Hitchcock

Posted on November 22, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Alfred Hitchcock loved to scare people and he did it very, very well. This highly entertaining story of the making of one of his most controversial (and terrifying) films stars Sir Anthony Hopkins as the portly British

He did it well because he understood fear from the inside. He was drawn to what repelled him and repelled by what attracted him. Hitchcock produced and directed film and television programs that are still, more than half a century later classics of suspense and horror. He released a series of glossy, sexy hits like “Rear Window” and “To Catch a Thief” in the 1950’s. And then he decided to do a film that was not glossy, sexy or romantic, inspired by the horrific crimes of body-snatcher/killer Ed Gein. Hitchcock had a contract with Paramount, but the studio was reluctant about the grisliness of the storyline. Hitchcock took out a mortgage and financed the production himself, using crew from his television show and shooting in black and white to save money. (He also said the film would be too gory in color.)

Hopkins is masterful as Hitchcock. He is subsumed in make-up and padding but it is a performance, not a caricature. He shows us the great director’s playfulness and wit. We see the way he struggles with his repressions and internal tortures and the way he is able to draw on them, almost clinically, to create popular movies that happen to be cinematic masterpieces. What took the world of movies so long to match Hopkins with Mirren? She is marvelous here as the wife who understands him thoroughly but sometimes wishes he would try to understand her. Scarlett Johansson is sensational as Janet Leigh, the consumate professional who is that rarest find in Hollywood, a truly nice person, and James D’Arcy nails Anthony Perkins’ tremulousness. It’s a surprisingly tender-hearted story as well as a tribute to the Hitchcocks and all those who love to make movies.

Parents should know that this film includes some strong and disturbing material and “boo”-style scares, depiction of real-life serial murderer Ed Gein and fictional killer Norman Bates, some graphic images, sexual references and situations, and partial nudity.

Family discussion: Why was it hard for Alfred to acknowledge Alma’s contributions? Why did he like to scare people? Why do people like to be scared? What should Alma have done?

If you like this, try: “Psycho” and other Hitchcock classics like “Rear Window” and “The Birds” and the books Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello and the book-length interview Hitchcock/Truffaut by Francois Truffaut.

Related Tags:

Rise of the Guardians

Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:48 pm

The daughter of writer/illustrator William Joyce (“Dinosaur Bob,” “Robots”) once asked him whether the Easter bunny knew Santa Claus and that inspired him to create a series of stories about the characters of fantasy and folklore who care for children. They come together in an Avengers or X-Men-style team known as The Guardians in this visually rich but cluttered film.

Those characters are a Slavic-accented, scimitar-wielding Santa (Alec Baldwin) with “naughty” and “nice” tattooed on his burly arms, an Easter bunny with an Aussie accent and a lot of attitude (Hugh Jackman), a silent sandman who communicates with dreamy designs made from glistening specks, and the feathered Tooth Fairy (Isla Fisher), who presides over a battalion of hummingbird-sized minions who collect baby teeth and leave coins while children sleep. When the happiness and comfort of the children of the world is threatened by the Boogeyman (Jude Law), they need more help and so they invite Jack Frost (Chris Pine) to join them, explaining that they are responsible for making sure the children of the earth have “wonder, hope, and dreams.”

Jack is a loner, haunted by not being able to remember anything before he woke one day in the ice, somehow knowing that his job was to bring the fun of winter to children. At first he has no interest in joining the others. But when he makes things worse, he has to help make them better.

It’s a sweet idea and there are witty and charming moments and some lovely visuals, especially the sandman, the elves, and the iridescent little tooth fairies. Like all great villains, Law has an English accent and sounds nicely sneery. But the storyline gets lost in a whirlwind of locations and plot twists. Each of the characters has its own mythology and home base and alliances. The goal of the Guardians is for children to have faith in them, so it makes no sense that they accomplish that only by showing themselves, which is proof, not faith. There is no suggestion that some of the world’s children may not have these characters as a part of their traditions or faiths. While the movie asks its characters and its audience to find their centers, the story itself is oddly hollow.

Parents should know that this fim has a scary villain, characters in peril, a sword-wielding Santa, a character who sacrifices himself to save a sibling, and issues of believing in fantasy characters.

Family discussion: How are the characters different from what you expected? What do they have in common? Which is your favorite and why?

If you like this, try: the book, Guardians of Childhood by William Joyce and the movie “Robots”

Related Tags:

3D Animation Fantasy

Life of Pi

Posted on November 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for emotional thematic content throughout and some scary action scenes and peril
Profanity:	Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Wine
Violence/ Scariness:	Scary shipwreck, frequent peril, deaths of characters and animals, some scary images including dismembered animals
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	November 22, 2012
Date Released to DVD:	March 11, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B005LAIIHG

“Oh God, thy sea is so great and my boat is so small.”

