Reviews by Hubie Goode: Thor

THOR


Genre: Drama, Action & Adventure, Science Fiction & Fantasy
Synopsis: The epic adventure THOR spans the Marvel Universe from present day Earth to the mystical realm of Asgard. At the center of the story is The Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. 
Rated: PG-13
Running Time: 1 hr. 55 min.
Distributor:Paramount Pictures
Directed By: Kenneth Branagh
Written By: Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne




Chris Hemsworth  • Thor
Tom Hiddleston  • Loki 
Natalie Portman • Jane Foster
Anthony Hopkins  • Odin 
Stellan Skarsgård • Professor Andrews 
Jaimie Alexander • Sif 
Colm Feore • Laufey
Joshua Dallas • Fandral 
Ray Stevenson  • Volstagg
Tadanobu Asano • Hogun 
Idris Elba • Heimdall
Kat Dennings • Darcy 
Clark Gregg • Agent Coulson
Rene Russo • Frigga 
Adriana Barraza • Isabela Alvarez
Maximiliano Hernandez • Agent Sitwell 
Richard Cetrone • Frost Giant Captain

A movie Walter Mitty would have loved. Shakespearean drama trades back and forth with pedestrian modern day Earth “soap style” theatrics. Although I was glad to see the creation of Asgaard high in the heavens, due to the early trailers not including much else besides a look at Natalie Portman, I did wish that the movie did a little more of something on at least one side of the universe. Because there are two stories, we only get a sort of “fill in” from both camps. We don’t really know astrophysicist (one time nurse) Jane Foster any more than we do Anthony Hopkin’s Odin the all father. We just know what they do and what they don’t do. I suppose that this is mainly to time constraints on both sides. But that sort of thing is typical of what goes on here writing wise. Thor’s not stupid, he’s a battle tested veteran and knows his way around hand to hand combat, with frost giants and also Navy SEALS. But if you ask him how he knows Shield Agent Colson is an ally protecting the innocent general public, or even how Jane Foster, an astrophysicist who studies space phenomenon, (and she isn’t something like a missionary who is saving starving children in Africa); manages to imbue him with mature altruism, I doubt that Thor himself could tell you. Certainly the story doesn’t. But those explanations will have to float off into comic movie oblivion as they are the only real complaints I have for this rip roaring block buster.     

Chris Helmsworth is well worth the ticket for a Thor public and fits the role nicely, he’s big enough, buff enough and has a certain charm I know the ladies who go for the Norwegian blonde type will just love. His brother Loki, played by Tom Hiddleson to great effect, vies with Thor despite himself for his father’s approval. Hiddleson gives us subtle shades of Loki I had never seen in the comic book as we see his inner struggle between himself, and the life he has grown up with. That is to say, he has become disillusioned by his place in life, and can’t quite decide what is more important; the status quo or his own shocked resentment. A nice change from cackling super villains. 

Anthony Hopkins plays father Odin, as only HE can, and we believe in Odin’s character, we just never really get to know him. A real shame. Odin casts Thor out of the Kingdom and down to Earth for his impetuousness, though he seems not to know the why and where that Thor got the “bee in his bonnet” in the first place that brings him to his actions. Curious, because supposedly Odin can see all things. Ah, well. 

Portman’s Jane Foster would have made more sense to me in her effects on Thor had they left her as a nurse as she is in the comics, or if as I have said, she was a missionary who broke Thor’s heart with her self sacrificing work for those who can’t help themselves. Ooo! Boy would that have killed! But instead she is a scientist, who no doubt, from the way things work out, will team up with Tony Stark in the future for the next chapter in considerations of Thor’s place in the grand scheme of Marvel movie directives. She only lacks funding and the science magic of Stark himself. Portman is everywhere today, and one thing she is definitely doing is leaving a legacy of malleability only rivaled by Johnny Depp. Unlike say, William Shatner or Tony Randal, you never see her the same way twice. That’s accomplishment! 

Other secondary characters who make a splash are, Jaimie Alexander as the female warrior,  Sif who is actually Thor’s lady love in the comics. (One classic comic story is where Thor must save Sif from Dracula, natch!) Alexander is great and really looks the part of the character, though she is NOT part of the team other than here in this movie. Idris Elba as Heimdall the protector of the rainbow bridge,  is also chillingly effective and commanding, even in his secondary role.   

Others have said they didn’t like the computer generation of Asgaard, but I can’t agree. Other worlds in other dimensions of space have never been so amazingly rendered. For me, it was money well spent, and I loved the care and detail and sweeping majesty of the kingdom. I also loved the traveling through the vastness of space, which no one from Asgaard or the Frost Giant realm seem at all in awe of. The power that Thor wields, just in the ability to transverse worlds, puts him in a league all his own. I would say that the Hulk has his hands full in tussling with Thor, and remember, the Hulk was throwing around automobiles like frisbees in his last outing.  

Thor is a funny movie at times in the populist predictability of movie making these days, and the fact that a Simpson’s writer is involved added lots of familiar touch to the comedic moments. It does however, undercut the potential serious drama that could have made the movie a real gut checker, being about disgrace, justice and redemption; especially if it had been coupled with a missionary female lead.   

Thor’s fight scenes are truly great stuff, that hammer of his makes wimps of some of the most potentially horrific monsters and enemies that we have come to see in modern movies. But for Thor, he hardly flinches in the face of something like the “Cracken” from another movie. The fact that Loki proves to be a physical if not a tactical match for Thor, is portentous for the upcoming Avengers movie, of which Loki is one of the main bad guys, so I have heard. But Thor need not worry, with the likes of Iron Man, Captain America and the Hulk backing him up, Loki will have his hands full. It’s the Avengers movie itself that may overheat and explode all over the audience if not handled properly. It will take special care to pull off so many ridiculous improbabilities in one movie.

Good stuff here folks. It’s hard to make it a 4 of 5, because it seems so presentational, so I give it 3.5 out of 5. But on a personal level, I liked it better than that. 

3.5/5 stars - oh what the hell, go see it. 

