Kit Kittredge: An American Girl

Posted on October 26, 2008 at 8:00 am

“Kit Kittredge” is remarkable for what it is and just as remarkable for what it is not. It is wholesome but it is not sugary. It is family-friendly but it does not gloss over economic realities and family stress. It is true to the spirit of the 1930’s but respectful of all we have learned since that era about respect and tolerance for differences of race and gender. And it is a good movie with important lessons but it is not one bit dull or preachy. Three cheers for Kit and for producer Julia Roberts for making this movie everything the devoted fans of the American Girls series hope for.

Abigail Breslin (of Little Miss Sunshine) plays Kit, a 1930’s heroine very much in the spirit of spunky 1930’s and 40’s female journalists like Dorothy Thomson and those portrayed in films by Rosalind Russell (His Girl Friday) and Jean Arthur (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington). In a nod to those classic movies, this one begins with Kit striding into a Cincinnati newspaper office to ask the editor to print her story. And the editor (Wallace Shawn) is every bit as choleric as newspaper editors in 1930’s movies always are.

But Kit will soon have bigger challenges than being underestimated by a grumpy newspaper editor. All around her, families are struggling because of the economic problems. Fathers are losing their jobs and her friends are losing their homes. Kit’s own beloved daddy (Chris O’Donnell) has to leave to try to find work in Chicago. And she and her mother (Julia Ormond) have to open up their home to boarders to make ends meet.

Some of the people around her become fearful and suspicious but Kit and her mother maintain their sense of optimism and generosity, sharing what little they have. A courageous pair of young hobos insist on working for the food they get from Kit’s mother and they introduce Kit to a community of homeless people who help each other any way they can.

Kit enjoys the boarders, especially a lively dancer (“30 Rock’s” Jane Krakowski), and a friendly magician (Stanley Tucci). She takes comfort in some small distinctions — unlike her friends, she has not lost her house or had to sell eggs or wear dresses made from a flour sack. And her father has promised to keep writing. But then things get tougher. And they get toughest of all when every penny her family has is stolen and it looks like the thief is her friend.

Jumper

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 8:00 am

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence, some language and brief sexuality.
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking
Violence/ Scariness:	A lot of action violence, characters injured and killed, character gutted
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	February 14, 2008
Date Released to DVD:	June 10, 2008

The movie “Jumper” is 88 minutes on a pogo stick, hopping from teenage cliche to teenage cliche. You like the story about the high school nerd who pines for the class beauty and is tormented by her bully boyfriend? You’re in luck. Or do you like the one about the perpetual victim who suddenly discovers that he has his own super powers and is better than everyone else? Then this is your movie. How about the cliche of a teenager trapped in an unloving home with a gruff and unsympathetic father, suddenly liberated from all parental dependence — and isn’t that heartless old dad sorry now?

Here’s another one that should sound familiar to you: “what would you do if you had the power to walk into banks, stores, or women’s lives and simply take anything you want?” Every angst-filled teenage fantasy is covered in this movie for just about as long as it takes a pogo stick to touch down. Then we’re off to the next one: the sadder but wiser beauty who realizes how foolish she was to let the nerd go, years before.

A group of evil authoritarian figures who don’t believe that kids should be having fun with their super powers (the cornered hero’s plaintive wail, “but I didn’t do anything wrong!” will resonate with every teenager ever caught painting the cat or dismantling the lawnmower).
The virtues of this movie, slender though they may be, are really peripatetic virtues. You get a rapid-fire tour of exotic locations around the world, as jumpers race from the Egyptian Desert to downtown Tokyo to London to Rome. You jump from fight to fight, from character to character. With this pace, the fun and clever moments never last too long, but then again, you never have to confront the lack of depth or substance either. Just as you are beginning to think, “say… this acting is pretty superficial…” WHOOOOSH you are sitting on top of the Sphinx in Egypt, and isn’t it a lovely view?

There are lots of other cliches of teenage wish fulfillment– archetypal stories about mothers and friends– but I don’t want to give away too much of the feather-light plot. Suffice it to say that that no adolescent wish-list item is left unrecognized. The problem is that it is never long enough or interesting enough to be satisfying. This movie is paced for an audience that grew up multi-tasking and its aesthetic sensibility and depth of story-telling is equivalent to a beer commercial. Even at under 90 minutes, too much money has been stuffed into too little script.

