Words and Pictures

Posted on June 5, 2014 at 6:00 pm

What a refreshing change to have a witty grown-up love story in the midst of summer movie season. Popping up in the middle of monsters, superheroes, and special effects is this endearing romance built around what Shakespeare (and George Orwell) called “a merry war” between two teachers that challenges the darker wars each is fighting with themselves.

Jack Marcus (Clive Owen) teaches English at a prep school, very popular with his students and very good at getting the best from them. Once a promising poet, he has been unable to make any progress on a new book and his relationships in the community, with the school administration, and with his son are deteriorating due to his abuse of alcohol. The prestige he had as a writer “made it easier to forgive faults,” a school board member warns him. His sense of himself as a good teacher is what fuels his denial about his failures in other parts of his life, and keeps him feeling superior. He likes to challenge the other faculty members to word games, especially one involving coming up with five-syllable words for each letter in the alphabet.

A new teacher arrives. Her name is Dina Delsanto (Juliette Binoche) and like Jack, she is respected for her work outside the classroom as a gallery artist. (The paintings in the film were created by Binoche herself, who is an accomplished artist.) When she says she teaches art, Jack comments, “Hence the scarf.” When he tells her he teaches literature, she responds, “Hence the ‘hence.'” He feels awake for the first time in many years because like Ferdinand in Shakespeare’s “Tempest,” he has found someone who speaks his language. Jack talks too much. Dina talks too little, especially when it comes for the reason she is teaching and the reason she left New York and the reason she uses a cane, all of which are the same reason.

Or has he? He challenges Dina with a five-syllable “a” word: antihistamine. She responds “blahblahblahblah,” which, as he points out, is just four syllables, and, as he does not point out because he is intrigued by her, it is not a word. Dina believes that pictures are not just worth a thousand words, they are truer, too. They conduct a “merry war” between words and pictures because first, it captivates the students, and that matters to both of them more than they admit to themselves, and second, like the five-syllable word challenge, it gives them a witty context to explore some romantic feelings without getting too sentimental. It can be arch and artificial, but it is smart and funny and Owen and Binoche are clearly enjoying themselves and we enjoy it, too.

Parents should know that this film includes strong language, some crude, sexual references and a sexual situation, painful family confrontations, illness, and some mild peril.

Family discussion: Which do you prefer, words or pictures, and why? How should the school handle a problem like the one faced by Emily? What makes a great teacher?

If you like this, try: “Roxanne,” by the same director and “Dan in Real Life” with Juliette Binoche

Related Tags:

Not specified

Citizen Koch

Posted on June 3, 2014 at 12:39 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Not rated
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	None
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie, some offensive comments
Date Released to Theaters:	June 6, 2014

The 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case opened the door — no, opened the floodgates — to unlimited and unaccountable political spending by corporations and wealthy individuals. The case itself rose from a film about Hillary Clinton that was funded by a group opposing her candidacy for President. And now this film, “Citizen Koch” takes on Charles and David Koch, the wealthiest, most powerful, most influential, and least known of the individuals who have taken advantage of the Citizens United ruling and the corrupting, distorting, and toxic effect on democracy.

The filmmakers make it clear from the beginning whose side they are on, opening with a racist quote from Koch paterfamilias and c0-founder of the John Birch Society Fred Koch, then cutting to Sarah Palin, shouting “Game on!” to Barack Obama at an Americans for Prosperity rally. Americans for Prosperity is just one of the more than 30 organizations known to be funded by the Kochs. It then goes back two and a half years earlier to examine the impact the Kochs have had in just a small but representative sample of issues and events, focusing in detail on Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, kept in office despite a recall vote, thanks to enormous amounts of money for an “end the recall madness campaign,” none of which was disclosed until after the vote, when it was too late to affect the outcome.

