rate the last movie you saw

[AndyDursin]

SMASHED
6/10

Mary Elizabeth Winstead gives her all in this extremely uneven independent film from director James Ponsoldt, who co-wrote “Smashed” with Susan Burke.

Winstead plays an elementary school teacher who binges on booze with husband Aaron Paul. After a series of mishaps (vomiting in class, waking up hungover with no idea where her car is), Winstead decides to become sober, but not until she lies to her boss (Megan Mullally) with the excuse that she’s pregnant after throwing up in front of her students. Unfortunately, sobriety comes at a price eventually, not only at work but with her relationship with her usually hung-over significant other.

“Smashed” is all over the place thematically – portions come across like outtakes from “Bad Teacher,” while other sequences have the feel of an improvised indie drama. Alas, with such a brief running time, almost nothing in the film is substantially developed. Winstead’s journey to becoming sober comes so easily that it feels more like a plot device than a fully explored theme, and her relationship with Paul is likewise hackneyed and predictable. The filmmakers also never give us a sense of why these two people were ever together to begin with – hampering the film’s effectiveness – which leaves Winstead single-handedly to carry viewers along on an emotional rollercoaster that’s never fully fleshed out. Thankfully, she’s up to the challenge, bringing nuances and an emotional range that makes you care about her character’s plight, even if the movie on balance fails to support her talents.

[Paul MacLean]

My Week With Marilyn

Suprisingly good, given its tepid box office. I will say that these British-based Weinstein Company movies are becoming a bit formulaic in style, but the script and performaces in My Week With Marilyn are wonderful and utterly sincere, and result in a touching, sweet (and ultimately bittersweet) picture.

The film succeeds on several different levels -- as a glimpse into the workings of British cinema of the late 50s, as well as a depiction of the artistic clash of the American "method" school of acting vs. the more professional (and frankly more convincing) British stage tradition. Most of all, it is a touching and insightful portrait of Marilyn herself, an emotionally delicate woman plagued by insecurities (which are exacerbated by an entourage who flatter and/or manipulate her).

Michele Williams shines in the role, and is helped by the fact she is actually better-looking than the real Marilyn (whose looks frankly never did anything for me). Eddie Redmayne is equally fine in the role of the protagonist Colin Clark, a likable, precocious rookie assistant director whose naiveté appeals to Marilyn (who ultimately seduces him, albeit somewhat unintentionally). Kenneth Branagh is absolutely amazing as Olivier, whose voice and mannerisms he perfectly captures (aided by a subtle but superb make-up job). The supporting cast are equally wonderful, including Judi Dench, Derek Jacobi, Zoe Wanamaker, Emma Watson and Dougray Scott (as Arthur Miller). Toby Jones is also amusing in a brief appearance as Arthur P. Jacobs.

The photography has a bit of a "Janusz Kaminski" quality I don't care for, but the music is very good, the work of longtime John Williams orchestrator Conrad Pope, whose score is partly based on a (rather blah) theme by Alexandre Desplat.

Unable to procure a Blu-ray, I screened the DVD. I haven't watched a new DVD in some time, and must say the transfer here is superb, and almost rivals a good BD transfer.

I wouldn't say My Week With Marilyn is a great film, but is a very good and likable one with genuine heart, and deserves more attention than it's gotten.

[Monterey Jack]

Christine (1983): 7/10

As much as I despise the Twilight Time label's price-goughing and limted edition feeding-frenzy tactics, at least they came through with the actual product...Christine looks gorgeous in high-def. This is easilly the best Blu-Ray transfer of a John Carpenter to date...crisp, colorful and almost completely free of grain, even in the frequent nighttime scenes. Awesome. As for the film itself, it's certainly no classic -- basically a gender-switched Carrie teenage revenge fantasy crossed with The Car -- but, like all Carpenter films of this late 70's/early 80's period, it looks great, with terrific use of the Panavision frame. And the supporting cast is full of amusingly extreme character roles played to the hilt by Roberts Blossom, Robert Prosky and Harry Dean Stanton. Even as a teenager myself, I never found it very frightening, but it's certainly fun, with a couple of sensational vehicular stunts and crashes (the image of Christine emerging from a expolding building on fire is particularly striking). It's no Halloween or The Thing, but, like The Fog, even lesser Carpenter from this period is still pretty entertaining (the limp Escape From New York excepted).