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Rio

Rio

Synopsis: From the makers of the hit ICE AGE series comes RIO, a comedy adventure about taking a walk on the wild side. Blu is a domesticated Macaw who never learned to fly, living a comfortable life with his owner and best friend Linda.

Rated: G 

Running Time: 1 hr. 36 min.

Distributor:20th Century Fox

Directed By: Carlos Saldanha

Cast

• Jesse Eisenberg     Blu
• Anne Hathaway     Jewel
• will.i.am              Pedro
• Jamie Foxx           Nico
• Tracy Morgan        Luiz
• George Lopez       Raphael
• Jemaine Clement  Nigel
• Leslie Mann           Linda
• Jake T. Austin       Fernando
• Jane Lynch           Alice
• Wanda Sykes        Chloe
• Davi Vieira           Armando
• Carlos Ponce         Marcel
• Karen Disher         Mother Bird

Blue Sky studio just won’t let us forget Ice Age from almost ten years ago, as this movie, also by the same studio, has a small cartoon ahead of it with the prehistoric squirrel still chasing the acorn. Rio, directed by Carlos Saldanha, who hails from Brazil, has given us a lively and color blasted film that returns the director to his own homeland.  

Much as I loved Rango for its edginess, and downright subversive tone that it shared with the audience, I expected, based upon the trailers for Rio, a better picture from between these two. Not so, unfortunately, fun and imaginative as it is, Rio is forever beholding to dozens and dozens of other movies that have come before it. Though I suppose the idea here is that small fry who have not lived that long or seen that many movies will never know the difference.   

Rio is a blue macaw named Blu, who in a bizarre turn of events, is whisked away from his homeland as a newborn and raised in frigid Minnesota by a loving human named Linda (Leslie Mann), who is a nerdy type that runs a bookstore. Then a Brazilian naturalist turns up and explains that Blu is holding the future of his kind within his person and if they don’t return him to his native turf for some slap and tickle with the lone surviving female Blue Macaw of his species, he’ll be the death of the macaw nation. Things only get more and more “Lion King” from there.

There’s a fat bulldog, who could be a hedge hog, a jiving bird who could be a meercat, evil monkeys that could be hyenas and an evil older bird who could be Scar the lion. But let’s not forget the young male character lost in the wilderness by himself who happens upon the “empowered” female character. Dozens of “fat boy/dumb guy and hot chick” sitcoms couldn’t have done it better. But what do kids care, right?

There is of course lots of great high profile voice work from a multicultural standpoint and that’s a fine thing, as the world is really full of all sorts of people, not just movie executives and those who remind them of themselves. (Jamie Foxx, will.i.am, George Lopez) but they all do a great job, as does Anne Hathaway (who gets to do her 99 from Get Smart routine) as Blu’s female counterpart, Jewel.

Rio is great for the kiddies, as they will have a great time following the multicolored pallet and the mix of Brazilian and rap style music, which sometimes works and then other times misses the mark completely. But, parents won’t have anything to worry about if grandma takes the little ones to this movie, it doesn’t even go as far as it could have for the tear jerker scenes.

3/5 stars because it’s just beautiful to look at

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Rango

Rango

Rango/Lars • Johnny Depp

Beans • Isla Fisher

Priscilla • Abigail Breslin

Mayor • Ned Beatty

Roadkill • Alfred Molina

Jake • Bill Nighy

Doc/Merrimack• Stephen Root

Balthazar • Harry Dean Stanton

Bad Bill• Ray Winstone

Paramount Pictures presents a film directed by Gore Verbinski. Written by John Logan. Running time: 107 minutes. Rated PG (for rude humor, language, action and smoking).

Is Johnny Depp quietly becoming the “go to” guy in Hollywood? Does anyone see what this talented actor has been doing in a wide variety of movies? Face it, if a producer wants and actor who can disappear into a character, Depp has to be your first choice. If you doubt that, just take a look at last year’s Alice in Wonderland and now this year’s Rango.

I wasn’t going to catch Rango, instead I was going to wait for the upcoming Rio instead. Someone recommended Rango to me however, so on a double bill day, I made Rango the second half of my movie day, and boy am I glad I did! Rango is smart, snarky, satirical and in tune with the audience, always keeping tongue in cheek and one eye looking at the audience sideways. They don’t take it seriously and they know you won’t either.   

You’ve seen all of this before, but not all in the same place. I wondered just how close to Blazing Saddles this movie would be, due to its overused premise, and was greatly surprised to see that even the producers admit the comparisons. But then there are lots of scenes from other movies here, and because it is handled with such top flight comedy one finds that the “copycatting” is easy to forgive.

Rango is a lizard, more specifically a chameleon. He dreams of being an actor and in a sudden change of fate he is thrust into a journey of self discovery and testing that will either end in his reaffirmation or his death. And if you believe his commentators, a mariachi band of owls, you had better measure him for the pine box. 

Rango  trips into a town in the desert that is dry on water and threatened by several types of villains. Being an actor, he chooses to play the role of his life, only to find that it’s easier to pull off an attempt at subterfuge and chicanery when perhaps one is an avatar on the internet in a chat room rather than being in person live with sentient beings like himself.  

There are many other characters here in this desert town, many of which are modeled and “faced” by some old school western archetypes we’ve all seen in movies and TV shows before. I swear I saw Irene Ryan, Granny from the Beverly Hillbillies, and several other faces, many of which are probably modeled after many old west movie actors who may or may not still be with us. But it’s clever, and a loving homage to the actors who have come and gone and those who made westerns what they are in the place of American movie history.   

Rango impresses the town by clumsily disabling an impressively smart hawk (one who understands how to operate a vending machine no less) who has Rango targeted for dinner. The Mayor makes him the latest sheriff and sets him up, though he does not realize this, as a fall guy. Fortunately, Rango is no "Gomer", and he smells a rat before things get too underway. As a result, there are scenes of posse chases in the canyons, high noon face offs, and heroines whose land the government wants. There are also dream scapes, and Salvador Dali like backdrops.   