The unexpected hero of the film turns out to be Buddy Roemer, former Governor and Congressman from Louisiana who has served or run as Democrat, Republican, and independent. His fresh, frank outlook and good cheer despite being ignored by contributors, voters, and the other candidates is a bracing antidote to the despair and animosity surrounding him. One Rove/Koch operative refuses to answer questions about the benefits to their business interests that the policies the Koch brothers are promoting and another insists, outside of a Koch-funded bus filled with get-out-the-vote callers representing themselves as “volunteers for Americans for Prosperity,” that his group is not “election advocacy,” just “issue” education. By contrast, Roemer’s candor — and his inability to get any support — are telling.

But the inescapable conclusion from the film is that there is something even more distressing than the impact of near-unfathomable individual wealth on politics: the impact on public understanding of the issues. As sort of Gresham’s Law of information, the availability of outlets for unlimited sources with their own spins and agendas. A group of people take in the anti-Semitic-fueled rant of a John Birch Society leader (he actually comes down on Hitler’s side regarding the threat posed by Jews), and one of them gratefully says it is good to be able to get information from those who are knowledgeable. Another man, told that the money the Kochs spent on elections is vastly greater than that spent by the unions (as much a target of the Kochs as government regulations and the social safety net), simply refuses to believe it. That same attitude — and the power of the Kochs to keep this film from being aired on New York’s PBS station to get this story told — is the real problem.

Parents should know that this film includes some disturbing language and bigotry.

Family discussion: How do other countries handle this problem? What is the best way to evaluate the impact of political spending by all sides?

If you like this, try: Koch Brothers Exposed and Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America’s Most Powerful and Private Dynasty

Related Tags:

Maleficent

Posted on May 29, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for sequences of fantasy action and violence, including frightening images
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Fantasy/fairy tale peril and violence with characters injured and killed, death of parents, scary creatures
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	May 30, 2014
Date Released to DVD:	November 3, 2014
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00M4ADWTK

What makes bad guys bad? We’ve always been told that Sleeping Beauty was cursed at birth by a wicked fairy caught up in a jealous fury because she was not invited to the christening. In the classic 1959 Disney animated version of the story, she has a name that contains the root syllables for evil and for grand-scale power, a combination of malevolent and magnificent: Maleficent. And in the climax of the film she transforms herself into a fire-breathing dragon to prevent Prince Philip from getting inside the castle to wake Sleeping Beauty with true love’s kiss.

Now we get to see her story, meeting her first as a friendly young fairy who sweetly says good morning to all of the magical creatures in the fairyland that abuts the human world. No one is supposed to cross that boundary, but Maleficent meets the young human boy Stefan when he crosses the boundary to try to steal a jewel. They become friends and, as they grow older, they care for each other. But Stefan (Sharlto Copley) is ambitious. He steals her wings, and is thus able to marry the king’s daughter and ascend to the throne. When their baby, Princess Aurora, is born, Maleficent arrives at the christening for the curse we all remember — on her 16th birthday she will prick her finger on a spinning wheel’s spindle and then fall into a deep, permanent sleep, to be awakened only by true love’s kiss.

Director Robert Stomberg, who worked with Tim Burton as a visual effects and production designer, keeps a more consistent tone in the settings than in the storyline. The fairy settings are imaginative, with some enchanting details. Maleficent herself is brilliantly designed with wings that seem part-bat, part-eagle and cheekbones sharp enough to cut glass. The script feels pieced together and uncertain. The reason to see the movie is Jolie, clearly having a blast and giving a performance filled with heart, wit, and spirit. As in the Disney version, Princess Aurora is bundled off to a remote cottage under the care of three bickering pixies (poorly used Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, and Leslie Manville), to keep her from ever seeing a spinning wheel. Maleficent cannot keep away and watches the Princess constantly, as a baby, a toddler (played by Jolie’s daughter because she was the only little girl who was not afraid of the scary Maleficent costume), and then as a young woman (Elle Fanning, whose role consists primarily of smiling, but does that very well). The sunny, loving qualities of the young Princess (enhanced, perhaps, by the wishes of the three fairies at her christening), begin to melt Maleficent’s heart. But the curse cannot be undone.

