Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Trailer Review: Hereafter


Release Date: October 22, 2010

Website: Official Hereafter site

Starring: Matt Damon, Bryce Dallas Howard, Richard Kind, Jenifer Lewis, Cécile De France


My Review: I know this statement will likely lead to me being torn apart by various people, but so be it: I find Clint Eastwood as a director to be overrated. Yes, the movies he directs are generally good and they certainly bring in the A-list actors, but I have yet to find them as worthy of all the accolades bestowed upon them. They’re usually very emotional dramas delivered in a very heavy-handed way, and while they are good movies in the moment, I rarely want to revisit them later like I do with movies by more subtle directors.

In his latest work, Hereafter uses Matt Damon as the thread that ties the lives of three very different people together. Damon is George, a man able to communicate with the dead, and for years he used his gift for profit by hiring himself out to the bereaved to give them one last bit of contact with their deceased loved ones. But this kind of work has taken its toll on him, so he’s decided to retire from the psychic medium business.

Unfortunately, having such an extraordinary talent makes walking away a bit harder than quitting most jobs. George is sought after by three people—a French journalist, a British schoolboy, and a working class American—who have all experienced death and desperately need his help. Will George give in to them? And more importantly, when he inevitably does (I hope stating the obvious isn’t considered a spoiler), will what he has to share with them actually be anything they want to hear?

True to form, Hereafter looks like another classic Eastwood-helmed dramatic drama with a side order of extra drama; probably tasty enough, but few would want to go back for seconds.

Would I Pay For It?: No, and I’ll probably only rent it if I’m in the mood to be horribly depressed, which isn’t likely, but never say never.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Theater Review: Angels in America Part Two: Perestroika

Location: Signature Theatre, 555 West 42nd Street, NY, NY

Website: Official Signature Theatre site

Starring: Christian Borle, Bill Heck, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Kazan, Billy Porter, Robin Weigert, Robin Bartlett, Frank Wood

My Review: To celebrate its 20th anniversary, the Signature Theatre is making its 2010-2011 season all Tony Kushner, all the time. To kick things off, they’re offering both parts of his groundbreaking play, Angels in America (Millennium Approaches and Perestroika), in repertory, with tickets going for just $20 for a limited time. Knowing these would be hot tickets to get, I made sure I was on the Signature Theatre website at the exact time tickets became available. Then their website crashed. So I called the box office. And had to wait nearly an hour until I got a representative on the line. Apparently theater geeks from near and far were also anticipating the $20 tickets for this landmark play going quickly. And quickly they did go, as by the time I was in touch with the box office, my only options were to see the two plays out of order or pay full price to see them later in the run. Luckily, having studied Millennium Approaches in school and being familiar with the HBO miniseries, I felt versed well enough with the first half to happily purchase my out-of-order tickets. So now knowing how it all ends, I can’t wait until early December to see how it begins.

Angels in America is a play that’s easy to have an opinion and feelings about, but difficult to write about, mainly because there is just so much going on. Each half runs over three hours and there are so many overlapping and interconnecting character arcs that keeping up with the performance while it’s going on is a feat unto itself.; processing it all afterward is like going through therapy. At its bare basics, Angels in America is a story about homosexuality and the AIDS crisis in the late 1980s. Prior and Louis are a generally happy gay couple living in Manhattan, until Prior is diagnosed as HIV-positive, which—during this time—is basically a death sentence. Louis begins to doubt if he’s strong enough to stand by his partner during his upcoming health battle, but agonizes over what sort of man he would be if he left.

Joe and his wife Harper are new Manhattan transplants, having just arrived from Salt Lake City for Joe’s legal career. Being Mormons, they “don’t believe in homosexuals,” which is problematic because Joe is one, the knowledge of which causes the already fragile and Valium-addicted Harper to retreat into a fantasy world she creates for herself. Joe and Louis find each other, leaving Prior sick and angry with the occasional visits from his friend and nurse (and former lover) Belize as his only comfort, and Harper spiraling into delusional madness. Joe’s mother, Hannah, arrives in town to see what’s going on with her son (and take care of her not-so-quietly-going-mad daughter-in-law), and eventually befriends the jilted Prior.

In case this isn’t enough to keep straight, there’s also the infamous New York lawyer Roy Cohn (best known for his work on the McCarthy investigations and playing a big part in the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg). Having lived his life as a closeted homosexual, Roy is now dying a slow and agonizing AIDS-related death, which he uses all his legal and political clout to make sure is referred to as “liver cancer” in the press. And then there’s that angel that literally crashes through Prior’s bedroom ceiling and tries to convince him that he’s a prophet.