This was truly one of the great animated movies I have ever seen, and if you miss it, you will be worse off. Not only that, but it scores as a comedy which has writers who kept on going with the humor right up till the end. Not something one usually sees in a comedy, where most have all the comedy writing in the first twenty minuets, and then it becomes a nice story. The last comedy I saw like that was Taledega Nights. Run, don’t walk! (and your kids can come too)

4.5/5 Stars

You’ll Thank me.

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Sucker Punch

Sucker Punch

Genre: Action & Adventure, 

Mystery & Suspense, Science Fiction & Fantasy

Synopsis: “Sucker Punch” is an epic action fantasy that takes us into the vivid imagination of a young girl whose dream world provides the ultimate escape from her darker reality. Unrestrained by the boundaries of time and place, she is free to go where her mind takes her, and her incredible adventures blur the lines between what’s real and what is imaginary. She has been locked away against her will, but Babydoll (Emily Browning) has not lost her will to survive. Determined to fight for her freedom, she urges four other young girls-the reluctant Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), the outspoken Rocket (Jena Malone), the street-smart Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and the fiercely loyal Amber (Jamie Chung)-to band together and try to escape a terrible fate at the hands of their captors, Blue (Oscar Isaac) and Madam Gorski (Carla Gugino), before the mysterious High Roller (Jon Hamm) comes for Babydoll. Led by Babydoll, the girls engage in fantastical warfare against everything from samurais to serpents, with a virtual arsenal at their disposal. Together, they must decide what they are willing to sacrifice in order to stay alive. But with the help of a Wise Man (Scott Glenn), their unbelievable journey-if they succeed-will set them free.. -- (C) Warner Bros More

Rated: PG-13 – See Full Rating for thematic material involving sexuality, violence and combat sequences, and for language

Directed & Written By: Zack Snyder

  Emily Browning • Babydoll
  Abbie Cornish • Sweet Pea
  Jena Malone • Rocket
  Vanessa Hudgens • Blondie

  Jamie Chung • Amber

Ridiculous. Absurd. Exploitative. Sexist. 

Existentialist. Corrupt. Slimy. Sophomoric.

For the “women in peril” crowd only. Teenage boys who play video games will also love it. Unfortunately, in the middle of the day during the week, the theater I was in had too many older men, sitting alone in various seats around the movie plex watching this one. What have we come to?

Frank Miller’s look and feel of 300, and the stylized camera work of Watchmen are mixed with an art palette that is a bit too reminiscent of a salad left out on the counter too long. All the comic book conventions are in full display here as towering demonic Asian adversaries take on school girls with samurai swords, who themselves cannot be injured, but the Amelikite enemies can be felled by a common sword. What? No light sabers? Of course, the heroine’s commando team also takes on Nazis as well as Ninjas, and also some dragons, one of which manages NOT to flood the crew’s airplane with a column of deadly fire when it could have easily done so and ended things right there.

It’s all rather ridiculous, and yet right up the “girls with guns” genre Quentin Tarantino is so fond of. Emily browning plays “Baby Doll” (not Baby Spice, but you could have fooled me, no musical numbers folks) who is wrongly committed to an insane asylum, so we are lead to believe, but then who really knows where the real truth lies in this hodge podge of an action movie steroided with video game conventions?

Wrongly accused of killing her own sister (we think) she bonds with a group of other inmates, all nubile and about to burst upon the world of full blown womanhood, eh hem. They plan to gain their freedom from the obviously puerile and corrupt keepers of their imprisonment.... at least we think so. The problem is that viewpoints are so slanted and one sided that it’s hard to know if the girl’s imagination is highly prejudiced in her interpretation of things that happen to her and the group.

She does, therefore escape into her imagination, where anything can happen and she can survive anything. She is about 5 foot 4 inches tall and her compatriots are not all that statuesque either, but she manages to ruthlessly kick butt anyway, even though the giant enemies often look dead already, and who can kill animated dead? Anyhow, the action sequences happen while the girl dances in real life for her “suitors” whom she is being trained to “pleasure” in what is kind of a strip club/Moulon Rouge from hell. Though there is never any sex that would bring an “R” rating, there is plenty of concentration on the sexuality and exploitation of women’s physical place and attributes that is a bit too “enjoyed” by the movie itself. I wouldn’t let my kid see this one based solely on that, and we’d talk about the subversive nature of this sort of thing in detail.

For cartoony action scenes, the choreography is well done, one can almost see the comic book panels and the usual contrivances coming from a mile away. “Girls with guns” action almost warrants bloodless scenes, since it would be distracting from the “rason de etre” of the whole narrative. You have to accept a lot of silly, impossible antics in the violence and it is only the walking dead or the dragon who get the worst of it. For action scenes themselves, the girls are no punching bags, and I was glad to see it, but they also survive a lot of things that require full fledge fantasy daydreaming to accept.

I will say one thing though about the performances, I felt that Miss Abbey Cornish, who plays Sweet  Pea, was a stand out, and deserved to be the superheroine of the movie. She has the height, look and feel of the position. Someone out there has to pick this up besides me.

The main bad guy, (Oscar Issac?) the keeper of the girls, also has a fine turn as a slimy villain who reminded me of real people I have known. He was downright great at being slimy and corrupt. Perhaps the best acting job of the whole cast.

Unfortunately, I was not all that impressed by the rampant existentialism used as philosophy in the movie, with its pretentious clap trap that is supposed to inject some type of philosophical meaning into the narrative. Complete hooey! But you know it sounds good, and is attractive in a way to the common person, despite its empty promises.  I suppose one could say this about Sucker Punch also, as a writer once said:

"Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Yep, it’s a 2.5/5. And only for the production values, if indeed it has any values at all.

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Tangled

“Tangled” 

PG
1 hr. 40 min.
Walt Disney Pictures
Written By: Jacob Grimm, 
Wilhelm Grimm, Dan Fogelman


Starring:
Mandy Moore 
(Rapunzel)
Zachary Levi 
(Flynn Rider) 
Donna Murphy 
(Mother Gothel)

Disney once again recognizes a mother load of marketing with yet another princess story. And yet, it’s one of the more effective ones they have ever done, so I suppose that princesses do have their place. Eh-hem. Like most of the better animated movies these days, there is a nice mix of action and romance that precludes the interest in any 3-D effects that, here in this installment, take a back seat and really do little more than cost you more to go to the movie theater. 