[AndyDursin]

"yeah...well...**** YOU DAD!"

I'm sure that line is better in HD too.

Waiting for my review copy to trickle in...if it doesn't, I may have to scavenge with the outsiders tomorrow at 4pm. lol.

[Monterey Jack]

It's kind of humorous how much gratuitous profanity is shoehorned into the movie just because it wasn't bloody enough to earn an R rating back in '83. My favorite line is Buddy Repperton shouting, "Try it, you bald f***, and I'll knock you through the wall, F***!!!"

[AndyDursin]

CHRISTINE just goes to show what was somewhat disappointing/mediocre back in 1983 is far more entertaining than something roughly mediocre by 2013's standards. The film's not scary and has some obvious narrative deficiencies, but it's well shot and compelling to watch just the same.

[Monterey Jack]

CHRISTINE just goes to show what was somewhat disappointing/mediocre back in 1983 is far more entertaining than something roughly mediocre by 2013's standards. The film's not scary and has some obvious narrative deficiencies, but it's well shot and compelling to watch just the same.

I'm kind of amazed no one has remade Christine yet, with "improved" (i.e. 100% CGI) car effects and more gore and far less visual style and swearing. Pretty much every other Carpenter film of the period has been re-done by now (with the exception of this and Escape From New York, although EFNY was cobbled together from a dozen similar/superior genre pics to begin with). I actually wouldn't be opposed to a new version of the film -- one closer to the original, darker Stephen King novel -- so long as they found someone with a modicum of visual flair and not one of Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes puppets calling the shots. I dunno...who's the closest modern-day equivilent to Carpenter in his 70's/early 80's prime?

[AndyDursin]

MURPHY'S ROMANCE
8/10

I saw this a long time ago and came across it the other night on Sony Movie Channel. Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr, who wrote some wonderful films like THE REIVERS and THE COWBOYS, penned this original script about a divorced woman (Sally Field) who moves to a small Arizona town along with her son (Cory Haim). She strikes up a friendship with a older pharmacist (James Garner) who has an easy charm about him, but things become complicated when her ex (Brian Kerwin) reappears on her doorstep.

Directed by Martin Ritt, "Murphy's Romance" had me hook, line and sinker because of the chemistry between Field (who's radiant in her first film since winning her "you really like me!" Oscar for "Places in the Heart") and Garner (who earned an Oscar nom for his work here). They're so likeable, believable and terrific together that everything else in the film falls into place. Sure, some of the supporting elements of the picture could've been better fleshed out (no doubt a Haim subplot was axed, especially after Field asks him at one point "how did it go" with a girl -- as in, what the hell is she talking about), but the sense of time and place is palpable. The townspeople seem authentic, the dialogue is natural. Even if the film is predictable, the surroundings and the way scenes ebb and flow come off like real life -- a testament to the writing, performance and direction of Ritt.

The main drawback is Carole King's "contemporary" pop music score. It has a few nice passages and David Sanborn contributing some soulful sax work, but a grittier, more fleshed out instrumental score by the likes of John Williams or Dave Grusin really would've helped put the picture over the top. Still a very warm, satisfying romantic film with two stars at the top of their game.

[Jedbu]

Ritt is one of those directors that seems overdue for a major rediscovery-he was another one of those directors I would refer to as "a good craftsman" (along with George Roy Hill and Franklin Schaffner).

Also, Garner is one of those actors/movie stars who always made it look easy, like Cary Grant, Robert Mitchum and Claude Rains. He is one of those I keep hoping gets an AFI lifetime achievement award.

[AndyDursin]

Agreed Jeff. Ritt really had a feel for character-driven drama and, especially, a sense of time and place. His films are very individualistic -- I don't feel much of a connection with Schaffner myself (who directed a lot of different types of films across various genres, not always with a "personal" touch), but your George Roy Hill comparison Jeff is right on target. Both of their movies have a point of view that's often interesting, and often a connection with the surroundings of the drama. One of the things I liked so much about MURPHY'S ROMANCE was the townspeople -- even the peripheral people in the movie look real (and I think that's because they were). Roger Ebert mentioned that in his review and it's an astute point. You don't get the feeling everyone came out of central casting so to speak. The realism only heightens the believability of the drama.