To try to delve into every social, political, religious, historical, and emotional theme touched upon in Angels in America would take forever (grad students have written entire dissertations on these plays). So instead, I’ll just comment on the merits and detriments of this particular production.

While the production is uneven overall, it’s still highly enjoyable and emotionally affecting. One of the more impressive elements is how well the small stage space is utilized. The Signature Theatre isn’t large by any means, and there are multiple scenes that need to be changed and moved around quickly (Louis’s apartment, Roy’s hospital room, the Mormon Visitor’s Center, on the beach, etc). The set designers make all of this work by using pieces constructed on 90-degree angles that can easily be spun around to reveal different settings. For scenes requiring fewer props, a white scrim is pulled in front of the stage where various projections are cast to show both the streets of Manhattan and the fires of Hell.

The cast is where most of the show’s few pitfalls come from. Christian Borle is a standout as Prior, as he manages to convey the fragility that comes with his disease, but is still powerful enough to embrace all the hurt and anger he feels towards Louis. It’s also commendable how the wardrobe and makeup team manage to make him look so sickly for the entire 3+ hours; I’m curious to see how he looks in Millennium Approaches, where he starts out healthy. Zachary Quinto as Louis is probably the most notable actor in the cast, having spent several seasons at the villain on TV’s Heroes, but he doesn’t have much to do here. His role is much larger in the first play, so I’ll save any opinions on his performance until I see more of it. Zoe Kazan as pill-popping Harper is a bit of a confusion, as I’m not sure if she’s playing her as damaged and childlike, angry and self-medicating, manic depressive, or just all-around bonkers, because she samples each of these performances at least once.

Also coming up a bit short is Billy Porter as the sassy nurse Belize (and as Harper’s occasional imaginary friend, Mr. Lies). He’s already up against a stacked deck, taking on the role that the phenomenal Jeffrey Wright originated and won a Tony Award for in 1994 (and played again in the HBO miniseries). But rather than rising to the challenge and making the role his own, Porter seems to be imitating what worked so well for Wright, but with only a fraction of the energy and sincerity, making Belize feel like a weak impression of a stereotypical drag queen. Frank Wood, however (as Roy Cohn), manages to take a character that is so blissfully despicable and manipulative that it would be easy to turn him into a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, and actually turn him into a real person. A real person you still hate, but a real person nonetheless.

There’s no denying that some of the subject matter in Angels in America feels dated today. AIDS is no longer the instant death threat it used to be and the gay community isn’t being rapidly wiped out by this mysterious plague. But it does still exist, as do the many stories that Angels tells. It’s like one part period piece, and one part timeless drama about the human condition. And luckily, for those of us who were too young to enjoy it the first time around, it’s shedding light on an era we weren’t around for and reaffirming some of what we’re all living with at any given time.

Bottom Line: Angels in America is an ensemble production, with the stronger performances helping to elevate the weaker ones, thus creating a relatively harmonious theater experience. At over three hours long (over six for both parts) and an abundance of subtexts, it’s not for the casual theater fan, but meant for those who truly like drama in their drama. Both Angels in America and playwright Tony Kushner are institutes in American theater, and I consider myself lucky to be able to see a professionally staged production of this work. And I eagerly look forward to seeing the beginning in a few months.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Trailer Review: The Nutcracker in 3D


Release Date: November 24, 2010

Website: Official The Nutcracker in 3D site

Starring: Elle Fanning, Nathan Lane, John Turturro, Charlie Rowe


My Review: When I first read there was a movie version of The Nutcracker being made in 3D, my initial response was to snipe, like the frustrated theater geek I am, “If you want to see The Nutcracker in 3D, why don’t you see it how it’s meant to be seen: At the ballet, you cultureless philistines.” Then I took a step back and had to admit that yes, ballet isn’t for everyone, not to mention it’s expensive to attend, so maybe making a movie version would be a good way to introduce the younger generation to the beautiful story and music of The Nutcracker. Then I saw the trailer and got pissed off all over again.

It looks like The Nutcracker on steroids. Or The Nutcracker for Dummies. Or The Nutcracker directed by Michael Bay. Ever ounce of subtlety and nuance have been sucked out of it and what’s left if an overblown CGI-filled mess that’s a jumbled chaos of action-packed sequences that attempts to do little else than keep a crowd of short attention span-addled people distracted for a couple of hours.

