White House Down

Posted on June 27, 2013 at 6:00 pm

When the White House gets attacked, who better than SMA (Sexiest Man Alive) Channing Tatum and Django Unchained Jamie Foxx to save the day? And who better to blow stuff up than Roland Emmerich, who has his characters cheekily observe right at the beginning that the White House was already exploded by the aliens in his film “Independence Day?”

Like “Olympus Has Fallen” just months ago, this is essentially “Die Hard” in the White House, not that there’s anything wrong with that. “Olympus” was R-rated, had Gerard Butler as a discredited member of the Secret Service who is the only one who can save the day, and Aaron Eckert as the President. “White House Down” is PG-13, has Tatum as Cale, just turned down for a Secret Service job (in a process that is completely imaginary) and on a White House tour with his daughter (even more hilariously imaginary). Let’s just stipulate that if you want to be in the Secret Service it takes more than a ten minute job interview even with Maggie Gyllenhaal giving you the third degree. And, in case anyone is not clear on this, let me say that White House tours are not conducted by low-key history lovers, they do not go anywhere near the residence or the West Wing, the President doesn’t stop by to chat with the tourists, and you can be sure that if someone needs to use the bathroom, they never, ever, ever tell them to just run on along downstairs and meet up with the group afterward.

But what the heck, we just want to get to the bang bang, so as Cale’s daughter, Emily (Joey King) goes off to the bathroom, after intercepting the President (Foxx) for an impromptu interview for her YouTube channel, the bad guys attack. And the equivalent of Hans Gruber (I don’t want to deprive you of the ten seconds it will take to figure out who it is) has everything planned perfectly and the goons and techies to carry it all out — except they did not know they’d have to deal with SMA Tatum, who has to save the President, democracy, and his daughter and (spoiler alert) is up to the task.

Yes, this is “Die Hard in the White House,” again, but Tatum has that rare Bruce Willis combination of self-deprecating charm and physical confidence to make this a popcorn pleasure. And the wild leaps of imagination are not as funny or gripping as the too-true elements like the jurisdictional squabbling in the face of attack. I don’t think we will ever unselfconsciously enjoy the massive destruction of iconic symbols of our democracy (I even winced hard seeing it in the pre-9/11 “Independence Day” and skip that part when it’s on TV). I don’t think we should. But Tatum and Foxx and Emmerich remind us that what the symbols stand for: courage, integrity, optimism to the point of irrationality, and, of course, summer popcorn movies.

Parents should know that this film has constant peril and violence, with many characters injured and killed, chases, explosions, guns, missiles, grenades, crashes, massive destruction of historic landmarks, and assassinations. Characters use strong language (s-words, one f-word) and there is a mild sexual reference.

Family discussion: Can we enjoy the fictional destruction of iconic landmarks in an era of terrorism? There are several different kinds of bad guys in this movie — which is the worst and why? Which surprised you the most?

If you like this, try: “Die Hard,” “Under Siege,” and “Air Force One”

It’s niftily done, a satisfying popcorn pleasure, largely due to Tatum and Foxx, who, like Bruce Willis, have just the charm and physicality to carry off the action sequences and the banter.

Related Tags:

Not specified

Help!

Posted on June 24, 2013 at 8:00 am

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	G
Profanity:	Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Injection of "shrinking" drug
Violence/ Scariness:	Comic peril and violence
Diversity Issues:	Comic stereotyping
Date Released to Theaters:	1965
Date Released to DVD:	June 25, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00CRVZRUS

The Beatles’ second film is not the masterpiece of their first, “A Hard Day’s Night,” but it is colorful, funny, and exciting. And it also has a fabulous soundtrack including the title song and “You’re Going To Lose That Girl,” “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away,” “Ticket To Ride,” “I Need You,” “The Night Before,” and “Another Girl.”

It’s a spy spoof about a Beatles fan who sends a ruby ring that is used in a religious ritual to Ringo. The ring is used in a ritual sacrifice. Since it is stuck on Ringo’s finger, the cult members decide he must be sacrificed. So, there is a lot of silly racing around and a scene where Paul gets shrunk. And a lot of great music.

