****

War Horse sp –  Steven Spielberg, producer and director along with  his team may have made another classic film. The movie is based on a book by Michael Morpurgo  as well as Broadway show that had puppets for the horses. The screen play is by Lee Hall and Richard Curtis. The film has very well done elements, a music score by John Williams, photography by Janusz Kaminski and features Emily Watson, David Thewlis, Peter Mullan and Tom Hiddleston and what appeared to be a cast of thousands. The storyline  deals   with the universal appeal of the love of an animal, father-son relationship, accomplishing something against almost impossible odds, the fascination with epic war scenes, breathtaking scenery with magnificent colors and much more. The problem with this 146 minute  film is that is that it seems that Spielberg and the writers  couldn’t decide if this were to be a young person’s movie where you fall in love with the horse , root for it, cry with it and identify with the young people who befriend this lovely creature. Or is it really an adult movie which gives us the best and most realisitic  depiction of World War I  trench warfare and the battle scenes since , All Is Quiet on the Western Front ? It obviously is a combination of both which probably made it a little difficult for us to get completely lost in it since we weren’t sure if it was our child self or adult self that was into the film. At the point where we might think that it would a great film for our 10 year old granddaughter ( it is PG-13 however) , the story progresses where we are watching a fairly violent massive battle scene although no blood  is really shown. And just as we were getting into the realism of World War I we realize the German soldiers are speaking English with a German accent. ( German with subtitles may have been more realistic a la  Tarrentino’s Inglorious Basterds) . We recall reading stories where during World War I, opposing sides on Christmas Day or other occasions would emerge from their trenches and socialize and then return to their respective sides and continue to try to wipe each other out. This spirit was captured so well in the highlight of the film where two soldiers from opposites sides of the battle line meet midway between their trenches because they care about a horse. No doubt the appeal of this film will be to people from both sides of the age divide and should be enjoyed by most of them.(2011)

***

In Darkness- sp-  ( English subtitles ) If you are ready, willing and able to handle another heavy duty holocaust movie, this  one may be right for you. 80% of the film takes place in the dark sewers underneath the Polish ghetto of the city of Lvov, that is being wiped out by the Nazis. You will need to endure the pain and suffering that the men, women and children are going through for 2 hours and 25 minutes although that is nothing compared to the 14 months which was the duration for the Jews there in reality. Polish movie director and sometimes US television director ( episodes of The Wire and Treme) Agnieszka Holland who was guest at the  preview screening,  latched on to this true story which in total took eight years to make it to the screen from a book by one of the survivors. She was reluctant to cut the length of film because she wanted the audience to experience a sense of the prolonged hardship that these people were going through.  Although gripping and suspenseful, we were aware that we were being shown all the expected episodes of starving people hiding in the sewers, rats running around, everyone hungry and thirsty, children trying to play their chidhood games, some people being claustrophobic, almost being discovered by the Nazis , trying to celebrate the Jewish holidays, and a baby being born in these circumstances. All the actors were  excellent and apparently are well known stars in their own country. Of particular note is Robert Wieckiewicz who plays the man who after being not such a nice guy turns out to a “righteous gentile.” Observing the changes that he undergoes in response to the heroism of the people he is hiding is the highlight of this movie. The film is being  nominated for an Oscar  as the Polish entry for best foreign film. It has already won an award at the Telluride Film Festival and will open in the US in January. It is not an easy movie to watch but we came away from it being glad it was made and that it will be there to be shown to future generations. (2011)