The classic tale can be undone, or at least rearranged. A handsome prince, a fire-breathing dragon, and, yes, a sleeping beauty all come together, with some clumsy switches. The real enchantment here is not the story but the star.

Parents should know that this film includes fairy-tale peril and violence with fire, swords, scary-looking creatures, and a fire-breathing dragon, characters injured and killed, death of parents, betrayal, and some disturbing images.

Family discussion: What other stories would you like to see from the villain’s point of view? Why did Stephan and Maleficent have different responses to fear and disappointment?

If you like this, try: “Stardust” and Disney’s animated classic Sleeping Beauty

A Million Ways to Die in the West

Posted on May 29, 2014 at 5:58 pm

When Seth MacFarlane tops his unprecedented success on television with three animated series (“Family Guy,” “The Cleveland Show,” “American Dad”) and his first feature film was a blockbuster — the talking teddy bear movie Ted is the highest grossing R comedy of all time, in both senses of the word, with a sequel in the works. He also found time to put out an album of American songbook standards that received widespread if somewhat grudging critical acclaim (Music Is Better Than Words) and produce a popular reboot of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” series. His only real flop to day was his disappointing hosting job at the Oscars (the song “We Saw Your Boobs” and sexist jokes did not go over well). So, he can write his own ticket in Hollywood. And that is what he has done with “A Million Ways to Die in the West,” a silly comedy that reflects the excessive deference given to someone with that track record. You want to do a western? Fine! You want to not just write and direct but also cast yourself as the lead opposite top-ranked actors? With lots of fart jokes? Where do we sign?

And that is how “A Million Ways to Die in the West” got made. It is too long, too dumb, and too gross. But sometimes funny.

The saucer-eyed MacFarlane plays Albert, a sheep farmer who hates living in the west where “everything that is not you is trying to kill you.” A motif of the film is the many ways minor characters are killed off, intentionally or by accident. We meet Albert talking his way out of a shootout on the main street, to the disappointment of the assembled townsfolk and his fiance, Louise (Amanda Seyfried, the local schoolmarm). Louise dumps him, and Albert is devastated. His friends Edward (Giovanni Ribisi) and his fiancee Ruth (Sarah Silverman) try to comfort him, but he is inconsolable until he meets Anna (Charlize Theron), new in town. She offers to help him make Louise jealous, but they find themselves attracted to one another. Unfortunately (as we know early on but Albert does not), Anna is married to the West’s most notorious gunslinger, with the macho name of Clinch Leatherwood (Liam Neeson).

The movie looks and sounds like a classic western, with sun-burnished views of Monument Valley from Director of Photography Michael Barrett and an evocative score by Joel McNeely, both MacFarlane regulars. Neeson is outstanding, as always, never winking at the camera. Neil Patrick Harris is a pleasure as Albert’s romantic rival, a mustachioed slicker who can dance up a storm. Theron manages the more challenging trick of making Anna feel real, even though she is delivering contemporary dialog in buckskin and a bustle. It is a wonderfully natural, appealing performance that does wonders to give MacFarlane more humanity and make him seem a little less whiny and juvenile.

Unfortunately, the move keeps things pretty whiny and juvenile anyway, with MacFarlane taking full advantage of the MPAA’s notoriously lax standards for a studio comedy to include material that is more tiresome than outrageous. More unfortunately, it goes on at least 40 minutes too long, with an extended drug trip hallucination sequence that feels as endless as your college roommate’s moment by moment rendition of his dream. Lame humor includes an extended conversation about people in olden days not smiling in photographs and Ruth’s activities as a prostitute who as a good Christian won’t sleep with her boyfriend until they are married. There are no set-pieces as funny as Mark Wahlberg’s recitation of trashy girl names in “Ted” and the guest stars feel stunt-ish, not a part of the storyline as Sam Jones and Norah Jones were in that film. By the time the sheep is peeing on Albert’s face, the audience may feel that in the old west as ever, dying is easy but comedy is hard.

