Bob Nims' Blog

I saw this movie twice before I was able to properly review it.  Not because I didn’t understand it, but because Regal Henrietta did such a poor job of showing the film on my first viewing.  The sound level in the auditorium was very low for the previews, so I went to the lobby and asked the manager to raise it.  She agreed to do this, but never followed through.  As a result, the feature film volume was even lower and it was difficult for me to feel the excitement or become involved in this adventure the way Steven Spielberg intended.  My rating for that experience was only a 7.  I knew I would have to see it properly before I could honestly review it, so this last weekend I went to the IMAX at Cinemark Tinseltown.  What a difference!  This was another first for me.  I have seen many 2D and 3D films at this theater in the past.  A couple of weeks ago I saw the new Mission Impossible movie and that was the first digital IMAX projection I had seen.  I was surprised that they now had digital projectors capable of projecting such a bright image on the huge IMAX screen, but still doubted that they could muster the light output needed for 3D.  I was wrong.  The image quality for movie was as good as any IMAX 3D movie I have seen.  The sound level was exactly right (without any need to speak to the management).  The story of this film really takes off like a rocket and barely slows down long enough to catch your breath.  The American audience is probably unfamiliar with the Tintin character (much better known in Europe), so it’s great that the film provides us a suitable introduction before whisking us off on this great adventure.  I won’t attempt a synopsis, but the motion capture animation and voice acting is first rate and make it a movie experience perfect for the whole family.  Very young children will become restless because it runs an hour and forty-seven minutes.  Parents need to consider this before deciding to bring them.

Brad Bird has directed the best episode of this long-running series and it’s very much worth seeing at IMAX. In Rochester, it also marks the first DIGITALY-projected IMAX film that I have seen there. Not too long ago, folks were saying that the technology wasn’t ready yet and that the Canadian IMAX company was going to stick it to all of the exhibitors to pay for the mandatory switch to digital. Whether the latter is true or not, the former is not longer true (at least for 2D presentations). This film both looks and sounds amazing.  And 49 year old Tom Cruise isn’t doing too bad either.   He must have patched up his feud with Sumner Redstone as this is another Paramount release (but this one should make them so much money that Sumner will probably invite Tom to jump on his couch along with him).

I won’t try to summarize the plot or risk giving away any of the twists and turns it makes.  I will only say that the director quickly establishes and maintains a high degree of palpable suspense throughout the entire two hours and thirteen minutes.  Great care is taken to maintain a clear perspective for the audience so that following this hectic action is not difficult and, from what I saw, it looked as if every one of the principals gave their all to make this a major action thriller and it looks incredible.

2011 Rated: G 112 min. First Shown: 6/23/2011 (Bob’s Rating: 6)
I loved the original. John Lasseter is the driving force (no pun intended) behind Pixar’s ability to tell really great stories and I have enjoyed almost all of them. This film, however, has too much stuff in it that did not interest me (mainly most of the racing). The simplicity of the original, which was essentially a rip-off of the film “Doc Hollywood” caused that film to be almost completely character-driven.  “Cars 2″ seems to dispense with much character development and goes all out to become an action film. This turns out to be a big mistake. There are a few places in the film where there are some ineffective errorts to employ character relationships, but these are not well handled. 
My favorite animated film this year is still “Rio”. They stole Pixar’s playbook and gave us great characters telling a story with great heart. And they used really beautiful animation techniques to do it. “Cars 2″ has some impressive scenes in it, but nothing really memorable. Up to now my least favorite Pixar film was “The Incredibles” (probably due to the heavy reliance on action), but now “Cars 2″ is my least favorite Pixar film. I hope this becomes a wakeup call for them.

Catherine Deneuve and Gérard Depardieu appear in a rather contrived so-called farce that is really only an excuse for them to be on the screen together. She looks lovely as the titular “trophy wife”, but Depardieu is larger than Orson Welles became near the end of his career and so does not credibly fill the requirement of romantic lead. Casting is sort of a problem for several of the other roles and setting the film in the middle 1970s doesn’t really help with this story about a philandering husband getting his comeuppance from his wife (in business as well as romance). I’m pretty sure that the choice of an umbrella factory was made as a tribute to madame Deneuve (who appeared in the film Umbrellas of Cherburg), but that doesn’t add much luster to the tired clichés that try to pass for comedy. I usually enjoy French farce (1998s “The Dinner Game” was great), but this one misses the mark by much too far for me.

“King of the Hill” is one of those hard-to-find gems. It’s not that old (1993) compared to a lot of films that are seen frequently at venues like the Dryden or those readily available on DVD or seen on TCM. But is has never been released on DVD in the US. I watched my LaserDisc copy of the film a few weeks ago and it was just as enjoyable then as when I saw it in a theater when it was first released. I won’t go into great detail about the film except to say that its story takes place during the depression and concerns a family that is driven apart as a result of the economy. Jesse Bradford plays the older son who is left to fend for himself in a hotel full of strange and interesting characters. In its way, this is as fine a film as Soderberg has ever made and I have no idea why it has not been made more available on video. Maybe it will gain more popularity after the Dryden showing. It has also been shown on TCM in the past.  Check it out at the Dryden on the 19th.