***

A Dangerous Method – rm-  As people who have some some acquaintance with psychoanalytic theory and it’s history, we were drawn to want to see this movie. The psychiatrist among the two of us found it a more enjoyable experience although we both found many deficiencies in the movie. This movie, directed by David Cronenberg, with a screenplay by Chrisopher Hampton which came from a book by John Kerr, of course is based on real people and highlights the break between Sigmund Freud and Carl Gustav Jung who at one time Freud had thought would be his heir apparent to the psychoanalytic movement. The movie starts off in the early 1900s as a young women, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is involuntarily brought to the Burgholzi, a  psychiatric hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, run by the famed Eugen Bleuler. Her exaggerated mannerisms and dramatic presentation suggests the type of “hysterical” patients who were known to be hospitalized in those days. Jung (Michael Fassbender) becomes her psychiatrist at the hospital and begins to use the new psychoanalytic method which Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) in Vienna has advocated. He ultimately is shown  becoming drawn into a sadomachistic sexual romantic affair with her. Jung travels to Vienna and meets with Freud several times in which they discuss theoretical issues as well as this patient. Over time Freud is depicted as becoming disenchanted with his previously highly regarded younger colleague. The reasons for this rift would appear to be Jung’s willingness to go beyond Freud’s concept of sexuality and psychic determinism and bring in such ideas as the supernatural, premonitions, telepathy, religion and many others that were not explained in much detail in the movie. In fact, the more well known ideas of Jung about the collective unconscious , symbolism and dream analysis were not very well clarified. Freud appeared to be concerned that any significant deviation from his main thesis and what he believed was the scientific method might be a reason for his theories to fail to gain wide acceptance. As best we can determine, in reality the actual affair between Jung and Speilrein was suspected, but historically it was  not universally agreed that it had actually occurred. In this movie it is shown that  Speilrein wrote to Freud and told him of her affair after Jung rejected her. Freud did not believe her and she subsequently is depicted as convincing Jung to acknowledge the affair to Freud who then gave this as an additional reason for cutting his ties with Jung. Once again Freud is very concerned about the appearance of his analytic movement and such behavior as an affair with one’s patient  at that time as well as at present would be highly unethical. The nature of the affair and the meaning of their attraction to each other is really a key part of this movie, whether it actually happened or not. The characters in their dialogue state that Jung, who is shown being torn by the relationship, views attraction to his patient to be  on the “dark side” and that with his wife on the “loving” side.  Yet he declares his undying  love for Spelrein and is bereft by her leaving him. We are not provided with real insight inot this relationship nor any significant understaning of Jung’s conflict. The film also does not do enough to explicate Jung’s ideas and their influence on Spielrein. While we more often proclaim that a movie should have been tightened up and shortened we believe this film needed a clearer illustration of the ideas that this story was supposed to be  about.  The acting in the film was very strong. The atmosphere of Freud’s office, the streets , people’s dress, horse drawn vehicles and early motor cars made it a wonderful period piece. But alas, as much as we were interested to learn about these people, we felt we came up short in our understanding as well as in caring about them.  (2011)

***

Young Adult-sp– Director Jason Reitman (Up In the Air, Thank You For Smoking, Juno) who was a guest at our preview screening compared his directing style to that of this father Ivan Reitman (Animal House, Ghost Busters, Twins). He explained whereas his father likes to make movies that make you feel good, he prefers films that make you uncomfortable. He succeeded in his goal using the screenplay written by Diablo Cody (Juno) and what should be an award winning performance by Charlize Theron.

She plays Mavis Gary a very attractive (of course), divorced, moderately successful writer without any meaningful relationships in her life who learns that her old high school boyfriend and his wife have just had their first child. This stirs her up and sets her off on a mission to return to her hometown, find her old boyfriend, rekindle their true love which she feels has always been there, and try to get him to go off into the sunset with her. Theron makes this unbelievable character quite believable in the most subtle manner as she picks her way through her home town, picking at her hair and showing a propensity to put away drinks. Her determination begins to get scary as she casually shares her plan with old high school friends that she meets, a visit with her parents and her meeting with her old bf (Patrick Wilson ) and his wife (Elizabeth Reaser). The depth of this character or perhaps the lack of it is highlighted in her encounters with one high school classmate Matt (Patton Oswalt) who is has been damaged physically on the outside  as much as we realize that she is damaged on the inside. There is a great musical background throughout the movie and the closing song is Diana Ross singing “ When We Grow Up” from the classic Marlo Thomas album “Free to Be You and Me” This provides the depressing mood of this film which sadly for this character highlights the line “We don’t have to change at all.”(2011)

****

The Descendants-rm  This movie immediately puts you into the life crisis of a man(George Clooney) as he come to grips with the fact that his wife who on life support in a  coma after a water skiing  accident is about to die. He is confronted with the question of what kind of a husband has he been, as well as the nature of his relationship with his two children. His learning something about his wife that would be devastating to any man then complicates things and sets the trajectory of the story. Clooney out does himself with one of his finest performances where he starts off as an insensitive, somewhat awkward husband who also obviously has not been a very good father and is now overwhelmed with what he is facing. He evolves throughout the movie to connect to his daughters, as they become a team with a mission with a 4th member (Nick Krause) who is the older daughter’s boyfriend and provides some help in understanding his plight as well as a comedic touch. Clooney emerges as a now likeable guy who appears to have accepted his tragic circumstances and you believe is going to make the best of it.  Aside from Clooney there are two standout performances. One is by Shailene Woodley as the 17-year-old daughter who goes from a bratty teenager to a caring sister and daughter who is wise beyond her age. This is her first major role and is clear that she has a great future. The other star is the beautiful state of Hawaii with its magnificent vistas and breathtaking coastline as well as it’s unique history which are all part of the storyline of this movie. However, much of the credit of the success of this move should be given to director Alexander  Payne (Sideways) who brought out excellent performances by his two younger cast members (Woodley and Amara Miller) . There also was the every effective Hawaiian musical background provided by Dondi Bastone and Richard Ford. The film is based on a novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings  and the screenplay is by Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash.  Payne probably could have worked with many other very fine male leads and ended up with an excellent film as this one is. However, the presence of Clooney will assure it the attention which it deserves and demonstrates once again the versatility of this great actor.