Taking huge liberties with the original story of Rapunzel, even to the point of naming the movie Tangled instead of Rapunzel for the marketing advantage, Rapunzel this time has science and psychology on her side. Both provide her with glowing, regenerative powered hair and also “Freudian” insight. Rapunzel is of course kidnapped by the evil old woman who wants to be young forever by using the magic of Rapunzel’s hair to maintain a “Dorian Gray” type existence of eternal youth by keeping the young girl trapped in their tower home. Rapunzel believes the old woman is her mother, and mom knows what is best for her, and of course since she is a good girl, she gives in to the direction of mom despite her own misgivings. Her misgivings are rightfully realized if you ask me. The old woman is concerned with keeping young forever despite the absence of any real reason to do so, and that is just one of the problems with the whole concept. Just ask yourself why Rapunzel herself gets any older at all, shouldn’t she always be an infant? At one point we are also shown how when Rapunzel’s hair gets cut off from the source (her head) that the hair turns brown, but the same thing happens later when  her whole head of hair turns brown after a bobbing. But hey, it’s just an old fairy tale turned into a cartoon right? Okay then.

Rapunzel has Freudian impulses that work on her subconscious and reveal themselves in the paintings she makes on the wall. She is strangely attracted to the lanterns that float towards the sky each year on her birthday, and she wishes on her 18th to go and see the lanterns in person. Later in the movie we are treated to a moment that would not have been seen in the original fairy tale in its own day, because of the social impact psychology has had on society, regardless of its true level of effectiveness on mankind. The scene is a sort of mental “domino effect” where random pieces of Rapunzel’s emotional memory all fall together and infuse her with a sort of confidence that only comes with epiphany moments. I liked the scene, and understood it experientially, but I don’t think movie goers would have seen this sort of thing if  movies were produced in the 1800’s. This is a totally modern paradigm.

With the help of “bad boy” Flynn, who while escaping the law stows away in the tower of Rapunzel’s captivity, she flees her ivory tower of protection, and then the psychology kicks in again as she goes bipolar with regret at being a bad daughter for disobeying mom and also feeling the elation of independent freedom. This is real enough I suppose, but its concentration is something more fit for modern audiences, and I do suppose they are indeed the movie going public now aren’t they? 

Flynn and Rapunzel prove mom was right about the dangers of the world as they meet some real threats out in the forest that lead to chases and “fun” conflict. Rapunzel gets to use her hair like Spider Man uses webs (and Rudolf the Reindeer uses his nose) and this helps in some very conducive ways to move along the entertaining plot. She is also pretty deft with a frying pan, and may have invented a new style of battle in contrast to the sword and shield bearing soldiers and thugs that are met along the way. Frying pans: who knew?

In many ways, both in writing, visual production and acting direction, a Disney movie can be tough to beat. Having seen this movie on the same weekend as the competition, “The Chronicles of Narnia”, it was blatantly obvious just what modern audiences are more attuned to in the sense of what makes a superior entertainment experience, and I have to say, Disney really is “plugged in” to its market. Tangled has so much more of an accessible cache for a movie going public, that it will of course make more profit that its competitor, and Disney knows this. They have the better judgement on what will and what will not make a boat load of cash, and not by pandering, but by excellence and connectivity to the market.   

The 3-D effects are nice, but as I have said before, not really needed or reflective of the need  for a higher price. It is the performances and the writing, plus the lush animation that make Tangled a real value for the money. Donna Murphy is a real stand out in her performance as the evil “mother” and there should be some sort of performance award for her in the future from her fine work here. I was a bit let down by the secondary characters in the story, Viking thugs in a forest tavern being the biggest letdown. There really hasn’t been anything like secondary characters from classics like “The Jungle Book” in quite some time, and that’s a pity. (well, maybe Shrek) But they do serve their purpose, even though the movie uses them in some obviously comic ways. Is Rapunzel’s chameleon pet some type of reflection of Rapunzel’s state of mind, her future existence? Or is he a toy for girls to buy? Who knows? He does serve his Shakespearean dynamic by being the character Rapunzel can talk to and reveal her thoughts to the audience. So there.

This is great stuff, and should be seen with daughters of a certain age, but they may need to be straightened out on a few things about fantasy and reality being a bit too mixed. For their own good. Disney scores once again, and although it is not “The Lion King”, Tangled sure is close.


4/5 Stars 

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Waiting for Superman

Waiting for Superman

Featuring Geoffrey Canada, Michelle Rhee, Daisy Esparza, Bianca Hill, Anthony Black and Bill Strickland.

Written by Davis Guggenheim and Billy Kimball.
Running time: 102 minutes.
Rated PG (for mild language and images of incidental smoking).

Rated: PG [See Full Rating]
Runtime: 1 hr. 42 min.
Genre: Documentary, Special Interest
Theatrical Release: Sep 24, 2010 Limited
Box Office: $0.6M

Starring: Bianca-, Anthony-, Daisy-, Emily-, Francisco-, David-, Mike-, Eric-, Geoffrey-, Michelle-, Bill-, Randi-
Director: Davis Guggenheim
Studio: Paramount Vantage

Waiting for Superman is a scathing indictment of our nation’s school system and the resulting crime of waste that is created for the lives of our nation’s students. Toward the end of the movie there is a segment that shows a handful of students who are submitted to a lottery. This lottery will randomly choose whether or not they will be allowed to enter into one of the charter schools that are overrun with applications from students who are hoping for a way to get a better education than those who attend regular public schools. Only a few make it. Many do not, and their futures are seemingly written in stone.

We are introduced throughout the movie to five of these students who will all end up in the “game of chance” that is called: their future education. They are up against a mighty big wall at 20 to 1 odds, and if they are not picked, they return to their neighborhood schools and the 50% drop out rate that is pervasive there. But, here’s the thing: kids who go to schools like Kipp L.A. Prep or even Harlem Success Academy, will go further in their education and find more personal life satisfaction than the well to do kids from rich neighborhoods who have well supplied high school campuses.