Pixar has completed this trilogy with another wonderful film that contains all the elements that make a really great movie.  And you don’t need to see it in 3D to notice how much better their animation has gotten since we first met Andy and his toys back in 1995.  The biggest improvement is in their depiction of humans, but the toys look fantastic too.  This time, however, the story turns much darker than many very young members of the audience may be ready for, so parents should be prepared with extra hand-holding, etc.  Needless to say, things turn out OK, but they manage to wring a tear or two out of us before the credits roll.  Andy is going to college and the toys are worried about what’s going to happen to them.  So are we.  At first we see them being donated to a daycare center that seems more like a prison than a playroom.  It’s tyranically ruled by a strawberry-scented teddy bear named Lotso Huggin’ (voiced by Ned Beatty).  The toys’ breakout from this place takes the series to the most dark and perilous it has ever been.  The feature is preceded by the short “Day & Night” which is nicely done, but not as funny as some of the earlier ones like “Birds of a Feather”.

Roman Polanski’s latest film opened locally this week.  This is a well crafted mystery, actually an homage to Hitchcock in many ways, that seems to have been ripped from the headlines because it so closely resembles the Tony Blair/George Bush alliance furor over the Iraq war.

Ewan MacGregor plays a journeyman writer who is offered a cool quarter million dollars to complete the autobiography of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after the accidental death (or suicide) of the original ghost writer.   It isn’t long before the new ghost becomes suspicious about the demise of his predecessor.   His investigation of his subject’s background raise more questions than he can get answers to. 

Polanski has created another masterpiece (Chinatown)  involving powerful people with secrets and the ability to thwart anyone who attempts to expose them.  I strongly reccomend this film.

It took quite awhile for me to get around to seeing this movie.  It was shown briefly here back in December, but only returned this weekend at The Little.  (Better there than one of the 4 bad screens at Pittsford Plaza).  I knew that I wanted to see the film when the buzz from the film festivals started up.  It’s a story that most film fans would find interesting even with less than stellar performances, but the performances are top notch.  The director Richard Linklater is best known for “Dazed and Confused” and “Fast Food Nation”.  This apparently the only period drama he’s done so far, but it’s a fine piece of work.  The film has the right feel for the year 1937 and it depicts the Mercury Theatre production of “Caesar” (an updated Shakespearian “Julius Caesar” in modern dress).  The events precede Welles’ famous “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast and, of course the film ”Citizen Cane”.  Zac Efron plays Richard Samuels, a 17 year old bored high school student who plays hooky from school to veture into Manhattan to try his hand at acting.  He lands a role in the production and gets caught up in the very frenetic Welles entourage.  Chritian Mckay, nowhere near as famous as his co-star, actually makes this film work.  His background is that he has done a number of one-man shows portraying Welles at various stages of his life.  He totally personifies the man and should have been nominated for an award.  Many aspects of this film point out similarities to another worthy effort “Topsy-Turvy” (1999) by Mike Leigh which depicts the creative process and lives of Gilbert and Sullivan.  Other notable performances include Claire Danes and Ben Chaplin.   I strongly recommend this film.

In the traditional, hectic, year-end rush to see most (if not all) of the Academy Award contenders, this film was definitely on my agenda.  I saw it at the 3:45 PM showing at the Little Theatre on 12/26/2009.  Attendance was only moderate for this screening, which, with no explanation, was started about 15 minutes late.  It was hard not to notice that, once the screening began, the sound was not stereo and was hollow-sounding as if coming from a small, tiled room.  The projection’s shortcomings were that the image edges blurred and the illumination trailed off as if the projector’s condensors were out of adjustment or the wrong replacement lamp was used.  Unfortunately, most of the analog projection in the Rochester area suffers from this sort of inattention.  Exceptions are limited to the Cinemark chain (Tinseltown and Movies 10) and the Dryden Theatre.   But, back to the film. 

Britain’s Queen Victoria has traditionally been portrayed during later periods of her rein.  This film cover the period just prior to her ascending to the throne and she is well played by Emily Blunt (“The Devil Wears Prada”) she has a Golden Globe best actress nomination for her performance.  In fact, all of the casting choices are very good.  Another reason for people in this area to support this film is that one of the editors is Matt Garner who is the son of retired D&C film critic Jack Garner.  The director, Jean-Marc Vallée,  has not had any project of this magnitude before although that is not evident here.   The story unfolds in a linear, coherent fashion with only occasional reliance on “title cards” to move the story along. 

In comparison to the highly-regarded “Mrs. Brown” (1997) starring Judy Dench which covered the years of her reign following the death of Prince Albert, this film focuses on the politics and manipulative control that was exerted on the young Victoria as she awaited her turn to wear the crown.  The story continues through the first turbulent year of her reign and her enduring love for Albert.  All the performances are first rate mainly because most of the performers have been in so many of the other period dramas prior to this one.   This is not a bad thing.  It probably helps this director a great deal.  Probably the main attraction for this film is that it is so informative about this period of her life and of England’s history.  That being said, it doesn’t stand out as a particularly great film.  It looks beautiful and its settings are undoubtedly genuine and add the sort of appeal that the film “The Queen” (2006) had.  That was a better film, but this one is worth your time as well.

Starring Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin and directed by Nancy Myers (“Something’s Gotta Give”, “The Holiday”).   Starts out with enough energy and humor to justify your attention, but it runs out of gas during the last third. That’s too bad, because with such a good cast (and great supporting performances  by John Krasinski, Mary Kay Place and Rita Wilson), I expected more.  Most people will find this movie entertaining and I give it that much myself, but it loses its way 2/3 of the way through and you can’t help feeling sorry for everyone involved.  

My advice:  see “Up in the Air” and “Avatar” and rent this movie when it comes out on DVD.