Translation: Constant extremely crude and gross-out humor with very explicit and raunchy sexual references and situations and extensive bodily function humor, nudity, jokes about prostitution and child molestation, racial and sexual orientation humor, western-style violence with shoot-outs and many characters injured and killed, disturbing images, drinking, smoking, drug use, very strong and explicit language including the r-word

Family discussion: What do the “straight” western elements of this film like the cinematography, landscapes, and score contribute to its overall effect? Do you think any of these jokes went too far?

If you like this, try: “Ted” and “Blazing Saddles”

Related Tags:

Comedy Western

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Posted on May 22, 2014 at 6:00 pm

X-Men fans will see this film anticipating the pleasure of watching their favorite X-Men characters in one of the comic book series most acclaimed storylines: the time-bending saga of a desperate trip to the past to undo one tragic mistake. Wolverine, Mystique, and the old and new versions of Professor X and Magneto are all here and there are grandly staged action scenes involving the White House lawn, Chinese ruins, and a sports stadium. But the powerhouse knock-you-socks-off what-did-I-just-see moments come from a new character in the movie franchise, Quicksilver (Evan Peters), who does a little time-bending of his own in the most dull and domestic of settings, a kitchen. Well, it’s a kitchen in the Pentagon, but still. Part “Matrix,” part Chuck Jones, it is sure to be on end of the year best lists. And of course Jennifer Lawrence is terrific as the conflicted Raven/Mystique, whose loyalties shift almost as often as her chameleonic exterior, and who looks sensational in a costume so revealing that would make a Las Vegas showgirl look like she’s wearing a parka.

Marvel’s X-Men are mutants, the next stage of evolution past homo sapiens, with a range of intriguing and sometimes mutable superpowers. They also represent the next stage of evolution as superheroes, with conflicted characters and complex extended storylines that resonate the themes of societal, political, and psychological struggles. Characters go back and forth between the “good guy” (want to work with humans) and “bad guy” (believe humans can never accept or keep up with them so they should be wiped out in a Darwinian overthrow of the less-fit) teams.

We’ve seen the present-day X-Men in a trilogy of films and stand-out Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) in two starring vehicles. And saw the origins of the first X-Men, Charles Xavier, known as Professor X, and Erik Lehnsherr, known as Magneto, in X-Men: First Class. Now, everything comes together in the time-travel saga “Days of Future Past,” a little bit “Terminator,” a little bit “Back to the Future,” as Wolverine goes back in time to change one event in order to prevent the creation of an army of killer robot drones that wiped out most of the mutants and humanity, too.

This will require getting the band back together, including teaming up sometime friends/sometime enemies Charles Xavier (played in the past by James McAvoy and in the present and future by Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (played in the past by Michael Fassbender and in the present and future by Ian McKellen). (Nerd note: In the comic book series, it is Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) who transmits her consciousness back in time to her younger self, but in the movie she sends Wolverine’s consciousness back to his younger self instead.) Thankfully, they minimize the “How do I know you’re really from the future?” stuff and get to the action, starting with breaking Magneto out of the most secure prison facility on earth, buried under the Pentagon. This is where Quicksilver comes in very handy.

Newcomers will enjoy the action and it may lead them to check out the earlier movies and the comics to find out more about the X-Men universe. Fanboys and fangirls will appreciate a couple of insider references. Those old enough to remember the 70’s will appreciate some insider references, too, like the recording device in Richard Nixon’s oval office and the synth-infused score. As in all the best X-Men stories, the themes feel visceral to our times — national security, the definition of “other.” Just don’t try to resolve all the temporal anomalies, and you’ll have a blast.

Parents should know that this film has extended action/comic-book humor, with many characters injured and killed, guns, explosions, fire, some graphic and disturbing images, some strong language, drug use, brief nudity and very revealing attire.

Family discussion: If you could go back in history and change one thing, what would it be? If you could have any of the powers of the X-Men, what would you choose? How should the government make decisions about threats like the X-Men?

If you like this, try: the other “X-Men” movies and “The Avengers”