Davis Guggenhiem, producer of this documentary, is very straight forward about the imminent failure of the American education system, a problem that has been eroding around us since the early 70’s. There is no candy coating or PC language to deliver the message of what he has revealed here. As an example: one of his animated charts shows that American kids are LAST in the world in mathematics skills, but they believe they are first. Another legacy to existentialist equivocation that has been a cancer to our education system since the early part of the 1900’s. At the same time, Silicon valley jobs go unfilled and must be “in sourced” from other countries because there are just not enough American kids who can handle the technology when they graduate, or even, sometime afterward. As Bill Gates says in a cameo, 92 out of 100 jobs in the future of America will involve some type of high tech, yet only 7 out of 100 kids from American schools will be able to fill those jobs. That’s way too many kids trying to fill blue collar and service work in the work force, and with the high rate of unemployment today... what can we expect in the future?

The focus is on educator Geoffrey Canada, who opened a school in Harlem, in the worst part of it, and filled it with qualified, enthusiastic teachers. He gave those teachers better pay and had an emphasis on college prep from day one for the students. Their success rate has proven phenomenal, and kids are lined up at the door to get in... as are their parents. No one here is concerned with tenure, the drag on the system that has created a circus of red tape and convolution that has as a result doomed our nations kids. Tenure makes it impossible to fire bad teachers, and the schools end up shuffling teachers around from school to school in hopes that one day things will be better. However, it is only a redundant exercise described by one school as the “lemon dance”. I get your lemons and you get mine, next year we do it all over again.

What we see here in the examples of charter schools that operate outside the system, is that quality education and motivation is possible for even the most disadvantaged students. The cost is also low, considering that most high school drop outs turn to crime for one reason or another. The cost of keeping a prisoner is about 33,000 dollars a year, and a student is about 3,500 dollars a year. Do the math as they both either sit around draining the economy for 12 years or else spending productive time in school. Money spent on prisoners is money that disappears down a black hole, and if we have a larger school failure rate than success rate, that black hole becomes ominous.

Those lotteries that randomly decide a child’s future prove one thing, most of the accepted students become successful in some productive way in our society, but half of those who do not make it will simply fail, or something else. Something perhaps more dreadful for both them and America’s future. America spends billions on the world’s biggest prison population, while at the same time filling up our school system with poor teachers who are also not paid all that much, all for the sake of the unions being able to vilify their positions. It has to be for self interest reasons, the kids are certainly not put first, and neither is America’s future.

One segment of this movie truly amazed me, as it presented a real life depiction of what an education crusader must go through when trying to put kids first, and also ultimately, America itself first. Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of Washington D. C. ‘s schools is shown in real life footage as she deals with improving on what is the nation’s poorest school performance, right there in our nation’s capitol. She goes about performing major studies on the problems of the school system and considering the probable answers to what seems to be an untenable situation. Unfortunately she is met with angry reprisals from both unions and also the PTA. Teachers were not too pleased with her either as she rounded up and fired a huge amount of poorly performing teachers and then closed their schools. The complaints, however, were not about kids not having a school, or kids not being able to get the education that is needed for America to keep up with the rest of the world. The complaints are about the adults, and how she is messing up their lives, and fighting with their ability and right to have a job. (A sit around all day and do nothing job)

Never mind the fact that many teachers are shown on camera reading newspapers while kids play craps in the back of the classroom. Where’s my safety net chancellor? How dare you! Now Michelle’s benefactor, the mayor of Washington, has lost his bid for re-election and his opponent sides with the unions and the inconvenienced teachers. Michelle’s work may all be for naught in the near future, and so will many future student’s work as well.

The movie does its best to entertain while leveling some mighty scary and heady facts and figures to the audience, and the bottom line message is hugely disappointing. You wont be able to ignore the problem for long if you are really concerned here, and that might be a good thing, for it may call many to action. Unfortunately, it may be too little to late for millions of kids.. and also for America as a whole.

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Flipped

Flipped

Rated: PG [See Full Rating] for language and some thematic material

Runtime: 1 hr. 30 min.

Genre: Romance, Drama, Comedy

Theatrical Release: Aug 6, 2010 Limited

Starring: Callan McAuliffe, Madeline Carroll, Aidan Quinn, Rebecca De Mornay, Penelope Ann Miller, Anthony Edwards, John Mahoney, Shane Harper

Director: Rob Reiner
Screenwriter: Rob Reiner , Andrew Scheinman
Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures

Back in my days of creative writing class the other students would look at me funny when I discounted the too often used device of writing human interest stories. But they are ubiquitous, and there is good reason for this. All the explosions and 3-D effects in the world are no match for well drawn characters with interesting personalities.

In Rob Reiner’s Flipped we get a sharp, professonially done look at the small world of two kids who live across the street from each other and the forces that move them as they grow up within their respective “family worlds” and the social world that they share.

Juli and Bryce are two extremely recognizable kids who start out as the boy crazy girl who has a thing for Bryce, and Bryce is the boy who embarrassingly hides behind his mother’s skirt to get away from Juli. Juli has a thing for Bryce’s eyes, no doubt recognizing in some hidden part of her brain a quality she knows to be familiar. Little does she as a child know that at birth her mind is a blank slate and the first thing her eyes will see on a regular basis will be her own mother’s eyes. With this dynamic in mind, who wouldn’t make intuitive connections about feeling love for anyone who’s eyes also carry that quality.

Bryce is somewhat more vanilla than Juli and finds her demonstrative and overt moves toward him to be incomprehensible and intrusive. He is a good kid though, and being non-violent and well mannered puts a lot of energy into finding ways to avoid his would be paramour. His own example of familiarity with Juli’s type are one generation removed in the qualities of his grandmother, who for the film has now passed away. But Bryce’s Grandfather recognizes Juli all too well, and in a bit of humanitarian indulgence honors Juli’s, and his lamented wife’s position on the world and its myriad of pleasures and crushing disappointments.

The story is told in the style of “The Wonder Years” with shifting points of view voiced over by both Bryce and Juli as they both explain their unique positions on events that they both experience during the flow of the overall narrative. We’re given inside views to their thoughts and motivations during events and shown how divergent and confused mere social contact can actually be, not that we really needed to know about this. In the meantime we learn things about Juli and her family and also Bryce and his family. We learn that Juli’s family is poor and have the worst kept house on the block. Bryce’s parents have many assumptions and opinions on why Juli’s family operates the way they do and unfortunately “bring down” the value of the neighborhood. Juli’s father is called a dreamer, a man who paints landscapes instead of taking care of the lawn. It isn’t until Grandpa breaks that “fourth wall” in his friendship with Juli that the bigger and more important issues come forward in all their prejudice correcting finality.

Bryce learns about Juli from the position of his own enforced exile, and as he sees her climbing an old sycamore tree to get a view of the sprawling majesty of surrounding nature, or caring for home grown chickens in her backyard or being charitable toward a boy in school who is ignored by everyone, he begins to find that perhaps he has been remiss to avoid her all these years. For Juli, her own maturity and development toward her own future “Norma Rae” personality, slowly comes to realize that perhaps her youthful judgments of Bryce have been all smoke and mirrors and, in her own words, “Bryce has never really been my friend”. She then turns her back on him. Bryce valiantly tries to save the day and fails in his own methods as he panics at the thought of having missed and wounded a girl who’s rivers run deep. He then draws on his genetic smarts and wisdom, manifested in his grandfather, and pulls a sweet “hail mary” move which hits Juli right where she lives.

This is a really sweet movie. Someone I know told me that if I went to see it, I’d be crapping rainbows. And yes, that is just what happened, but that’s not all that happened. It was a great pleasure to watch masterful directing and a well written script with a revelatory narrative. The actors are all amazingly up to the job, with one lone sour note (and I think this was just a poor choice of directive focus) among a wonderfully orchestrated story about humanity we can all identify with. Its great to see Hollywood green light something that isn’t just concerned with bringing in massive profits, but actually pays homage to what movies truly can be and what they do best.

You surely can go to see Rob Reiner’s film and not worry about being assaulted by the crude and hate filled language and attitudes of what mostly comes from the industry today. There is one nasty word which was a bit unneeded and also a scene in an ice ream shop that seemed overwrought and manipulative of the audience, but not to worry, nothing here remotely resembles the social deviant predilections of a Judd Apatow film.

Go see this film. Crap rainbows.

4/5 stars

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2

A Paramount release presented with Marvel Entertainment of a Marvel Studios production in association with Fairview Entertainment. Produced by Kevin Feige. Executive producers, Alan Fine, Stan Lee, David Maisel, Denis L. Stewart, Louis D’Esposito, Jon Favreau, Susan Downey. Co-producers, Jeremy Latcham, Victoria Alonso. Directed by Jon Favreau. Screenplay, Justin Theroux, based on the Marvel comicbook by Stan Lee, Don Heck, Larry Lieber, Jack Kirby.

Tony Stark - Robert Downey Jr.
Pepper Potts - Gwyneth Paltrow
Lt. Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes - Don Cheadle
Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff - Scarlett Johansson
Justin Hammer - Sam Rockwell
Ivan Vanko - Mickey Rourke
Nick Fury - Samuel L. Jackson
Agent Coulson - Clark Gregg
Howard Stark - John Slattery
Senator Stern - Garry Shandling

In 1968, the year that Marvel’s Iron Man finally got his own comic book, the US Department of Defense announced that some 24,000 troops would be sent back to Vietnam for involuntary second terms. In the Heat of the Night won 5 Oscars including best picture. The radio was filled with “Hey Jude” and “I Heard it Through the Grapevine”. TV had Star Trek, The Wild, Wild West and Mannix, all with those memorable theme songs.

There was also Underdog, who used to pop pills to become a superhero. Just say “No”, Underdog. “When Polly’s in trouble, I am not slow - it’s Hip, Hip, Hip and away I go!” Good o’l Wally Cox, such the antithesis of a hero, voiced the cartoon for something like 9 years of production. Amazing.

18 months later this little boy would pick up the latest Marvel production of their Hero “Iron Man”, with the latest issue numbered 18, from the original series. In this issue, Tony Stark battles something called a Life Model Decoy, which is essentially a drone of Iron Man with it’s own sentience. But he must battle the rogue Iron Man/Robot/Droid with his original gold Iron Man armor before his injured heart gives out and kills him. Old stories never die, they just come back for a new audience. That’s not to say that Iron Man 2 is the exact same story, because it isn’t. But the new, intricate and stuffed full story of the new movie does try to do what few could imagine.

It does try to give an outline of all those years I read the book from the seventies, through the eighties and then a bit into the nineties, all in the span of 2 hours and 5 minutes. Quite the feat considering that it’s initial time is only one minute shorter than it’s superior predecessor. This movie isn’t the pleasing ride that the first one was, mainly due to the fact that like all sequels; Spider Man 3, Superman 3 and a few others of the like, it tries to tell too many stories. This makes the whole exercise a bit more unevenly paced and down right jolting to watch.

It has a rote type narrative in too many places where it simply goes from one surface story line to the next without any internal development of those stories. The action scenes are top notch, especially that first one where Tony Stark has to face the bad guy without his armor, but they get a bit “video game” mind numbing after wards and when we get back to actual characterization and humanity coming from the actors present, it’s like a cold glass of water in the face.

Our first Iron Man movie had a single story that it developed with wit and visual flair that drew in the audience and made you want to see the next step in the narrative. This time however, we have to wait through too many beginning steps of minor plot lines that only marginally develop the overall story line.

The real story here is Stark and his father Howard Stark, and their past relationship with a Russian scientist named Vanko, whose son has been raised to believe his father was destroyed by the elder Stark, who then went on to fame and riches. This is the story that is the real meat of this movie and would have benefited from being much, much more detailed instead of being short shrifted by all the other plot lines surrounding it.

I understand that several of the actors have since complained about the grueling production practices of the director and writers on this film who wrote and re-wrote as the movie was being made. And you know what? It shows.

The one scene that really illustrates the better story line is one where Tony is watching an old Super 8 reel to reel movie of his father, now long deceased, who rambles on and on about the possibilities of technology for the future to some unseen audience. Then after the film ends, it abruptly starts again and Howard Stark turns and addresses Tony as an adult, not in fantasy, but in the pre-planned fashion of a seer. This was very nicely done and it’s something I don’t think I have ever seen quite done in this way, very inspired. Should have been a lot more of this.

The action is top flight and furious as Tony Stark and James Rhodes, now War Machine, go through a buddy tiff that took the comics something like 8 years to develop, and then they come back together to battle an army of Iron drones and the return of Vanko’s son as the suped up Crimson Dynamo/Whiplash. This is great stuff that Superman, Batman and Spiderman never had the chance to do, but merely because it isn’t their milieu.

I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr.’s performance once again as Tony Stark, but he isn’t able to have enough camera time this time around and we only really get fleeting shots of him doing his version of Matthew Perry’s "Chandler" from Friends. Guest cameos abound also and the overflowing cast all get their 13 1/2 minuets of fame to do what they do quite well. Scarlett Johansson is especially well received as the Black Widow and received applause from the audience for her performance. I agreed with them whole heartedly. Still, all writing problems aside, the movie is top notch and should be a big block buster once again.

Just keep one thing in mind. You can only discover new elements. Creating them is for a higher power.

4/5 stars

Anybody remember those guys ------>

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Date Night

Date Night


Phil Foster Steve Carell
Claire Foster Tina Fey
Taste James Franco
Holbrook Mark Wahlberg
Whippit Mila Kunis
Mob boss Ray Liotta

20th Century Fox presents a film directed by Shawn Levy. Screenplay by Josh Klausner. Running time: 88 minutes. MPAA rating: PG-13 for sexual and crude content throughout, language, some violence and a drug reference.

Steve Carell of “The Office” and Tina Fey of “30 Rock”, two current big time sitcoms producing under the mantel of NBC Universal, play Mr. and Mrs. “ordinary joe” in a movie from yesterday called Date Night. In this movie they are Phil Foster and Claire Foster respectively, who find reafirmation of their married love while being mistakenly placed in the gun sights of bad guys who mean to do them harm. In the meantime they run, they scramble, they survive by their wits and enviable luck in order to survive, oh and, they also visit a strip club.

They start out as many do, after the bloom has worn off the “romance rose”. They have kids and jobs and the myriad of daily tasks that involve the married life which are never alluded to in classical romantic literature about love. As a response they find a way to have a date night just for themselves, some time together, the impetus for their marriage in the first place which has become muddied amongst the inevitabilities of what comes after the honeymoon. Carell and Fey play the regular guys in a very “by the numbers way”, and that’s a good thing.

They do show a few signs of their sitcom personas here and there but for the most part we do find them to be other people than those we see on TV. This is nice since it lends more of an air of the believable and relatable for the audience to enjoy. So much so, in fact, that when they finally do get to go out, we are behind them all the way.

They attempt to “coup” a reservation in a hard to get into restaurant for the evening, an attempt to break the bonds of the mundane, and in so doing are mistaken for people better left in hiding by some knarly hit men. Phil and Claire are suddenly thrown into dire moments of distress and living on the edge that they had never bargained for, and the tension goes a long way to make the mostly tepid comedy work.

Comedians know how this works, the character can never know that the situation is comedic, they must be all frustration and panic while we laugh at the ridiculous situation. Just look up Chris Farley’s Japanese Game Show skit on YouTube for a prime example of this.

No need to worry about over the top silliness here, say as “It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” might have done. There isn’t a lot of korn and two dimensionality in character or plot. The movie stays true to itself and doesn’t wink in your direction or make light of itself. The screen play takes itself as realistically and straightforwardly as it possibly can without losing the title of “comedy movie”. And for the audience this works just fine. We are, after all, all adults here. (I hope!)

Surprisingly, the movie is indeed involving, and this is due a lot to the performances of its stars as the couple next door. Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances rarely get a chance to survive these sorts of mad cap type adventures. If you are with a wife or girlfriend who has been around for a while, the vicarious dive into “James Bond” style territory will be a nice visit for you both.

After the movie, when no one was looking, I poked my head into the theater next door at the multiplex and stayed around for the movie “The Bounty Hunter”. In this movie Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston are a divorced couple who find reafirmation of their love while being placed in the gun sights of bad guys who mean to do them harm. In the meantime they run, they scramble, they survive by their wits and enviable luck in order to survive, oh and, they also visit a strip club.

But you already know that story now.

If you have any doubts as to whether or not spending money in a strip club invests in the criminal element of our society, just ask Hollywood, they seem quite convinced of the answer.

3.5 out of 5 stars

Reviews by Hubie Goode: Alice in Wonderland

Alice in Wonderland

Mad Hatter Johnny Depp
Alice Mia Wasikowska
Red Queen Helena Bonham Carter
White Queen Anne Hathaway
Knave Crispin Glover

And the voices of:
Caterpillar Alan Rickman
Cheshire Cat Stephen Fry
White Rabbit Michael Sheen
Bayard Timothy Spall
Jabberwocky Christopher Lee

Disney presents a film directed by Tim Burton. Written by Linda Woolverton, based on the books Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll. Running time: 108 minutes. Rated PG (for fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and a smoking caterpillar).

This is the kind of movie that makes me sit in the theater and think of other things besides what is happening on the screen. I think about the countless hours that college kids spend in various classes around the world, whether they be writers, costume designers, directors or whatever you may have to achieve college degree wise to be accepted into the industry at some level in order to end up producing works such as Alice in Wonderland. I imagine those job hunts, those rejections, those striving days and hours of work and practice that they all go through. The “hoops”, if you will, that they all must jump through in order to be accepted at the studio production level.

Now, independent film doesn’t suffer as much from the problem of studio “suits” as does the big studio movie. They get to be odd and interesting on a different level because the mass audience is not the primary focus of the draw or reach of the movie itself. This opens many doors for introspective creativity as you rarely see in mass produced big budget movies. It’s an unfortunate fact that the 80-20 rule plays more of a role in major studio releases than smaller more intimate films. That is, students learn about 80% of what it takes to be an integral part of what it takes to make a film but only really get to use about 20% of what they have learned. (Oh, but they DO pay for 100% of their student loans.)

Alice in Wonderland’s studio mass produced restrictions play out for all to see in glorious 3-D beauty. Having done a little reading on the production, I was tipped off to notice certain things about the costume design and such that your average moviegoer probably won’t realize. For instance, the Red Queen has little gold hearts on her costume that are made from the cheapest materials you can find. This is so the “tin foil” look reveals her character which is somewhat of a “white trash” type construction. (Really??) Anyone out there notice that? Also, the Mad Hatter’s hat was researched and constructed of some old style “Roman” era leather that had been treated with flame in order to gain a certain type of quality. (Is that right?)

Well, I can certainly understand that someone who loves costume design like Ms. Atwood would never question the lengths and breaths to which she reaches to make her art meaningful and resident. I am quite sure from the incredible job she has done here that she loves her work. The down side is that her efforts are couched inside of the inexorable studio executive board meeting control methods which are mostly concerned with the bottom line that the picture will produce. And that, for any artist, is a crying shame.

Board meeting members are, of course, beholding to the stock holders and innovation is something for street performers and fine art students who have a degree but pour coffee at Starbucks for a living. Alice in Wonderland suffers from serving up more of the same thing to its audience, and it is quite annoying. Beautiful to see, but mostly a story line you have, once again, seen before. I have truly seen comic book epics that had more of an intellectual creativity to their inner scripting, but then again, they are not afraid of missing the larger audience.

I have recently read two books on writing, one called “The 7 Basic Plot Lines” and the other, the “The 20 Common Stories”, and I do understand that the commonness of stories is not totally the fault of Hollywood executives. Some stories work, they always have and they always will. Why not cash in on that? Movie making is of course always first and foremost a business. But why, I ask you, does every adventure story have to have a final fight scene?

Alice is placed in full body armor and must fight the terrible dragon with her “excaliber” type sword in order to set things right in the kingdom. I won’t tell you what happens, since you can imagine it anyway. I have no problem with “empowered” Alice. “Progressive” Alice. But why not show us clever Alice instead of swashbuckling Alice who goes from kept waif to Wonderland Woman in the span of a short period of time? Try this. All movie Alice has been shrinking and growing by taking the potions provided her by the denizens of Wonderland. She keeps a little bottle of it in her dress pocket. The fierce dragon attacks, Alice tosses the shrinking potion into the dragon’s mouth, he shrinks to three inches. Alice grabs the cigarette out of the hand of the blue caterpillar and lights it with her new “bic lighter”, she then turns to the Red Queen and says, “What else you got?”

Yeah Baby!

I’m joking of course, but it would have been an unexpected twist that played right into the script which had Alice shrinking and trying to find her own way in the world, telling herself and others around her that she wanted to find a way to do things by her own directives. Having the character step out of the usual Hollywood and storytelling conventions would have been just the ticket considering the young woman she ends up becoming in the epilogue.

As for Alice herself, actress Mia Wasikowska plays her well, with just enough gravity, and she is easy on the eyes also. What is strange is that she actually looks like a different person when the movie begins and then has a strange dimensional shift in her features when she enters Wonderland, this effect never changes. It’s an interesting dynamic and I can’t say if it was on purpose or just a matter of lensing and lighting. She does provide one with a character that you won’t mind spending a few hours with though. Alice is likable, and not obnoxious in her desire to be freed from the conventional constraints of her society. The problem for her in the future is, however, that she will always have to conform to something somewhere. That’s just the way the world works.

Johnny Depp is, of course, totally enveloped by the Mad Hatter he plays. You never see HIM, and it’s quite the amazing transformation. Makeup helps, but the real acting here is what makes the fantasy of this fictional character come alive. Somehow though, the Hatter is not truly a MAD hatter, he is just goofy. He can do magic with a tea pot, but sits in the jail cell of the Red Queen with depressing resignation. He is afraid of the Knave of Hearts and his card player soldiers but also has no problem wielding a sword in the final great fight scene. In my estimation those sort of conventions make the Hatter a little boring as a character. Why not have him counting the strands of sawdust on the cell room floor, giggling to himself in abandon? Why not have the sword in the battle do the fighting for him, floating in mid air? He’s the “Mad Hatter” after all!

Helena Bonham Carter plays her Red Queen with interesting dimension though, and actually reveals a little vulnerability in her villain that was a bit unexpected. That was a nice thing to see. How often do you see that nasty Queen in these types of stories, being impish and flashing her eyes at the men in the story. Her CGI and makeup are a thing to behold and I can’t see as a whole the production credits not being given their due awards. Top flight performances to all involved to be sure.

My favorite thing in the whole production, however, was the incredible Cheshire cat. I could have seen a whole movie just based on this innovation. Completely CGI and voiced by actor Stephen Fry, the cat brought the true magic of the Wonderland experience to a new dimension. Seeing him appear and disappear in a puff of smoke with just a hint of larceny in his delivery was great stuff! If only he had been more of a “Yoda” or “Jimminy Cricket” for Alice, he could have been more than just a side line attraction. He also performs a magical rescue that makes giant skips in logic according to the movie’s set of rules, but I would not have minded more of that. Perhaps Wonderland could have been less mundane and more Wonderful as the Cheshire cat was, and that would have made the whole production teeter on the edge of the fantastic. Ah well, the road not taken.

Overall, a nicely done production, but it could have had a more innovative story especially considering the subject matter. Adhering a little too closely to the “nice” tone of Lewis Carroll’s original may have hamstrung a deeper experience the movie could have reached. Starting out that way is fine, for Alice herself starts out that way, but if she had changed and the movie itself had progressed along with her, I’d be sitting here telling you to go see it now! As it is, the whole production is a 3 out of 5 stars, and a nice outing for parents and their kids. There is nothing remotely offensive here, unless you consider the insistence on individuality at the expense of “what has been foretold” to be a rebellion preaching. If so, you might have a problem, but what do you expect from a populist industry?

3 of 5 stars (Don’t pay for the 3-D, you can’t let your head turn sideways or you lose the effect anyway)