that this movie includes some disturbing images of crashes and injuries, very strong language, sexual references and situations with nudity, drinking, smoking, and drug use, as well as a great deal of reckless behavior.

Family discussion: What were the most important ways in which Hunt and Lauda were alike? If you were a sponsor, which would you hire and why?

If you like this, try: “Winning” with Paul Newman, “Grand Prix” with James Garner, and “Le Mans” with Steve McQueen, and Peter Morgan’s “The Damned United” about another real-life sports rivalry.

Related Tags:

Based on a true story Drama Sports