At one point, a character says that jumping enables you to skip the boring parts. If that were true, he would have jumped out of this movie. Nor will you find much satisfaction in the acting by stars Hayden Christensen or Rachel Bilson, in the useless role of love interest/damsel in distress, who keeps asking Christensen’s character to tell her what is going on as he is dodging assassins. Samuel L. Jackson, wearing a hairpiece that resembles a Krispy Kreme powdered sugar donut, turns in a calamitous performance as a hit man for the authoritarian “paladins” who for centuries have lived only to squelch the fun of “jumpers,” because only God should have that power. He uses something between an electric lasso and a “don’t tase me, bro” cattle prod to subdue them and it does not seem to occur to him that God might not approve of murder. Christensen, Jackson, Bilson, and
“Billy Elliot‘s” Jamie Bell all seem to be in different movies, and none of them are worth watching.

Parents should know that this film includes a lot of “action violence” (not much blood) and peril. A character is gutted and other characters injured and killed. There are non-explicit sexual situations, drinking, and smoking, and characters use some strong language.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether the ending was a surprise. If you had the power to be a jumper, what would you do?

Families who enjoy this film will enjoy Clockstoppers and the X-Men movies.

The Jane Austen Book Club

Posted on October 4, 2007 at 12:49 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual content, brief strong language and some drug use
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness:	Accident involving minor injuries, tense confrontations
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	October 4, 2007
Date Released to DVD:	2008
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000ZS8GW6

I’m pretty sure that Jane Austen never thought of including a lesbian jumping out of an airplane in any of her books, and yet somehow that scene fits in just fine in this story of six people who get together to read all six of Austen’s novels. Austen did manage to cover, in six books all taking place almost entirely in the quiet British countryside of the late 18th century, many variations on the themes of love and learning, and this film shows us how her stories continue to inspire and connect people who realize that very little has changed in the last 200 plus years.
The book club starts as a way to cheer up Sylvia (Amy Brenneman), just dumped by her husband (Jimmy Smits). Sylvia’s friends, the free-spirited Bernadette (Kathy Baker) and the dog-breeding loner Jocelyn (Maria Bello), invite Sylvia’s daughter Allegra (Maggie Grace), an impetuous, extreme sport-loving lesbian. Bernadette impulsively invites Prudie (Emily Blunt), a prim high school French teacher who has never been to France. And Jocelyn even more impulsively invites a man — Hugh Dancy as Grig, a sci-fi loving techie who asks if some of the six Austen books are sequels.
Once a month, they meet to talk about the books, each of them taking turns to host and present. And the themes of the book — from the patient hoping of Mansfield Park and Persuasion to the jump-to-the-wrong conclusions of Northanger Abbey, Pride and Prejudice, and Emma, to Sense and Sensibility, which has both, each book seems to resonate to one or more of the characters and their own paths to love.
The movie is a big improvement over the wispy novel, which teetered between being cutesy and being cloying. One reason is a brilliant cast, each of whom adds tremendous heart and vibrancy to the story. It also benefits from lively direction and high spirits provided by screenwriter Robin Swicord. The opening credit sequence sets the stage with a collection of scenes showing the frustrations of modern life. And the pacing keeps things light and bubbly, making it clear that, like Austen’s heroines, a happy ending will be in store.
Parents should know that this movie includes explicit sexual references and situations, gay and straight. A character commits adultery and another considers having sex with a very inappropriate partner. The movie includes brief strong language, alcohol, and drug use.
Families who see this movie should talk about how the stories of the characters parallel the novels by Jane Austen. What are some other examples of “the humbling of the know-it-all pretty girl?” Do you agree that “high school is never over?”
Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “In Her Shoes,” and the movies based on and inspired by Jane Austen’s novels, including “Sense and Sensibility,” “Emma,” “Pride and Prejudice,” “Bride and Prejudice,” “Clueless,” and “Bridget Jones’s Diary.”

11th Hour

Posted on August 20, 2007 at 12:22 pm

Leonardo DiCaprio has produced a thoughtful, important film about a vitally important subject, the devastating impact of industrial development on the fragile environment. He has assembled an impressive collection of scholars and world leaders to emphasize the precariousness of the situation and the urgency of action to reverse the effects of human opportunism and greed, to change our idea of “progress” from growth and acquisition to sustainability and respect for the fragility of the environment that sustains us.

He is so concerned about not being overly alarmist or controversial that it is all a bit too stately. DiCaprio and his experts are specific and vivid when talking about the “infected organism” our environment has become, where “every system is in decline and the rate of decline is increasing….There isn’t one living system that is stable or improving.” But when they talk about the failures of our institutions to consider the long-term effects, they get vague. They briefly point to corporations and government. This is where he needed Al Gore to come in with some Powerpoint, or better yet, Michael Moore to name names and show exactly who got how much money from lobbyists for which companies.

The movie’s greatest strength is its breadth of compelling participants. They do more than describe our failures and the damage we have done. They question our assumptions, our smug certainty that nature exists to serve humans and will be eternally replenished. They explain that the uniquely human ability to think about and affect the future has created this problem; but that it can also help us to recognize and solve it. And they provide assurances that all the technology we need is already available; all it takes is the will.