[AndyDursin]

THIS IS 40
4/10

Like a lot of things that were good in small doses (Jeff Goldblum springing into the lead role in "The Lost World" being one of them), Judd Apatow's decision to spin the scene-stealing coupling of Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann from "Knocked Up" into their own film is a near-total misfire.

An aimless - and interminably long - comedic-drama that falls in line with Apatow's increasingly unsatisfying recent fare, "This is 40" follows Rudd and Mann as both hit the 40 milestone, trying to work through all kinds of issues both big and small in their lives in Southern California. In fact, Apatow spends the first hour populating his original script with an endless succession of self-contained scenes with the couple sparring over finances, Rudd's father (Albert Brooks), their kids' preoccupation with electronic devices, and lack of sexual spark. Eventually "drama" kicks in when Mann learns she's pregnant again and Rudd's latest record fails to generate sales - but outside of a Melissa McCarthy cameo, nearly all of "This is 40" just sits there and dies on-screen. Rudd and Mann are both likeable performers, but their endless complaining in the film grates after just a few minutes -- I'm sure Apatow thought this would bring an "authentic" element to the film, but there end up being so many issues involving their relationship, and their respective parents, that it's hard to understand why this couple is together at all.

Ultimately "This is 40" is as annoying and obnoxious as the behavior of its lead characters, and leaves you feeling as if you've actually spent 40 years in their company.

[Monterey Jack]

Ah, Apatow...what squandered potential he had. The 40 Year Old Virgin was a superb debut feature, filthy and hilarious and yet also sweet and wise. Knocked Up was still pretty good as well. But I never bothered with Funny People due to the Adam Sandler taint and the RIDICULOUS 150-minute(!) running time, and This Is 40 seems to fall into the same trap all his recent films do...too much of overly-wealthy characters whining about how bad their lot in life is (sorry, but if you're sending your kids to private school and own a million-dollar house, you don't get to bitch about "financial problems". Sell that mansion and get an apartment or modest home like everyone else), the chronic nepotism of casting his wife and kids in increasingly-larger parts in each movie (honestly, its hitting Tim Burton-levels of obnoxiousness) and his inability to hone a final cut to under 130 minutes (the best comedies rarely surpass a two-hour running time). Even the films he just produces tend to be wildly overlong and self-indulgent. Dude needs to hire a more ruthless editor and tell the wife he doesn't have to cast her in everything he makes.

[AndyDursin]

MJ you absolutely nailed it. In addition to the fact that this movie is aimless, and LONG, I just became sick of all of these wealthy L.A. types complaining about their lives. Talk about a movie made in the bubble, BY people who live in the bubble -- no wonder people couldn't connect to it. Of course he brings out supporting people from other films he's made -- even his own kids playing their kids -- but there's just no point, no payoff. Literally the only scene where the movie displays any comedic chops is when Melissa McCarthy shows up. It's one of the few times I've laughed over outtakes they run over the end credits, because it's clear she was improvising in the two scenes she's in, and Rudd and Mann had a hard time keeping it together while she was riffing. There's such a spark of life there that the rest of the movie is DOA by comparison, even though you've got John Lithgow, Albert Brooks, Jason Segel and all kinds of other talented people (I left Megan Fox out on purpose) on-hand.

It's narcissism at its worst, and I totally agree with you, because I also thought 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was great and he's a talented guy (FREAKS AND GEEKS -- loved it)...but right now his movies have become bloated, self-absorbed messes that have been in a downward spiral at the box-office.

If anything, he ought to be collaborating with others and not just given carte blanche to do whatever he wants, which is the big problem.

[Monterey Jack]

MJ you absolutely nailed it. In addition to the fact that this movie is aimless, and LONG, I just became sick of all of these wealthy L.A. types complaining about their lives. Talk about a movie made in the bubble, BY people who live in the bubble -- no wonder people couldn't connect to it.