Extras on the first-ever Blu-Ray release this week include:

(1.) ‘The Beatles in Help!’ a 30-minute documentary about the making of the film with Richard Lester, the cast and crew, including exclusive behind-the-scenes footage of The Beatles on-set.

(2.) ‘A Missing Scene’ a film outtake, featuring Wendy Richard.

(3.) ‘The Restoration of Help!’ an in-depth look at the restoration process.

(4.) ‘Memories of Help!’ the cast and crew reminisce.

(5.) 1965 Theatrical Trailers two original U.S. trailers and one original Spanish trailer. (6.) 1965 U.S. Radio Spots (hidden in disc menus)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8bGi7EYXL0

Monsters University

Posted on June 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
MPAA Rating:	G
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	Mild peril, bullies, insults, hurt feelings
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	June 21, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	October 28, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B008JFUPLC

“Monsters Inc.” is one of my favorite Pixar movies, filled with wit, imagination, and heart. This prequel is a lot of fun, still very funny and wildly imaginative, but a little hollow where the heart should be.

One problem Pixar just can’t solve is that a prequel has to end before the original begins. “Monsters Inc.” has a brilliant premise: there’s a monster world fueled by the screams of frightened children. The monsters themselves are terrified of humans, even a toddler named Boo.

There is a power factory that sends them each night into children’s bedrooms. The monsters have to scare the kids without being seen by grown-ups and get home without being “contaminated” by contact. By the end (SPOILER ALERT) the monsters have discovered that children’s laughter is an even better energy source, and the audience goes home feeling happy and reassured. But a prequel has to stick with the idea that scaring children is a worthwhile goal, indeed it needs us to get on board with the idea that we should root for the characters to be really good at it. We know Mike and Sully will end up as friends. So the sweetness and the dramatic tension are dialed down.

Once again, our heroes are Mike (Billy Crystal), the anxious one who looks like a green beach ball with arms and legs and one great big eye, and Sully (John Goodman), the giant polka-dotted furry guy who thinks it all comes naturally and he does not need to work. They both pick the prestigious “scaring” major, under the stern eyes of Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, impeccable as always) and Professor Knight (Alfred Molina).

Fans of the original will be intrigued to find that in the beginning, Mike and the chameleon-like Randy (Steve Buscemi) were roommates and friends. How that turns to rivalry while the initial enmity between Mike and Sully turned into professional partnership and personal BFF-dom is the story of the film, with some overtones of “Animal House,” “Harry Potter,” and every ragtag group of underdogs movie you’ve ever seen.

Mike is the one who studies all the time. Sully is the party animal who thinks that he can get by on charm and talent. Both find themselves kicked out of the program, with just one chance to get back in. If they can be a part of the team that wins the intramural games, they can get back in the scaring program and become professional human child scarers. They will have to work together — and bunk together — with the oddballs and rejects at the bottom of the school’s social hierarchy, the members of a fraternity known as Oozma Kappa (OK). Their fraternity house is the home of one of the members, with his mom as their RA and chauffeur.

The frat brothers are adorable, especially the two-headed Tracy/Traci (voices of Sean Hayes and Dave Foley), and a fuzzy purple log-shaped guy named Art who looks like a Muppet reject (Charlie Day). Art is a new age philosophy major who eagerly presses his fellow OK-ites to try dream journals. Don (Joel Murray) is a middle-aged guy trying for a new career (apparently there’s a recession in Monster-world, too). None of these monsters is especially smart or strong or fast or scary. They have to compete against the fearsome athletes of Roar Omega Roar (ROR), let by the arrogant Johnny (Nathan Fillion).

There are some exciting and funny moments in the competition, especially a too-knowing obstacle course where the teams have to avoid a truly terrifying foe: human teenagers. The monster-ification of the classic college movie developments is a lot of fun. In making sure each team has a quorum, Johnny sneers, “We count bodies, not heads.” Tracy/Traci only counts as one. Of course, the struggle to be liked by the cool kids is the same whether you’re a person or not.

They did not want to go for the usual ending here, which is admirable, but the result is surprisingly downbeat and disquietingly know-nothing. If is not the loud, over-done “Cars 2,” it is also not the expansive, transcendent “Toy Story” sequels. Second-rate Pixar is still better than most of what is out there, but we expect more.

P.S. As always, the movie is preceded by a marvelous animated short from up-and-coming Pixar-ians. This one echoes last year’s “Paperman” romantic (and meteorological) theme, with blue and red umbrellas finding each other in a rainy city.

Parents should know that this film has some mild peril, bullying, insults, and hurt feelings. Characters cheat and have to pay a penalty.

Family discussion: Why didn’t Mike and Sully get along at first? How were they different? What was good and bad about the fraternities in the movie and how are they like groups you know? How do they make a deficiency into an advantage? How can you?

If you like this, try: “Monsters, Inc.,” “Sydney White,” and “The Lawrenceville Stories”

Much Ado About Nothing

Posted on June 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

A-

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sexuality and brief drug use
Profanity:	Some crude humor and sexual references
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, brief drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Mild peril and skirmishes
Diversity Issues:	Brief racial reference
Date Released to Theaters:	June 21, 2013
Date Released to DVD:	October 7, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00ECR7KX2

Joss Whedon’s take on Shakespeare’s classic tale is swanky, sexy, and sophisticated, as crisp as a dry martini poured from a silver shaker on a summer night.

In many of his best-loved romantic comedies, William Shakespeare sends his mixed-up couples into the woods so they can learn some lessons and straighten out their complicated alliances away from the strictures of society and surrounded by the natural world. But in “Much Ado About Nothing,” the two couples resolve their mix-ups and misunderstandings at home.

Whedon’s new film version of the play takes that literally. The movie was filmed in the director’s own house. Whedon had a break in filming “The Avengers” and decided to invite some friends over to make a movie. There are scenes in his daughters’ bedroom. While characters confer in Shakespearean iambic pentameter we can see the girls’ dollhouse, music box, and stacks of stuffed animals. His kitchen, back yard, and hot tub provide the settings for eavesdropping, plotting, pining, and law enforcement. Wisely, Whedon had cinematographer Jay Hunter film in a lush black-and-white that gives magic and timelessness to the modern dress and decor. It seems to dip the proceedings in moonlight, very fitting for the story of two moonstruck couples, one dramatic and one comic, who mirror each other with themes of trust, honor, and intimacy.

Every romantic comedy with witty repartee between initially antagonistic lovers can trace its origins to “Much Ado’s” Beatrice and Benedick, who spend so much energy discussing their dislike for each that other they must be in love. “There is a kind of merry war” between the couple, a character explains, with a “skirmish of wit” whenever they see each other.

A silent opening scene added by Whedon shows us Benedick (Alexis Denisof of Whedon’s “Angel”) sneaking out after spending the night with Beatrice (Amy Acker, in a performance of striking intelligence and grace). He thinks she is still sleeping. She does not let him know that she is watching him leave. Much later, he returns with his friends the Prince (Reed Diamond) and Count Claudio (Fran Kranz), triumphant after success in battle. He is welcomed by Beatrice’s uncle Leonato (Clark Gregg of “The Avengers”), but not by Beatrice, who mutters, “You always end with a jade’s trick: I know you of old.” We understand what she is remembering.
Their friends conspire to make them fall in love. They let Benedick overhear them talking about Beatrice’s love for him and when they know she is listening they discuss his love for her. The next thing you know, the sworn bachelor Benedick has changed his mind about marriage. “The world must be peopled!” he reminds himelf.

Claudio impetuously falls for the lovely Hero (newcomer Jillian Morgese), daughter of Leonato. The Prince’s bitter half-brother (Sean Maher) tricks him into believing that Hero has been unfaithful. In the middle of their wedding ceremony, Claudio accuses Hero and storms off. Claudio is so afraid of his feelings, he clings to the certainty of believing the worst rather than take on the risks of intimacy.

The capable cast is mostly made up of Whedon regulars, with Nathan Fillion a standout as the clueless cop Dogberry, who is a challenge to modern audiences with less tolerance for slapstick and malapropism than the 16th century audience at the Globe Theatre and modern actors who tend to overplay him. Fillion plays him with a light, understated touch that conveys confusion rather than coarseness.