This classic Breton fisherman’s prayer describes “Life of Pi,” Ang Lee’s exquisitely beautiful fairy tale story of an Indian boy shipwrecked with a Bengal tiger, and their journey home.

The book by Yann Martel is an award-winning national best-seller, filled with meditations on life, faith, and zoos. Pi, played as an adult by Irrfan Kahn and as a teenager by newcomer Suraj Sharma, was named Piscine Molitor after a swimming pool in France. He insisted on shortening it to Pi after the kids at school teased him, and showed off by memorizing pi to the hundreds of places. Pi’s family owned a zoo in Pondicherry, India, or, rather, the community owned the zoo and his family owned the animals. When they must leave India, his parents sell most of the animals and pack up the rest with Pi and his older brother to travel to Canada by ship. On a stormy night, the ship sinks and, according to the story the adult Pi tells to a visitor, the only survivors are Pi, a zebra with a broken leg, a hyena, an orangutang named Orange Juice, and a Bengal tiger improbably named Richard Parker thanks to a clerical error and always referred to by his full name. Soon, it is just Pi and the tiger.

Pi is an unusually thoughtful boy who considers himself at the same time a Hindu, a Moslem, and a Christian. (This is described in much more detail in the book, including an amusing encounter between two of his teachers.) His parents are not religious and his father jokes that if he picks up a few more faiths every day will be a holiday. He is a thoughtful, observant boy who considers matters deeply and wants to understand. In the lifeboat, he considers his options carefully, making an inventory of the food and equipment and lashing together a small raft to protect himself from the hungry tiger. As it becomes clear that they will have to sustain themselves for an indefinite time, Pi uses what he knows about animals to establish his territory and earn the tiger’s trust. In a sense, his life has been simplified to its essence, as everything — home, family, plans, community, food, water, — is taken from him. In another sense, these losses open him up to a depth and spiritual richness that would not be possible in a busy world of connections and obligations.

Pi and Richard Parker weather storms. They share unexpected riches when flying fish literally jump into their laps, and soul-expanding beauty, especially a great luminous leap by a whale the size of a motor home.

When he was a young boy, Pi tried to feed a tiger. His father arrived just in time to prevent him from being the tiger’s lunch and gave him an unforgettable lesson by making him watch as the tiger attacked a live goat. Pi insists that he can see the tiger’s soul in his eyes. His father insists that there is nothing behind his eyes but the law of the jungle. Pi has a great heart and the gift of faith. Both are tested. And it is only when everything he thought he could not live without is taken from him that he realizes how much he has gained, and how it is the troubles he has faced that have kept him alive.

The rapturous visual beauty of the film is itself a spirit-expanding experience. The lyrical poetry of the images and the skillfully immersive effects surround us with a powerful sense of connection to the divine.

Parents should know that the plot concerns a boy lost at sea with a Bengal tiger and it includes sad deaths of family members and animals, some graphic and disturbing images, and extended danger and peril.

Family discussion: Why does a character say the story will make you believe in God? Which story do you prefer? How did Richard Parker keep Pi alive? What do we learn about Pi from his questions about the dance? From his reaction to the island?

If you like this, try: the book by Yann Martel

Red Dawn

Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm

There was much to improve in the original version of “Red Dawn,” a simple-minded fantasy film about a communist invasion of small town America: the plot, which asked us to believe that Cuban and Soviet invaders would focus their attention on subduing the teenage population of a town with no military significance; the dialogue, which was hilariously wooden; the special effects (the bad guys tracked our heroes using a locator that appears to have been borrowed from a 1930s Flash Gordon serial); the acting (despite a cast of future stars such as Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, the original “Red Dawn” left the actors little to do except shoot guns and emote in their mountain hideouts); the production values (unseen artillery and aircraft shelled a lone tank in the middle of a vacant field with what appeared to be firecrackers). In fact, everything about the original “Red Dawn” had a childlike simplicity that made it endearing to audiences.

The plot of the new “Red Dawn” mimics the original in most respects. Members of the Wolverines, a high school football team, refuse to surrender to or collaborate with the invaders (this time from Asia) the way many of their disappointing parents do. They take to the hills, learn to fight and inspire a resistance movement. Along the way they learn lessons about loyalty, patriotism, and the price of the freedoms we all hold dear. Older brother Jed Eckert is played by Chris Hemsworth (Thor from “The Avengers”) while younger brother Matty Eckert is played by Josh Peck. The obligatory girlfriend who looks hot in guerrilla garb is played by Adrianne Palicki.

MGM looked at the original formula and decided that if it was going to upgrade just one ingredient, it would be the quality of the explosions. No firecrackers here, the new and improved “Red Dawn” has serious explosions and gunfire. A residential neighborhood is blown up with high definition digital effects. First time director Dan Bradley was previously a stunt coordinator and it shows. We see house to house gunfights that look and sound authentic. The new version uses realistic blood, rather than the Heinz ketchup favored by the producers of the original.

The problem is, this change in the formula disrupts the equilibrium that gave the original its charm. Every element of the original was equally unpersuasive. By making bullets more persuasive, Bradley only highlights the dumbnicity of the rest.

Worse, the new Red Dawn is a less kind movie. Along with the more realistic violence, there is more drinking and profanity. Unfortunately, the dialogue that is supposed to glue these elements together remains as insubstantial as the dialogue in the cartoonish original. (Says the young guerrilla leader: “We have to make it too hard and too difficult for them.”) One other change — the Soviet Union no longer being available as invaders, this film substituted the Chinese when it was shot a few years ago until the distributors who ended up with it after the first group ran out of money figured out that Chinese people constitute a very big audience for films, preferably ones that don’t make them the bad guys. So, the Chinese invaders were digitally altered to make them North Korean.

The new “Red Dawn” is slicker than the original but it lacks the heart that was the only redeeming feature of the first version. It is a meaner production, and probably not worth your time unless you go for the explosions, which are pretty good.

Parents should know that this film has extensive and sometimes graphic images of battle with guns and explosions, fighting, with characters injured and killed, and very strong language.

Family discussion: Why did some parents instruct their children to cooperate with the invaders? What made some people in the town choose to resist? What would be the hardest thing for you about fighting the invaders? How were the Wolverines like our founding fathers?

If you like this, try: the original 1984 version starring Patrick Swayze

Related Tags:

Action/Adventure Remake War

Silver Linings Playbook

Posted on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language and some sexual content/nudity
Profanity:	Constant very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	Assaults and fighting
Diversity Issues:	Respectful treatment of mental illness
Date Released to Theaters:	November 16, 2012
Date Released to DVD:	April 29, 2013
Amazon.com ASIN:	B00A81NFAS

When Bradley Cooper appeared on “Inside the Actors Studio,” the first graduate of the program to be featured, they showed a clip from Robert DeNiro’s appearance on the show, with then-student Cooper asking him a question about his performance in “Awakenings.” DeNiro was clearly impressed with the perception and sincerity of his young questioner. It was only a few years later that Cooper was acting opposite DeNiro in “Limitless.” Now they are together again as father and son, Pat Sr. and Pat Jr., in “Silver Linings Playbook,” based on the novel by Matthew Quick.

Pat Jr. has been in a mental hospital being treated for bipolar disorder, the result of a plea bargain following “the incident,” we will only learn the details of later. His mother brings him home though it is not at all clear that he is or will ever be ready. Pat has impulse control problems, especially when he hears a particular Stevie Wonder song or does not like the ending of a Hemingway novel. But he is absolutely determined to get his life back. And his wife back. This involves a lot of physical conditioning and finding away around the restraining order that forbids him from contacting her.

He meets a troubled young widow named Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence of “Hunger Games”), the sister-in-law of his best friend. Pat is fighting so hard to be “normal” again that he is disturbed, annoyed, and a little scared by her outspoken, socially inappropriate behavior. But she offers the same directness and shared experience he had with his fellow patients. He struggles with the competing impulses to reject and accept her overtures of friendship. Their exchange about the effects of various mood and anti-psychotic meds is a gem, the mental illness equivalent of Romeo and Juliet speaking to each other in alternate lines of a sonnet on their first meeting. And Lawrence is sublime in her summation-to-the-court-style argument with Pat Sr. about the factors that go into an Eagles win.

They agree to help each other, and this gives Pat purpose, discipline, and direction. And we learn more about “the incident” and about Pat’s relationship with Pat Sr., a professional gambler and bookie whose passion for the Eagles provides some context for his influence on his son.

Director David O. Russell, who adapted the novel, and his cast fill the story with engaging, believable characters, especially Jackie Weaver as Pat’s mother, John Ortiz as his stressed-out best friend, and Anupam Kuhr as his therapist. It is a great pleasure to see Chris Tucker, who is outstanding as a mental patient, though I wish they had found him more to do than the usual “black it up” (that’s a direct quote) pep talk. Pat is so upset by the end of Farewell to Arms (on his wife’s assigned reading list for the high school class she teaches) that he has to wake his parents in the middle of the night to tell them why stories need happy endings. The ending here is abrupt and a bit cheesy. But these damaged and vulnerable and anxious characters love and want to be loved and we want it for them.

Parents should know that this film includes a lot of very strong and profane language, sexual references (some explicit), family dysfunction and mental illness, drinking

Family discussion: How are Pat and his father alike? How do Tiffany, Ronnie, and Cliff help him? What makes Pat change his mind?

If you like this, try: “Inside Moves” and “Garden State”