Scribblerchick's Movie Dish

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

A few months ago, I ordered a film from Netflix that I had heard about, but never saw an ad for in the theater, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang [KKBB]. It stars Robert Downey Jr. and it's not only as good as Iron Man, it's better in a lot of ways.

It's got incredibly funny writing, interesting visuals, and it's fast-paced. It was probably low budget, and sometimes the scenes feel that way, but that doesn't distract from the film's great qualites.

Here's a confession. I decided to write my tiny review here after reading a much better on here. If you click on that you also get to watch video clips which I, being a computer idiot, cannot reproduce here.

The only big detractor for me, as a parent, was the amount of cussing in the film. There was also some nudity, but nothing major.

I hate politically correct warnings about films. I hate "parents' guides" to films. I just find them silly. I don't want to read something like "Entertaining, but children under 5 might find the sight of a woman's naked behind too much, and the frequent use of the word 'piss' is distracting." Oh puh-leeze.

However, in the interest of fairness, I have to say: If you are the average, typical, politically-correct yuppie parent you will probably be horrified and pissed off at me if you show KKBB to any child under 16.

If you are a religious conservative do NOT see this film.

If you don't fall into either of those categories, rent KKBB. It's a smart, funny film. 

Iron Man

I've been watching Robert Downey, Jr. with great interest for many years, always intrigued by his ability to be both a movie star and an actor.

By "Movie star" I mean he has that indefinable quality that compels you to want to watch whatever he does on film, like Gary Cooper or John Wayne. Those titans were "stars" in every good sense of the word, but they were not actor's actors. When John Wayne played a character he was John Wayne, no matter what his name was in the film. [My favorite John Wayne film is The Quiet Man, however, and he was more of a character then, and deserves full credit for it.]

Then there are actor's actors like Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. They become their characters.

Robert Downey Jr., [RD for short, because I don't want to keep typing that long name]  has staged a renaissance for himself in Iron Man, and it's impressive. He manages to combine elements of his usual wisecracking, self-deprecatory characters [see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for a terrific, funny view of that] with the action hero genre, and he makes it work.

Tony Stark, the character RD plays in Iron Man, is a fascinating combination of Hugh Hefner and Bill Gates - a playboy genius, a high tech weapons designer. He goes to Afghanistan to show the military a nifty new missile and gets kidnapped. He builds the iron suit to escape. I didn't like Tony Start, but I didn't dislike him, either. I fully expected to dislike him, because I knew ahead of time the basic plot, and I was wary of the political references.

It's interesting to see how RD shakes up the typical action here stereotype. Like Batman's Bruce Wayne, Stark is a millionaire. He's not that smooth though - several times in the film he is seen inventing his iron man suit and glitches cause him to get bounced around and break things a lot, looking very un-cool. He also has embarrassing encounters with former lovers whose names he can't recall. 

The one thing I didn't like about the Stark character is that he's not very likable. He does nothing to be likable. He's just on his little ego tripping ride, really. He talks about a change of heart borne out of his captivity, but we don't see much of that. He's still rude to his assistant, and thoughtless when it comes to his old friends. I don't think genius or money are good substitutes for manners.

Gwyneth Paltrow is a suprise. I am amazed she took on the girl sidekick part in this film. She is such an excellent actress that she nearly yanks the film away from RD when she's onscreen. The one thing I hated, though, was her wardrobe, particularly the final action sequence in which she is wearing 3 inch spike heels. I kept waiting for her to fall on her ass, because in a life-threatening situation with a giant robot, any normal woman WOULD fall right down in those idiotic shoes. I'd like to see her in a pair of Crocs, acting more like a Princess Fiona than a bimbo.

Jeff Bridges has always been a favorite actor of mine, and he gets the chance to play a complex role here. I won't spoil it, but it's a doozy. He is always fun to watch. Here he is playing against type, in that his character is not in any way easygoing.

My children loved the film, of course. There are lots of cool effects and they didn't notice the subtle political messages.

I hate politics so I won't get into a rant here, but the subtle message seems to be that in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the American soldiers who use the big bad weapons are the bad guys. Since I have a brother actually in Iraq at the moment, I resent that implication. However, given the liberal mindset of Hollyweird, it doesn't surprise me.

I sensed when I was watching Iron Man that RD has a tiger by the tail, and he's going to hang on for dear life and probably have fun doing it. I fully expect to see several sequels. I certainly hope they don't make the military out to be horrible, though, and exploit that angle. Besides being offensive to me, it's trite and unimaginative.

My favorite RD movie will probably always be Chaplin, and I will show my kids that film again one day, so they can see a full portrait of a real man.

Mr. Woodcock

I saw the previews for this film and I thought it looked interesting - a quirky little movie about a kid who grows up and watches his widowed mother get involved with his sadistic former gym teacher. Cool. I once had a sadistic gym teacher. Didn't we all? This movie fell flat on its face, though.

Maybe my expectations were too high. Billy Bob Thornton plays the gym teacher, and he usually chooses good roles in intelligent films. Susan Sarandon is also in it, as the mom, and she, too, usually picks good material. I guess everyone screws up once in a while.

This movie wasn't sure what it wanted to be. It looks like a little indie film, done in a small town in Nebraska. No flashy special effects. Yet, Billy Bob and Sarandon are major "stars." The problem is, it didn't have the slickness of Hollywood, BUT it didn't have the cleverness or uniqueness of most indie films [the ones I've seen that were any good, anyway].

Is Mr. Woodcock  a comedy or a drama? Or a "dramedy"? I don't know. I laughed out loud only about 4 times. My kids laughed out loud maybe once.

WARNING - THIS CONTAINS A SPOILER!

I so WANTED to see John, the main character, exact revenge on Woodcock. The audience is set up for that from the beginning. After all, John was personally brutalized by Woodcock as a child. There's no payoff, though. [In a Hollywood film, there would be a what the writers call a "payoff" scene - where a character gets what's coming to them.] No such scene in this film.

No, instead of a payoff, the film goes all mushy. It's about John making peace with the fact his mother is marrying Woodcock. Instead of getting her away from the monster, he caves in. I wanted him to sit down and patiently explain to her all of the awful things Woodcock did to him as a chubby, unathletic child. I wanted him to tell his Mother how Woodcock hit kids in the testicles, made them run until they collapsed, etc. There's one scene that LOOKS like it's going to go there, then doesn't.

Woodcock is a one-dimensional character, only getting 1% nicer by film's end. I hated to see John's mother with him. I wanted to see him beaten to a pulp and run out of town.

No wonder this came out and quickly died. I was hoping to watch it and discover an overlooked gem of a movie. Instead, I felt like I'd just wasted my time.

The Forbidden Kingdom

I took the kids to see The Forbidden Kingdom on Sunday afternoon. I was glad I had watched the preview on the computer twice, once with each child, though. The plot is a tiny bit complicated.

I read The Hobbit when I was a kid, well, the first 5 pages or so. When I realized I was going to have to remember all the background material and the structure and rules of the whole Hobbit world, I quit reading. That's what fantasy is all about. You have to understand and accept an entire alternate reality, and that's just too mentally exhausting, to me. I saw the Hobbit movies when they came out, but really just because my dates wanted to see them. I didn't understand the plots too well, and I concentrated on fantasies about me and Viggo Mortenson.

[I read recently that Viggo doesn't use deoderant. Therefore, no more fantasies, unless we're talking about me spraying him with deoderant. Not too enticing, that one.]

Anyway, The Forbidden Kingdom takes place mostly in what looks like China of 300 or so years ago. To sum up the plot: a teenager in America who loves kung fu movies takes a magic staff from a pawnshop owner and is transported to a different reality, where he's told it's the staff of the Monkey King. The Monkey King was turned into a statue in a duel with the Jade Warlord. If MK gets his staff back he will stop the reign of the evil Jade Warlord. The teenager sets out to give back the staff. For a much more detailed plot summary see here.

I loved Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and ever since then I've made a point of seeing the occasional martial arts movie. I particularly love seeing the choreographed fight sequences with the combatants on wires, leaping and spinning like mad.

My only complaint with The Forbidden Kingdom is that the fight sequences go on a little too long, and are a shade too elaborate. Watching Jackie Chan and Jet Li fight is awesome, but watching them go into combat against dozens of guys with weapons is a bit much. Sometimes the sequences just went on and on, and I found myself thinking hmm, how much furniture did they actually break making this? did they have a chiropractor on the set every day? why does their hair always look nice and why don't they sweat when they fight?

The young actor who plays the kid transported to China is Michael Angarano. He has the same flaring nostrils as Judd Nelson. I don't mind that. I did mind a couple of closeups where he had visible whitehead pimples [or nipples, as my son sometimes calls them accidentally.] You'd think with their budget they could've gotten the kid to the dermatologist before filming began.

These are niggling complaints, though. Overall, it was a very entertaining film. There was also no nudity or bad language, and I think anyone would enjoy it, except maybe a small child who couldn't keep up with the plot. Or someone who's really looking for a lot of cussing and nudity. Or if you're a small child who likes films with cussing and nudity. Frightening thought. I digress...

Teach Your Children Well

I have an image burned into my brain, as clear as a film: a Russian man crouched by a campfire takes a dead rabbit and strips the skin from its body in one brief moment, with a terrible, tearing sound. He was a peasant, and he was starving. To a child raised on tales of gentle bunny rabbits, that brutal image, from the 1971 film, Nicholas and Alexandra, sparked my interest in the Russian Revolution.

Thirty-two years later, after seeing Reds, and Dr. Zhivago, and reading several books set in Russia, I went to Russia with a choir, to sing Handel's Messiah, and met my daughter at her orphanage. Life has never been the same since then.

Movies have a powerful emotional and intellectual effect on us. Sometimes it takes years before we can understand the exact way they affected us, but it's there. I was still frightened by the witch in The Wizard of Oz, as a teenager. (Of course, I was too "cool" to admit it.)   In college, I saw The Graduate at the Student Union. I had seen it before, and never thought it was a very good movie. Suddenly, being 20 years old and facing my own graduation in the near future, it spoke to me. I stumbled home across campus, crying like a baby. Seeing Gene Kelly dancing in Singin' In the Rain drives away all anxiety and gives me moment of quiet joy, even today. Seeing Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple embracing her sister at the end of the movie, after being separated for many years, brings torrents of tears from me.

I saw the movie City of Angels shortly after my father died, and it shook me terribly. When there was a snippet of the old song "Hey Bop A Re Bop" played in one scene, I lost it and started crying. My father used to sing that around the house when I was a kid. It was like he was in the movie theater with me, saying Hey, I'm here.

I bring up all these memories, to explain why my children and I watch movies every night instead of television shows. So much of what's on TV now is just melodramatic junk. I cannot bear for my kids to watch it. I particularly hate so-called "reality" shows -they are all show, no reality. So I stick to movies.

I carefully select movies that have some sort of meaning or message - most of the time. Then there's the occasional Jackie Chan movie.

My children speak English as a second language. Teaching them history is a real chore. So I started teaching them without them knowing it, showing them movies with historical significance, quite deliberately. I own movies like Braveheart, Apollo 13, and The Road to Wellville.

I recently showed them The Blue and the Gray, an old miniseries, to teach them about the Civil War. I realized early on that it doesn't depict the war very accurately, and the acting is wooden, but they were intrigued. We are working on The Winds of War, right now. Again, it's not great filmmaking, but it doesn't matter. They like the story, they will remember some of the images, and they will start to build a foundation of knowledge.

I was fortunate to have a father who loved history, and helped us appreciate it. We were hauled to every Civil War battlefield in Georgia and Tennessee for all of our childhoods. I've read hundreds of those historical markers by the roadside. I revere history, because while there are facts and photos, there's also the mystery to uncover. What was it REALLY like, back then?!

If you want your kids to remember things, SHOW them. The old cliche, a picture is worth a thousand words, is so true. The sight of Mel Gibson being tortured in Braveheart is probably a bit too graphic for most parents, but I wanted my kids to see it. I paused the movie and explained WHY he was being tortured. I said there are sometimes beliefs which are worth dying for.

It's important to select good films or miniseries, then TALK to the children. Gauge the level of their knowledge, then fill in with what you know. Then when they have to read the dry old lesson in the history book, you can say "Hey, remember when we saw that movie Glory, about the black troops in the Civil War?" and so on.

Engage them in history as a series of personal stories, and you will hook them for life.

NOTE

I like Netflix because they have such a HUGE variety of films - everything from obscure documentaries to the latest hits. I also like the convenience of getting the movies out of the mailbox, and never having to set foot in Blockbuster.

Nim's Island

We saw the new movie starring Jodie Foster and Gerard Butler called Nim's Island. I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining it was. Kids' movies usually bore me. This didn't.

It was told mostly from the viewpoint of Nim, a little girl who lives on island with her biologist father. Her dad goes off to find plankton or some such microscopic thing, leaving Nim alone. A storm strands him far away and Nim e-mails for help to "Alex Rover" an author whose adventure books she loves.

Alex turns out to be "Alexandra," a woman who is agoraphobic. The only thing that bothered me a bit about this movie was Jodie Foster's seriousness and intensity. This is a fantasy/comedy, and it needed a lighter touch. I always admire Jodie's acting, but here it was just TOO MUCH. Alex goes off the rescue Nim, which really required a stretch, as true agoraphobics really need therapy to leave the house, as I understand it.

Abigail Breslin was wonderful as Nim. She has an un-forced non-cutesy style of acting that is such a joy to watch. So many child actors seem fake and snotty to me. This child seems real.

Gerard Butler makes my heart race. Wowza. The only thing I didn't like about him in this was his American accent, which kept sounding a wee bit Scottish. He had dual roles as Alex's father and Alex Rover, which was cute.

I also noticed that Nim and her father have the last name "Russo." Rhymes with "Crusoe," as in "Robinson." Classics, anyone?

When I saw the previews for this movie I thought it was about a child in mortal danger - I didn't realize it was such a comedy. The "danger" Nim fears is an Australian cruise ship full of tacky people who invade her beach. Encroaching development is not as fearful as she seems to think, in my book.

Any child over age 6 or thereabouts will like this film. Even if you're not into kiddie films or don't have kids, check this out, for Gerard Butler if for no other reason...

Don't Walk, Wag

I write a lot about movies on my other blog, The Crab Chronicles, so there is bound to be some cross pollination happening. I wanted to share an excerpt here of todays' post from there, because it recommends a terrific movie, Wag the Dog.

I understand that "Walk Hard, the Dewey Cox Story" is about to be released on DVD, or maybe is already out. I saw that movie. I was awful, IMHO. I have seen all the biopics it skewers, and it just stinks. Almost none of the satire works. I don't think I laughed out loud but once or twice. There are extended, gratuitous shots of male frontal nudity IN CLOSEUP. Not funny. Not only should children not see it, NOBODY should see it. I have long admired John C. Reilly, and this could have been really funny, but it isn't. It's just stupid.

Anyway, don't waste your money on Walk Hard. Get "Wag" instead. Here's my take on Wag the Dog:

Our movie selection last night was a movie that came out about 10 years ago called Wag the Dog . It's a political comedy of errors, and it's brilliant. Robert DeNiro stars and was a producer. Barry Levinson directed, and David Mamet was one of the screenplay writers.

The premise is that the president has been caught in a compromising position with a Firefly Girl [pseudonym for a girl scout, obviously] and is facing re-election in two weeks. Yes, Clinton was president when this was made. DeNiro is brought in to "fix" the situation, and decides to create a phony "war" and divert everyone's attention from the president's peccadilloes. Dustin Hoffman plays a Hollywood producer who helps create the fake news footage.

I explained the premise to the kids before it started. I even stopped the film a couple of times to explain it, because I could see it was going over their heads. Heck, it was tough for me to understand the first time I saw it. On the plus side, there is no nudity or onscreen violence. There are some curse words, but I don't get too riled about those. At one point Michael turned to me, eyes twinkling, and said "You show these words to us and you have to expect us to say them?" and I replied, "Nope, you know better than that."

After the film was over, both kids said they REALLY didn't like the movie. "It was stupid!" Alesia groused. Michael nodded. He spent most of the movie fidgeting. However, having sat through Jungle Book and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang recently, for the 100th time, I was not in a mood to be generous. "You think this movie was stupid, but High School Musical is a great film?!" I snapped. Alesia giggled.

The Other Boleyn Girl

I got to do something I rarely get to do, last night - go to a grownup movie. Just choosing a movie without worrying whether or not it's appropriate for kids is a rare treat.

I have always been fascinated by history, so the Other Boleyn Girl appealed to me. The story focuses as much on Mary Boleyn as it does on her sister Ann Boleyn.  Just this morning I found this , which explains the actual history. Hollywood always has to simplify stories. For instance, the website says Mary didn't visit Ann when she was imprisoned in the tower before her execution. In the film it shows a tearful reunion, and even shows Mary attending her sister's beheading.

When I was in about 6th grade I developed a fascination for Henry VIII and his 6 wives, and read everything I could find about them. The subject is quite fascinating. Since I was raised Episcopalian, it was doubly fascinating, since Henry started the Church of England.

This film, The Other Boleyn Girl , was a big disappointment.

However, there was one thing I liked - the attention to period detail. The costumes were magnificent. The settings, furniture, jewelry - everything was amazing. I have been to Hampton Court, Henry's home, and the film is very authentic in its setting. One period detail they missed was that Henry VIII had red hair and blue eyes. Eric Bana, the actor who played him, has dark hair and eyes. So I never thought of him as king.

The disappointment was mainly that the film was so simplistic. It didn't show the intelligence and wit and subtlety of the time. The English Court was an amazing hive of intellectual activity. The film simply showed some of the intrigue and manipulation - fascinating, but not enough to be convincing. This should have been a meaty movie - instead, it was more like an appetizer pretending to be a main dish.

The director seemed to want to only do closeups. I don't care about seeing every pore on Scarlet Johanson or Natalie Portman's faces. Ick.

The performances by Kristin Scott Thomas as Ann and Mary's mother was excellent. I haven't seen her in anything lately, so it was nice to see her again onscreen. She was excellent. I just wish she had been onscreen more. Ana Torrent, an actress I'd never heard of, played Katharine of Aragon, and she was also remarkable. I'd like to have seen more of her.

Henry was a notorious womanizer, and there are plenty of bedroom shenanigans here. In fact, it's sort of a Desperate Housewives version of English History.

Don't see this. Rent Ann of a Thousand Days, or either one of the Cate Blanchett films about Elizabeth. Those are far better.

The Brave One

I have always admired Jodie Foster, as an actress and a human being. She is a private person, highly intelligent, and she has made some really important films about women empowering themselves. The images from "The Accused" stayed with me for a long time afterward.

Her segue into middle age has been far more graceful than the typical "Babe into district attorney" journey. She has played characters as varied as a backwards feral girl in "Nell" to a brilliant scientist in "Contact." She has only done about 8 films in the last 8 years. Maybe there weren't enough good scripts around. [I am looking forward to seeing "Nim's Island" which opens this weekend.]

The kids and I watched "The Brave One" [TBO] tonight. It was far more graphically violent than I had realized. It was also riveting. I kept expecting Foster's character's facade to crack, but it didn't. She sustained a level of horrifying believability. I have to admit, I thought the actor who played her fiance was very unattractive and looked like he needed a bath. It was hard to see the attraction. However, that was a minor flaw.

Terrence Howard as Detective Mercer really held his own with Foster. He is excellent. He took sort of a standard issue cop role and made the character very real.

I am sort of shocked that more people didn't see TBO. It's an excellent thriller - thoughtful, intelligent, and shockingly contemporary. My kids were rooting for her character, a vigilante, from the get go. They never saw the subleties and moral dilemmas, which were obvious to me.

The ending was troubling. I liked it, but I sort of hated myself for liking it? I don't want to spoil it if you haven't seen the movie.

I hope Jodie continues to find good scripts and bring fascinating characters and intelligent stories to life.

American Gangster

I wanted to really like this movie. It has Denzel, Russell Crowe, it's set in the early 1970's, and the soundtrack is terrific. Regretfully, I have to say, my review is mixed. [Unlike the IMDB review, which was favorable.]

We watched the director's cut, not the theatrical version. I always try to watch the director's cut, because I feel like usually they are better, but not always. In this case, having not seen the theatrical release, maybe it was better. It was certainly shorter, I can say.

Denzel and Crowe give their usual excellent performances.

The pacing, though, was off. There were too many scenes that just dragged on, and instead of heightening tension, the scenes made the film sag. A good film script is one in which, in each scene, you "Get in, make your point, and cut" as one of my writing teachers used to say.

Frank Lucas is inarguably a fascinating character. He was a Harlem drug dealer who purportedly shipped pure heroin from Asia in the coffins of dead American soldiers. He sold the heroin on the street with no middleman, and ticked off the Italian mafiosos in New York. He made millions. He got all his 5 brothers into the business. He also got arrested and went to prison, taking down a large number of corrupt cops at the same time.

His nemesis was Richie Roberts, a seemingly honest New York detective, who goes to school to be a lawyer. I didn't really need to see all the drama about his divorce. It didn't advance the story. He was such an unapologetic skirt chaser, it was hard to like him.

Lucas, however, was eminently likeable, for a lot of the film. The point at which he is shown to be a monster is when he shoots a man in the head, right on the street, then goes back into a diner to finish his lunch. His brother stare at him in horror.

I let the kids watch this movie with me, although it got an R rating. There were a couple of points when I had to fast forward thru a brief sex scene, but overall, I think it was good for them to see this. We had a lively discussion about drugs, and dealers, and how it is never OK to do drugs. I think a lot of parents shy away from discussing specifics. My kids speak English as a second language - I wanted them to know what things are called. I wanted them to see the graphic scenes of junkies dying from overdoses. I wanted them to see the brutality of that drug-infested world. I told them a junkie lives a tortured life.

Of course, my kids had alcoholic birthmothers. They know too well what addiction looks like, and how the people around addicts suffer. My son had a furrowed brow and looked much older when we discussed it. I wanted them to understand, though, that an addict starts off with complete innocence, and once they are hooked, then the drug controls them. They are sick, not bad people. I didn't hit that too hard, just mentioned it. (As one recent comment on my other blog reminded me, I need to be careful about not dissing the birth parents, and I try not to ever do that.)

Back to the movie. It was worth watching, particularly if you like gritty dramas. The performances were excellent. I just thought it needed to have been edited more effectively, and some subplots trimmed.

I looked up Lucas and read a bit about him yesterday. He was quite a colorful character. If you want to read more, Google him.

Richie Roberts is now a criminal defense attorney. Yikes.