Whedon brings the same light touch in making the comic couple in every way the heart of the story. Beatrice and Benedick may be clueless about their own feelings, but they are the only characters who have the wisdom and integrity to understand the injustice of Claudio’s accusations. That unity of understanding and purpose is as important in sealing their union as their friends’ trick was in revealing that their “merry war” concealed a deep affection. This play about the ability to see through disguise and misdirection has been brought to the screen with wit and style that illuminate its true spirit.

Parents should know that this film has some bawdy language and sexual references and situations, some drinking and drunkenness, and brief drug use.

Family discussion: Why is it hard for Beatrice and Benedick to admit their feelings? Why is it easy for Claudio to mistrust Hero and the Prince?

If you like this try: The 1993 version with Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson

Fill the Void

Posted on June 13, 2013 at 6:25 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for mild thematic elements and brief smoking
Profanity:	None
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking and drunkenness, smoking
Violence/ Scariness:	Sad offscreen death
Diversity Issues:	Role of women in traditional orthodox community
Date Released to Theaters:	June 14, 2013

A young woman about to choose the man she will marry is torn between her own desires and the wishes of her devout family, ultra-Orthodox Jews. We know where the American version of this story would go — the triumph of individual happiness over the antiquated strictures of the community. But Israel’s official entry for the foreign language Oscar is a sympathetic, layered portrayal, rich with detail, that earns its more complex and resonant conclusion.

Writer-director Rama Burshtein was born in the United States, grew up in Israel in a non-Orthodox home, studied film, and chose to become “baal teshuva” or one who “returns” to the the practice of traditionally observant Judaism. This movie reflects her deep understanding of both liberal and conservative notions of religious practice as a connection to the divine and the many variations in between. She is a gifted filmmaker who understands the way the tiniest details tell the story and evokes utterly natural, intimate performances from her actors. She shows us a world of very strict and demanding tradition, but it is the context for characters who are never caricatured. They are vividly drawn and portrayed with respect and affection.

Like a Jane Austen novel, the primary concern for Shira (a shimmeringly lovely Hadas Yaron) and her family is a propitious match, and the cultural structures for making this decision are clearly defined. In this community, young men and women have no opportunities for interaction until they are identified as potential partners by their parents. Then they have one heart-wrenchingly awkward meeting to decide whether they can spend a lifetime together. As the invariable small plate of cookies goes untouched, there is no shilly-shallying about what they majored in or their favorite music. A few simple questions about their aspirations for family life are all they get.

We first see Shira and her mother sneaking a look at a prospective groom in the aisles of a the grocery store. Shira believes he could be the one. She is excited and happy. But then a terrible tragedy strikes. Her sister, Esther (Renana Raz) dies in childbirth. And then the widower, Yochay (a smolderingly handsome Yiftach Klein) has an offer to marry a woman from Belgium, which would mean moving there and taking the baby with him. The only way to keep Esther’s child close to the family is for Yochay to marry Shira.

Suddenly, Shira has to cope with an entirely different set of pressures and an entirely new sense of power. She has to sort through her feelings without any real opportunity to learn how Yochay is responding. Could he want her? Or is he being forced? What would it be like to be married to someone who has not just been married before, but who was married to her sister?

American films have ranged from clumsy to dreadful in portraying the Orthodox community, with Renee Zellwegger in “A Price Above Rubies” and Melanie Griffith’s “A Stranger Among Us” as notorious failures. Burshtein’s perspective as someone who chose that life is refreshing in its focus on the lives, relationships, and choices of the characters. The details of their religious practice draw us in as illumination, not anthropology. The dynamics of Shira’s parents’ relationship play out in the celebration of Purim, a holiday less observant Jews may think of as a minor celebration for children to wear costumes and shake noisemakers. For these people, it is also a time to encourage those the community who needs help to ask for it and for those who can to give it. It is Shira’s father who receives the requests. But it is her mother who brings the money. And in the oblique discussions they have about Shira’s choice and the factors to be considered, we see the many layers of family, community, and religious observance twined together.

Parents should know that this film includes drinking and drunkenness and brief smoking. There is a sad off-screen death.

Family discussion: What does Shira decide and why? Do you agree? Will she be happy?

If you like this, try: “Ushpizin,” another film about the Orthodox community made by a baal teshuva