The basic premise of the movie seems to be loosely the same as the ballet: A melancholy young girl is given a nutcracker as a Christmas gift who reveals himself to be a prince under a spell. His kingdom has been taken over by the evil Rat King, and he needs her help to lift the spell and battle the Rat King for what is rightfully his. She agrees and ludicrously high-octane adventure ensues, and the story takes a turn for the absurd.

The most alarming thing about this mess of a trailer is the dearth of Tchaikovsky’s music. The Nutcracker is all about the score—even if you think you know nothing about the ballet, I guarantee you would recognize at least one of the tunes when you heard it—so the fact that the trailer uses stock “lighthearted adventure movie” music is upsetting. Then there are the shots of structures crashing up from underground and fiery explosions that make me wonder if Optimus Prime makes a cameo appearance. And then the nutcracker is referred to as NC (edgy!) and I die a little inside.

Would I Pay To See It?: Not even if a band of sugar plum fairies held me at knifepoint. 

Monday, August 30, 2010

2010 Emmy Awards Post-Mortem


Was it just me, or were the Emmy’s almost actually fun this year? I mean, an awards show will always be an awards show, and that means inflated egos, rambling speeches, and a lot of self-congratulatory behavior from admitted attention whores. But all the stuff that comes in between was actually entertaining. Jimmy Fallon did well as host, and absolutely killed it in the over-the-top Glee-inspired opening musical number. And most importantly, there wasn’t a whole lot of lagging and lingering on unnecessary filler. Awards were handed out at a quick pace, there were occasional pauses for some pageantry and to remember the deceased, then things got rolling again. As far as awards show go, it was a fun night.

As usual, my winner predictions were about half-and-half (Kyra Sedgwick wins for The Closer…uh, OK?). With the exception of Jane Lynch’s predictable win for Best Supporting Actress in a Comedy, Glee was pretty much shut out, which made me happy, since I sometimes wonder if I’m the only person who sees that show as entertaining, but knows it isn’t actually good. Both of the Mad Men ladies lost Best Supporting Actress in a Drama to Archie Panjabi from The Good Wife, which took me by surprise. I’ve never seen The Good Wife, but could anything in that show be better than Joan or Peggy? I have trouble believing that.

You can see the full list of winners here, and here are some random observations I had from the night:

* As I said before, the opening musical number was great. I could have done without Kate Gosselin making an appearance (quit putting her in the spotlight and maybe she’ll go away!), but I did chuckle at how the singing and dancing posse tried to shun her. Having Jon Hamm and Joel McHale participate was hilarious (and swoon-worthy), and I even temporarily forgot about my annoyance at the Betty White oversaturation thanks to her scene with Hamm. And I loved how Jane Lynch didn’t change out of her track suit for their grand finale.

* I enjoyed the questions that were posed to the non-actor nominees. It was a fun way to let those behind-the-scenes people show a little bit of their personality. Or lack thereof, as the case may be.

* Both of George Clooney’s appearances were great. First in a series of hypothetical plotlines for Modern Family where he winds up hooking up with nearly all of the characters, and again when he was presented the Bob Hope Humanitarian Award and talked about doing more for various crises and disasters long after they’ve faded from being front page news.

* January Jones, you are rich, gorgeous, and on one of the best TV shows currently running. Would it have killed you to run a comb through your hair and maybe crack a smile once in a while? Once Mad Med is over, you’ll probably have trouble finding other stiff, wooden characters that you can play by non-acting, so try to enjoy yourself now.

* Jane Lynch, you are rich, gorgeous, and on one of the most popular TV shows currently running. And you looked amazing. See if the Glee costume department can get Sue Sylvester some purple track suits.

* Aaron Paul won for his role in Breaking Bad. Finally!

* The Tony Awards won for Outstanding Writing for a Variety, Music or Comedy Special. Me and that other guy who watched the Tony’s are thrilled.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Trailer Review: Tamara Drewe


Release Date: October 8, 2010

Website: Official Tamara Drewe site

Starring: Gemma Arterton, Dominic Cooper, Roger Allam, Bill Camp, Luke Evans, Tamsin Greig


My Review: Ah, the English countryside. It’s so peaceful and serene; the perfect place to get away, relax, and be free of distractions. Until the local ugly duckling-turned sex goddess arrives, of course.

In Tamara Drewe, a collection of pompous and stodgy artists travel to an isolated country town that promises peace and quiet, looking forward to being able to let their creative juices flow. Unfortunately, with all this peace and quiet comes a lack of inspiration, and the problems they tried to leave at home refuse to go away.

Enter Tamara to shake things up. Ms. Drewe—once plain and homely—spent her childhood in this town, and she returns—now sexy and desirable—to see her old home being prepared for sale. From the moment she appears, the town comes to life thanks to her youthful vibrancy and overt sexuality. Floundering relationships find new life, creative blocks are freed, and a fresh appreciation for life is born.

Does Tamara Drewe appear to be anything but a bit of fluffy British fun? Not really. But when it comes to pastoral whimsy, no one does it better than the Brits.

Would I Pay For It?: No, but I’d rent it to giddily enjoy in my own home, like I do whenever Calendar Girls or The Full Monty is on.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Trailer Review: Black Swan


Release Date: December 1, 2010

Website: Official Black Swan site

Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Winona Ryder, Barbara Hershey


My Review: After watching the trailer for Black Swan, I had a reaction similar to the one I had to the trailer for Never Let Me Go: “I have to know what’s going on in this crazy movie!” Which, in a nutshell, is exactly the reaction a movie trailer is meant to elicit, so, well done, Black Swan movie trailer editors!

When I first heard that director Darren Aronofsky was setting a thriller in the world of professional ballet, I was a bit perplexed. I enjoy movies about the performing arts, but I realize that I’m in the minority with that opinion. And ballet isn’t really what I would consider prime thriller fodder. So how was he going to make a movie like this and have it be appealing to anyone?

By getting two young, talented, and gorgeous actresses to star, and have a whole bunch of crazy crap happen, that’s how.

Natalie Portman is Nina, a hardworking veteran dancer in a professional ballet company in NYC who is looking forward to finally being featured in some more prominent roles; specifically, the Swan Queen in Swan Lake. Enter Mila Kunis as Lilly, a newcomer who catches the eye of the company’s director (Vincent Cassel), who notes her natural and seemingly effortless talent. Nina is shaken to her core as she sees what she’s been working toward for years slipping away, and her panicked paranoia is helped along by her overbearing stage mother (Barbara Hershey) and some bizarrely sinister, Single White Female-esque behavior from Lilly. As Nina’s fears of losing her roles to Lilly escalate, her whole world starts to fall apart, from losing her footing in rehearsal to mysterious changes in her physical appearance.

Creating a captivating psychological thriller is never an easy task, and creating one in the world of ballet even more so. But if done well, this could be a fascinating movie. Professional dancers put themselves through inordinate amounts of stress, both mentally and physically, and there is a relatively small window of time that one can actually work as a dancer, so I can see how even the slightest notion of a threat could cause a dancer to go a little insane. And seeing how in The Wrestler Aronofsky managed to both create a touching drama about professional wrestling and re-launch Mickey Rourke’s acting career, I have to assume that if anyone can make a crazed ballerina movie compelling, it would be him.

Would I Pay For It?: Black Swan will most likely be a rental, unless I hear fantastic reports about it. Or I find that I really can’t wait to find out what’s going on in this crazy movie.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Trailer Review: Little Fockers


Release Date: December 22, 2010

Website: Official Little Fockers site

Starring: Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Teri Polo, Owen Wilson, Barbra Streisand, Blythe Danner


My Review: Just when you thought you were free from unnecessary movie sequels, they pull you back in!

Hey, if the trailer for Little Fockers can rip off The Godfather, then so can I.

I know I saw both Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers at some point in my life, but I can barely remember anything that happened in either of them. I remember that Robert De Niro hates Ben Stiller, and Stiller’s parents are new age-y free spirits of some sort. And I think Stiller sets a house on fire in one of them, but I’m not sure.

Clearly I don’t really care about this movie franchise, and now there’s a whole new addition for me to not care about! Little Fockers continues the story of this mismatched blended family, and this time there are kids involved. (Did they have kids in the second movie?) De Niro’s patriarch is apparently looking for his successor as head of the family (do any families that aren’t mafia families actually do this?), and after two movies together, he still doesn’t think Stiller is man enough for the job. So the two grown men have to slap each other around a bit to prove…something. What it is, I certainly don’t know.

The trailer is full of the typical movie nonsense that makes me concerned for the future of the craft: projectile vomiting, a dismemberment gag, rip-offs of better movies, and groan-inducing word play (do you know what word “Fockers” sounds like???). And perhaps most upsetting of all is the cast. Ben Stiller has proven time and again that he’ll do nearly anything for a paycheck (with various degrees of success), but what are Robert De Niro, Barbra Streisand, Blythe Danner and Laura Dern doing? Other than making me weep for humanity, that is.

Would I Pay For It?: *Snort* Would you?!