Most Adam Sandler movies are the same (or so I've heard...I would never willingly pay money to sit through one of his "comedies")...rich people acting like spoiled brats. That's why Virgin worked...the entire cast, across the board, were playing relatable, working stiffs putting in eight-hour shifts a day at a crummy job, and thus it was easy to sympathize with their setbacks and life problems. If Steve Carell were playing a guy with a limo and a mansion and a six-figure salary, would you give a crap if he ever got laid or not? Not that it's inherently impossible to make a movie with sympathetic characters who are also wealthy, but in this economy, it's seems the height of absurdity to try and sell a movie about a couple who are obviously in the upper-upper-middle class and try to make it believable that they're having money woes. A TV show like Roseanne offered a truly believable depiction of what the typical American family is like...pinching pennies, thrifty, and yet making the best out of what they have. It's like, screw you, with your awesome Paul Rudd hair and iPad you can use on the toilet and owning your own record store.

[AndyDursin]

ZERO DARK THIRTY
6.5/10

Another film from Kathryn Bigelow that was overpraised by the critical masses, “Zero Dark Thirty” offers a clinical dissection of the CIA’s pursuit of Osama bin Laden – and, in particular, the tireless effort of one of its analysts, “Maya” (Jessica Chastain), who sees an opening via one of bin Laden’s couriers and spends years hoping her lead comes through.

Scripted by Mark Boal, “Zero Dark Thirty” is comprised of a timeline pinpointing how Maya’s belief that this missing bin Laden courier could – and eventually did – lead U.S. forces to the al Qaeda mastermind. While her investigation is initially filled with deadends and disappointments – and government higher-ups who brush off her suggestions – ultimately Maya’s instincts prove correct, and good fortune soon brings bin Laden into their sights – and the collective path of an elite Navy SEALs unit.

With an unnecessary overlong first half, “Zero Dark Thirty” doesn’t really kick into gear until it’s nearly half over. Bigelow and Boal spend far too much time during the film’s initial half on false starts that could’ve used some judicious editing. There’s also scant character development of Maya or any of its other principal players (Jason Clarke as a CIA interrogator; Joel Edgerton is one of the Navy SEALs; James Gandolfini appears late as a government big-wig), to the point where we have no real emotional connection with her as she doggedly – almost obsessively – pursues bin Laden. The movie isn’t concerned at all with “why” so much as it is “how” in terms of the CIA’s trail of bin Laden – it lacks a political point of view and even seems to go out of its way to avoid anything resembling a commentary on the situation. There’s also one horribly telegraphed sequence involving Jennifer Ehle’s character (her role actually based on a real-life CIA agent) that’s nearly as cliched as the demise of all the “name stars” in Bigelow’s prior film, “The Hurt Locker.”

It all results in a film that’s interesting to watch but never brings you in emotionally to what’s going on – like a by-the-book examination of the process, but without a hook to make you care. Perhaps the decision by Bigelow and Boal to build a composite character at the film’s center is part of the problem: Maya mostly comes across as a cipher, a cliched “tough female government agent” without any backstory. Chastain is believable enough in the limited scope of the part, but frankly I found some of her work here overpraised simply because Maya isn’t portrayed as anything other than a one-dimensional, profanity-laced female “trying to make it in a boy’s club.” Compare her performance to the multi-tiered work that Claire Danes puts in on any episode of “Homeland” and you can clearly see the deficiencies of the role – and, much like the end of “The Hurt Locker,” Bigelow’s attempt at injecting an “emotional moment” in the final second of an otherwise detached and buttoned-down film rings hollow.

The last half-hour of the film is certainly effective, however, and Bigelow’s editing and straightforward camera work are both at their best here. One wishes more time were spent with the SEAL team and their preparations for the final raid on the Pakistan compound where bin Laden had been hiding – but the film is, ultimately, still effective enough as a procedural into the hunt and eventual killing of bin Laden. It just doesn’t go outside itself often enough to function as anything more than that.

THE HOBBIT
6/10

Never mind 3-D and 48fps -- I had no idea Peter Jackson was aiming for a mind-blowing "real time" viewing experience making THE HOBBIT.