Each of them has an important lesson to teach. Perhaps the one that is by iteself the reason for every middle- and high-schooler to see the film is this quotation from Eric Hoffer: “We can never have enough of that which we really do not want.”

Parents should know that some of the images and themes of this movie may be disturbing to audience members. Scenes of environmental degradation and damage, including brief footage of an animal being killed, and descriptions of potential consequences that could include extinction are intended to be provocative. Even though they are presented as a call to action and there is reassuring material about choices that can make a difference, it may be very upsetting.

Families who see this movie should visit the movie’s website to learn more about the scientific data on climate change and the technologies that can make a difference.

Families who appreciate this movie will also appreciate An Inconvenient Truth, Who Killed the Electric Car?, Koyaanisqatsi – Life Out of Balance, and The Future of Food.

Related Tags:

Documentary Environment/Green

Norbit

Posted on February 6, 2007 at 12:26 pm

Eddie Murphy has taken his love for playing multiple roles, his love for Jerry Lewis (who also loved playing multiple roles), his love for racial humor, his love for crude humor, his love for himself, and — to be charitable — his deeply conflicted feelings about women, and made a movie that is disgusting, unfunny, dull, and an appalling waste of talent.

Its only entertainment value is in a couple of good gospel songs and its only shred of interest is as a disturbing piece of forensic evidence to help explain why one of the most talented and successful stars of the 1980’s has been making nothing but kiddie movies. Any respect he engendered by his comeback performance in Dreamgirls will be obliterated by the creepy non-funniness of this atrocity.
Eddie Murphy plays the title character, a nerdy wimp raised in an orphanage, by the choleric Chinese Mr. Wong (also Murphy). The only bright spot in his childhood is is friendship with Kate. After she is adopted, he has no one, until a large girl named Rasputia shows up and tells him he’s her boyfriend. When he grows up, he goes to work for her three thug brothers, who make a living doing construction and shaking down local businesses. And he marries Rasputia (Murphy again), now with huge, heavy rolls of fat and long, long nails.
Kate (Thandie Newton) shows up, planning to buy the orphanage and run it with her fiance, Deion (Cuba Gooding, Jr.). Is Deion sincere in his affection for Kate? Will Norbit find the courage to tell her how he feels? Will we have to see Rasputia in a skimpy bathing suit covered by rolls of fat? And getting a bikini wax?
I so wish I did not know the answers to these questions. I’d love to be able to eject all memories of this movie from my head.

Newton is so slender she makes Audrey Hepburn look like a linebacker. It’s as though she is trying to diet herself into invisibility, understandable given the hideous misogyny of the film and the thanklessness of her role. The closest thing to a bright moment comes from Eddie Giffin and Katt Williams as pimps named Pope Sweet Jesus and Lord Have Mercy. They do more with less material than Rasputia does with her skimpy lingerie.

Murphy’s real face, as the Norbit character, looks oddly stretched. And, though the story takes place in Tennessee, Norbit has a slight New York accent that echoes Jerry Lewis. His characters are all about the externals, shtick-ish and superficial.

In one scene, Norbit puts on a puppet show for the children and can’t help himself from turning it into a crude fight about infidelity. You get the sense that this is what Murphy is doing here, with the characters he plays the puppets he is using to express some of his anger at the people who want something from him, especially those rapacious women.

Murphy’s idol, Richard Pryor, had the same facilty for creating characters. And, like Murphy, he had some anger issues. But all of Murphy’s meticulous observation of Pryor missed the key point — Pryor brought a depth of understanding, humanity, and compassion to his characters — even a drug addict, even a neighbor’s dog that killed his favorite pet monkeys, even a crack pipe, even, though also the subject of some of his anger, himself. Murphy keeps it superficial and self-servingly egotistical, with characters and situations barely enough to sustain a seven-minute skit. No matter how many characters he plays, they are as artificial as Rasputia’s nails. Under the latex there is nothing but more latex.

Parents should know that this is an extremely crude and vulgar film, with much of the humor based on the idea of having sex with an enormously overweight woman. Two characters are pimps and there are references to prostitutes and paying for sex, to “old pervs,” and to a bar with nude entertainment. There is brief nudity. Characters use crude and strong language and racial epithets and insults, including inappropriate material in front of children.
Families who are interested in this film will probably prefer the better slob- comedies-with-heart Shallow Hal, Saving Silverman, The Jerk, and Big Mama’s House. They will also enjoy Murphy’s best work, on “Saturday Night Live” and in 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop and some of the Jerry Lewis films that inspired him, like Cinderfella.

Related Tags:

Comedy Romance