****

Ides of March– rm-  It is not a coincidence that this movie opens in the US as there is a hotly contested primary race in one of the political parties prior to the 2012 Presidential Election.The stories that emerge from behind the scenes of these campaigns usually mesmerizes the public. The people running these campaigns have to be the brilliant tacticians who understand politics and the power of the press. They encounter nosey reporters exemplified in this story by NY Times reporter Ida Horowicz (Marisa Tomei). They play a complicated chess game as they present their candidates. Everything and everybody is expendable including the campaign leaders themselves. Steven Myers (Ryan Gosling) is  the idealistic very smart staffer working for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) under very wise campaign director Paul Zara (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). The campaign manager for the oppositional candidate is a very crafty (Paul Giamatti). The Governor while politically very principled has some Clintonesque weaknesses and we should mention there is a pretty young intern (Evan Rachel Wood). Mix these ingredients together and you get a suspenseful fast moving screenplay by Grant Heslov with contribution from Clooney who also directed the film. It was based on a play, Farragut North,  by Beau Willimon which having seen it in Los Angeles, we felt the suspense and surprises of the story were slightly muted. In real life, reading the newspapers and various biographies, we get snippets that makes us understand that in big time politics  there can be  deception, lying and compromising of principles. This movie gives us a depressing view how it might go down. This isn’t a pretty picture but it is a great story and an effective movie (2011)

***

Anonymous– sp- John Orloff, as an undergraduate was always interested in the question of whether or not William Shakespeare really wrote the masterpieces that have been attributed to him. Orloff pondered this concern during his time in film school and has been pitching various versions of this screen play for the past 15 years. Finally Columbia Pictures put up 30 million dollars (a relatively small sum) for this movie to be made under the direction of Roland Emmerich who is best known for elaborately staged blockbuster films such as Independence Day, Godzilla, The Patriot, 10000 BC and 2012. This movie as you might imagine is a period piece with lots of 16^th century costumes and filled with Shakespearian dialog (or dialog from whomever actually may have written it back then). The setting which encompasses  many streets, buildings including the famed Globe Theater and hoards of people appears quite authentic although they were mostly produced by the magic of computer technology and digitalization. The storyline is that Edward De Vere, the Earl of Oxford, (Rhys Ifans) was the original author but in his royal position he couldn’t acknowledge the nature of his writings. He secretly gave his written works to a young writer named Ben Johnson (Sebastain Armesto) who was too involved in his own budding literary works to want to take ownership or produce them. He instead passed them on to William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall), a journeyman actor  who also was sworn to secrecy but gladly took credit for them. Shakespeare who was far from a writer himself began to stage the plays which immediately received great acclaim. Vanessa Redgrave played Queen Elizabeth I and Redgrave’s own daughter (Joely Richardson) had the role of the Queen at a younger age. There of course were subplots and various intrigues including flashbacks in time.   Many fine Shakespearian actors were cast in this film which were a great showcase for their talents. At times we lost track where in time we were or who was who in the secondary characters. History buffs of this period of time as well as Shakespearian aficionados will enjoy the storyline and dialog respectively. Rather than solve  the age old authorship conundrum, in the end this movie made an all out effort to entertain us with a fanciful dramatic well acted story.

****

Margin Call sp     Early in this movie, we see that a brilliant junior member of a Wall Street brokerage team has pieced together information that allows him to realize that derivatives that they had put together from which lots of money had been made for their firm have fallen apart. After taking the information to their bosses up the line, the head honcho has to make a decision whether to try to sell everything although they know it has little value. To execute this would mean that supervisors and brokers alike would have convince other brokers to buy what they had figured out was essentially “garbage”. This fairly succinct plot has captured the Wall Street debacle which involved a few brokerage houses, the results of  which we are still struggling with today. J.C. Chandor, whose father apparently had been a big time broker, pulled together the story and wrote the brilliant script. It was the strength of this story and the vision which Chandor had for the film which convinced Zachary Quinto who also acted in  the movie to sign on with his first time producing team to make the movie . The plot is really actor driven as the overwhelming majority of the film takes place in one floor of an office building with a good deal of talking. However, the actors obviously liked the opportunity that the script gave them as they couldn’t have signed on for the money. The total budget to make this independent film was about 3 million dollars and it was done in 17 days facilitated by the use of digital photography and the “Red Camera.”.  J.C. Chandler executed his story quite well in his first feature film. The all star cast who joined him consisted of  Kevin Spacey, Paul Betany, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgley , Simon Baker, Stanley Tucci and Demi Moore. The photography, lighting and the subtle musical score complements the undercurrent of the story. You may not understand some of the financial issues which brought about the crisis but the ethical and personal decisions  that emerged were crystal clear and makes for a riveting movie.  (2011)

***

Contagion-rm  Shortly before we saw this movie we had our yearly flu vaccine. The news of  today happens to be reporting that cantaloupe from Colorado infected with deadly bacteria already have killed 10 people. We know about the SARS epidemic almost 10 years ago that killed almost 1000 people worldwide before being controlled. Certainly we are still in the midst of the AIDS epidemic that has killed many millions of people although our knowledge about this disease and our ability to offer limited treatment has allowed some control over it  (although there is still not a proven vaccine).  So many of us come to Contagion with a mindset that everything that we see in this movie could really happen including the deaths of millions of people. Director Steven Soderbergh depicts the events from different parts of the world as well as the activities inside the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta in a most realistic manner. This almost could have been a documentary film. Perhaps after we have something similar really happen in the future, people will look back on this movie and say they really nailed it . So we certainly  can’t put this movie in the science fiction category. If it isn’t a doc and it isn’t  sci-fi,  it must be a  drama without really much romance or mystery (they know they have  a disease and have to make the vaccine- no real mystery). Despite very fine performances by Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishburne, Kate Winslow and Gwyneth Paltrow, we found we didn’t really care very much about the characters. They were more or less stereotyped or perhaps  “cardboard” without any real dimensions to them. Perhaps that was the idea. They could be everyman or women who lives their lives and then gets a terrible infectious disease or are threatened with getting it. We saw people do desperate things to get the vaccine or food and supplies when they weren’t available but we didn’t really see anyone struggle with any ethical dilemmas. Elliot Gould has a brief appearance in the film as a scientist who was making some breakthrough research and then he was shut down because he wasn’t part of the elite CDC team and we never hear from him again!  Not everyone who may see this movie knows about the potential of infectious disease lurking around the corner that might not be controlled by “the authorities” Others who know better sometimes use a denial mechanism to avoid thinking about the dire possibilities. A movie such as this one might offer a big scare to such folks and who will then feel much better when it is over and they are safe as the walk out of the theater (for now). Perhaps this should be in the “ horror/thriller” genre, which often makes a great movie experience for many people. So if this seems right for you, go for it. (2011)

****

Moneyball- rm  A major movie which deals with the complexities of baseball stands a good chance of capturing a big piece of the American pie. When you add a star such as Brad Pitt you have the recipe for a perfect dessert. However, this film which emerges on the scene as major league baseball is gearing for the playoff season, deals with more than just our national pastime. It is a metaphor for the problems facing so many businesses today as they realize that in order to win in today’s competitive world, you have to be more than the biggest guy around with most bucks. You have to be smart, understand modern technology and be creative. That is exactly what Billy Beane, General Manager of the Oakland Athletics and his trustworthy Assistant Manager and computer nerd, Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill)  set out to prove when he realized that the meager salary cap that his owner gave him for his team couldn’t hold a candle to the one that the  New York Yankees had available to them. Baseball fans, most of whom understand the fine points of the game will appreciate the logic of the idea that three guys who all together get on base as often as the big gun who makes several times all their salaries combined might be better value to draft or hold on the team. This thesis based on real events is played out with drama, humor and much realism assisted by very realistic actors playing baseball, real baseball video clips and the voices of real baseball announcers. Brad Pitt infuses into Billy Beane the determination, inner confidence and likeability that holds the attention of the audience. We shouldn’t forget a very strong  (as usual) supporting role played by Phllip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe, the A’s manager. The movie is directed by Bennett Miller and the screenplay co-written by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, the latter being  well known for producing riveting dialog which also characterized this production.  (2011)