Including a dinner sequence that feels longer than a typical Julia Child lesson in culinary cuisine, it takes a good 40 minutes for the journey to even begin in “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” the first of three (!) installments in director Peter Jackson’s latest trip to Tolkien territory. This time out, though, Jackson has not only adapted Tolkien’s enchanting “The Hobbit” – the earlier adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf and company – but expanded what was written more as a children’s tome as opposed to the large-scale epic fantasy of “Lord of the Rings.” Thus, Jackson's take on Tolkien’s book bloats the source material – with Bilbo leading a journey to recover the lost treasure of the dwarves stolen by the villainous dragon Smaug – into the same category as Jackson’s “Rings” pictures, with some lightweight gags and cartoony action being augmented by a narrative that feels pushed beyond its breaking point. The assorted trips over mountains, fields and streams seem even longer than the dullest of its predecessors' comparable sequences, while the appearance of numerous “Rings” veterans in cameos (Ian Holm, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett among them) feel more like an unnecessary bone thrown to fans than a needed component to the story being told.

Ultimately, the movie has all the weaknesses of Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, amplified by two. There’s no sense of dramatic momentum, with even some of the movie’s major set-pieces coming off as repetitive and pointless. One understands why Jackson decided to return to Middle Earth (especially after the disappointment of "The Lovely Bones" and Guillermo Del Toro handing him back the directorial reigns), but it’s ultimately just a safety blanket for the director. With the same digitized backdrops and art direction as its predecessors, “The Hobbit” really just offers less of the same, especially when dealing with a story here that doesn’t require the same treatment as the Rings pictures (heck, I’m old enough to remember when Rankin-Bass did a respectable, animated-TV movie adaptation of “The Hobbit” – and it only ran 75 minutes!).

Warner’s Blu-Ray combo pack of “The Hobbit” looks smashing as you’d anticipate. I didn’t see the film in either 3-D or 48fps, but the standard 24fps 1080p presentation on Blu-Ray doesn’t show any of the overly “smooth” appearance that many noted the 48fps projection exhibited. The DTS MA 7.1 audio is outstanding too, though extras are limited to two hours of production videos and trailers, plus a DVD and Ultraviolet copy – just a teaser for the inevitably longer (sigh) Director’s Cut to follow once the “Hobbit” flicks are finished in 2014.

LES MISERABLES
5.5/10

Bombastic adaptation of the worldwide musical smash from director Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”) employs a “gritty” approach to Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel. A series of singers and non-singers including Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried take their best shot at Claude-Michel Schönberg’s score to mixed results, with Jackman the reformed prisoner who becomes a mayor in France shortly before the Revolution; Hathaway the factory worker who becomes a prostitute in order to provide for her illegitimate daughter; and Crowe the prison guard who comes between them both (and whose flat vocals rank as the weakest set of pipes in the cast).

Fans of “Les Miserables” seemed to love this film (it grossed over $400 million worldwide), but for anyone other than devotees, the movie may prove to be a struggle to sit through. Hooper’s decision to shoot the film in tight close-ups strips away the theatrical artiface and plays up the dirt and grime of 19th century France, but also results in numerous moments when shouting actors fill up the entire frame for minutes at a time. Perhaps at home this is going to be less of a problem than it was on larger theater screens, but the effect is still disorienting and tedious, while Hooper’s other unusual choice – shooting with “live” singing – also gives the material an added rawness. In all, Hooper’s questionable calls (and some off-kilter camera work) seem to betray its source material’s trademark spectacle, with Anne Dudley and Stephen Metcalfe’s string-laden orchestrations also being far more subdued than anticipated here as well. The end result is a strident and occasionally off-putting picture that’s best left for fans of the stage musical, some of whom may have to recalibrate their love for the show with a movie that strains to be “realistic” and “intimate.”

Universal’s Blu-Ray boasts a crisp 1080p (1.85) transfer and DTS MA soundtrack, though again, the mix’s low-key preference for vocals over underscore may surprise audiophiles. Extras include a commentary with Hooper, a DVD, digital copy, Ultraviolet streaming copy and numerous extras including BD format exclusives (The West End Connection; Les Miz on Location; Battle at the Barricade: Les Miserables Singing Live) and other featurettes (The Stars of Les Miserables; Creating the Perfect Paris; The Original Masterwork: Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables).