Category: Reviews

  • Race to see ‘Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby’

    Race to see ‘Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby’

    Will Farrell and John C. Reilly in ‘Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby’

    There is no arguing the vast fan appeal of NASCAR. It is a multi-billion dollar business that attracts dozens of sponsors, millions of fans and has little boys and girls all over the U.S. (mostly the South if you want to buy into the stereotype, which I do not) dreaming of growing up to become racecar drivers. NASCAR is a subject that Hollywood has examined in serious films, such as Days of Thunder, Driven and of course 43: The Richard Petty Story. There is also the comedy Stroker Ace set in a NASCAR world and Six Pack, which while actually about stock-car racing, is closely related.

    Now NASCAR is the backdrop for Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, starring Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Sacha Baron Cohen, Michael Clarke Duncan and Leslie Bibb, directed by Adam McKay, from a screenplay by Ferrell and McKay, and it is much funnier than expected in spite of being a virtual orgy of product placement. Then again, given the amount of advertisements present at any NASCAR event, heavy product placement should have been anticipated and expected, as fitting the theme of this film.

    Ferrell is “Ricky Bobby”, son of “Reese Bobby” (Gary Cole) and from the moment of his birth all he wanted to do was “go fast”. After a troubled childhood, he gets his chance when he and his best friend “Cal Naughton” (Reilly) are working as part of the pit crew for a losing race team whose driver is so far behind in one race that he decided to take a longer than usual pit stop. To avoid losing their sponsor, Ricky Bobby gets behind the wheel of the team’s car and speeds onto the track.

    Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen in ‘Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby’

    Soon he is winning every race in sight, living up to his father’s motto of “You’re either first or you’re last,” has married a blonde racecar driver groupie (Bibb) and is living the NASCAR dream in a huge mansion with his wife and their two kids. His best friend is driving his team’s second car and Bobby has millions in winnings. Oh, there are minor bumps in his road, like Cal wanting him to let him win just one race someday. Ricky Bobby makes it clear that there is only room for one Number #1 and that’s Ricky Bobby.

    Then the French Grand Prix driving champion “Jean Girard” (Cohen) arrives on the scene, making a very splashy entrance,   He announces that it is his intention to knock Ricky Bobby out of his #1 perch. In their first head-to-head race there is an accident and the scene you’ve most likely viewed in the trailer where Ricky Bobby, clad only in helmet, shoes and briefs runs around the track praying for deliverance from the imaginary flames.

    He has lost his edge and quickly loses everything else in short order. Gone are his wife, who leaves him with the two bratty sons and without any money (where was the smart lawyer with the pre-nup?) and he ends up going home to his mother (Jane Lynch). Fortunately, Mama knows best and sets him back on the straight and narrow by calling in his once again long-lost father.  Reese Bobby tells him that in order to become a winning driver again, he will have to confront his fear and helps him to do so.

    A more cynical reviewer would take issue with the fact that Lucy Bobby didn’t manage to raise Ricky over a complete childhood with the values that she manages to instill in Ricky’s two hellion sons in just a few weeks/months, but since Ricky Bobby begins to finally show some depth and be interested in more than just winning, while regaining the desire to win, it still works.

    If you go see this movie, you will laugh. And, if you do go see this movie, when the film is over, do not move from your seat. The outtakes are as funny if not funnier than the film itself.

  • ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is an e-ticket flight

    ‘Snakes on a Plane’ is an e-ticket flight

    Samuel L. Jackson and one of his many hissing co-stars in ‘Snakes On a Plane’

    Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome aboard New Line Cinema’s non-stop adventure flight Snakes on a Plane, with flight crew of director David R. Ellis (Cellular, Final Destination 2) and screenwriters John Hefferman and Sebastian Gutierrez. Please remember to stow all logic and scientific knowledge of snakes in the overhead compartments, make sure your tray-tables are in the upright position and then fasten your seatbelts in preparation to enjoy a wild ride. Your flight time will be 105 minutes of hissing excitement.

    Snakes on a Plane is a movie that has been generating tons of buzz on the net since it was first announced. Lead actor Samuel L. Jackson signed up only because of the title and when it was temporarily changed to “Pacific Air Flight 121”, he demanded it be changed back.

    The story is that a major crime figure goes to Hawaii and murders a prosecutor who is vigorously pursuing him in court, but the murder is witnessed by the victim’s son (Nathan Phillips) and the son agrees to testify against his father’s killer. The mobsters try to kill the witness but the attempt is foiled at the last moment by the arrival of bad-ass FBI agent Neville Flynn (Jackson).

    Some of the ‘Snakes on a Plane’ taking their seats

    Flynn has to get his witness to Los Angeles and he plays a bit of a shell game, letting the local cops think that he will be flying a private jet to L.A. from Honolulu, but the mobsters manage to get the snakes onto the commercial flight that Flynn takes his witness on, commandeering the entire first class section and causing a number of passengers who were scheduled to fly first class to be bumped down to coach.

    Once the plane is in the sky, a device triggers the release of the snakes and the real adventures in fun and survival begin. Who will be the first to be struck? Will the pilot and co-pilot both survive in order to be able to land the plane?

    Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, the Special Agent in Charge is Hank Harris (Bobby Canavale of Third Watch fame) is trying to find a snake expert to assist, and to locate anti-venom to aid those who have been bitten on board the plane. He locates Dr. Steven Price (Todd Louiso) who proves to be a true expert on the origins of the snakes and in finding the one person in the Los Angeles area who would have the ability to provide all of those different snakes to the big-time mobster.

    Julianna Margulies in ‘Snakes On a Plane’

    Snakes on a Plane is terrific entertainment IF you can remember to suspend logic and science and just watch the darn movie. Jackson is at his best, in his element in a role that was tailor-made for him. The frenetic action is just right, the cheesy dialogue is perfect and it all works. The snakes make some great kills that are just incredible from a viscerally visual perspective. This is a definite improvement on films like Eight Legged Freaks and other comedy/horror combinations.

    Mr. Jackson said “This is not a film for critics” and I would agree that most critics would not enjoy this kind of film. Then again, here at Tail Slate, we aren’t most critics. We loved Snakes on a Plane.

  • You should accept the chance to see ‘Accepted’

    You should accept the chance to see ‘Accepted’

    Justin Long and Blake Lively in ‘Accepted’

    The roots of Accepted, the new comedy film directed by Steve Pink and starring Justin Long, Jonah Hill, Blake Lively, Maria Thayer and Lewis Black, can be found in Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds and a skit from Saturday Night Live on the subject of not getting into any college.

    That is exactly what happens to “Bartleby Gaines” (Long), who applied to eight different colleges and was rejected by all of them, including his “safety” school. The fact that his grades were not great and his reputation as a discipline problem probably had a lot to do with all those rejections.  The subject of his application essay was also not the wisest of choices. His parents are horribly upset when he finally discloses that he failed to get in anywhere. He tries a nice argument about how by going to work he will earn in a year what that year of college would have cost his parents, but they don’t buy it and are convinced that his life is ruined.

    In actuality, the failure of a high school senior to get into any college is not life-ruining, plenty of students go on to community colleges, transfer after two years to a traditional four year university and graduate right on-time. In fact, with budget cuts and shortages of certain classes in the California UC and Cal State system, a student taking that route may have a better chance of finishing in four rather than five years these days. But by acknowledging this alternative solution to the problem, there wouldn’t be a film. The concept of community college is only worthy of note because the implication that if a student doesn’t get directly into a four year university their life is ruined is a disservice to fine community colleges all around the nation.

    But I digress. So when Bartleby is faced with parental disappointment, he decides on a new course of action. Since he did not get into any colleges, he will create one that will accept him, and he will be off the hook for the year. Exactly what he will do after that year, or for the rest of his college experience is not calculated into this plan, nor is a lot of thought given to any of the ramifications of this plan, Bartleby is just winging it. So he has his friend “Sherman” (Hill) create a website that makes it appear that there is a college that is the sister school to the prestigious college that Sherman got into and the plan is off and running.

    Soon Bartleby, Sherman, “Rory” (Thayer) and “Hands” (Columbus Short), with some help from “Glen” (Adam Herschman) are retrofitting an abandoned facility into the facade of a college, in order to fool Bartleby’s parents when they drop him off for his first year. Hands and Rory are also in on the game now, Hands having lost his football scholarship due to a blown knee and Rory having made a slight miscalculation in her own college application plans.

    Bartleby’s father wants to meet the dean, which means the kids need to hire Sherman’s “Uncle Ben” (Lewis Black), a former college academic currently working as a salesman in a store selling shoes for kids. Even this little test is passed and finally the kids are alone in their building and all seems calm.

    Until there is a loud knock at the door and they discover that hundreds of other students have gone to the website and applied to this fictional college and been accepted. “I told you to make it legit, not functional” Bartleby says to Sherman, but the cat is out of the bag and all of these students have paid their tuition in full.

    The easy thing to do would be to send them home and tell them it is just a fake, but Bartleby isn’t one for the easy way out and soon the most unusual institution of higher learning you can imagine is springing up, where students decide what they want to learn, where students are the teachers and a wild time is being had by all.

    Unfortunately for Bartleby and friends, the land on which their facility sits is coveted for a gateway for their neighbor, that prestigious university where Sherman is enrolled, and its own Dean, Richard Van Horne (Anthony Heald) intends to get it. He assigns one of his favorite students, the president of Sherman’s frat the task of getting that parcel and all of the rest of the surrounding land in order to build this gateway.

    First time director Pink delivers a somewhat uneven, but good film. After all, a comedy that makes one laugh is a success in and of itself, so most of its minor flaws should be overlooked. Justin Long is perfectly cast as Bartleby, perfectly named as he brings to mind that classic Melville character “Bartleby the Scrivener”, one who marched to his own cadence. That is clearly the case for Bartleby Gaines as well.

    Accepted is a fun film, filled with laughs and poking fun at the ridiculous rituals and snobbery of some levels of traditional college education. It was better than expected and is well worth checking out.

  • ‘Apocalypse Now’ gets the full treatment with ‘The Complete Dossier’ DVD

    Martin Sheen stars in 'Apocalypse Now'
    Martin Sheen stars in ‘Apocalypse Now’

    In the last fifteen years, I have made three or four different attempts to watch Apocalypse Now. In all those attempts, I was never able to get through the entire film. In each case I fell asleep at different points and never once saw the film all the way through.

    Was this a commentary on the film? I wasn’t really certain, to be honest. Perhaps it was just the timing. Maybe I was particularly tired on those days. So, when the opportunity came for me to really watch the film, I took it. Last week I sat down and watchedApocalypse Now: The Complete Dossier, which was released this past Tuesday on DVD. This two-disc set includes the original theatrical cut of the film, as well as the extended Apocalypse Now: Redux which was released in 2001.

    The choice I had to make, however, was to pick a version of the film to watch. This decision was made rather quickly, once I discovered a clever little feature on this DVD set. When you watch Redux, you can opt to have a marker appear on the lower right hand corner which will indicate which scenes were inserted into this longer version of the film. With that tool, I was able to understand what was different, and how it affected the movie.

    Apocalypse Now follows Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) as he is assigned with a deadly mission: travel deep into Cambodia and find Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando), an AWOL officer accused of murder. He is to find Kurtz, and assassinate him. But the journey through war-torn Vietnam on a riverboat proves tragically dangerous, and what he finds along the way is madness and death.

    This isn’t even remotely a traditional war film. It has elements of war, with some realistic moments and dialogue, but this is more a surreal, emotional exploration of warfare than anything else. Inspired by Joseph Conrad’s “The Heart of Darkness”, the film is about the mentality of war, the effects on individuals and the feelings it creates and destroys. It stands in stark contrast to most any other Vietnam-based film such as Platoon or Hamburger Hill. There is a beauty to it, though, one that I never appreciated before. It’s a little slow at times, and odd in others, but what Francis Ford Coppola created is a unique experience. Apocalypse Now has become more famous for the drama that surrounded its creation than the story itself, but at the same time it is highly influential, with moments and dialogue that have been remembered and parodied.

    As I watched Redux I found the biggest difference between the two films was undoubtedly the depiction of Sheen’s Willard. The scenes which were not in the original film were all the moments where Willard is at his most human. He smiles, he talks, he laughs. Heck, he steals a surf board from Robert Duvall’s Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore. These lighter character moments make up much of what Coppola reinserted into the film. There is also the bizarre Playboy Bunny scene, and the longest sequence to be put into the film, the French estate. What I took most from these scenes was how they altered the Willard character, who in the original cut is more or less morose and consumed with his own internal issues than interacting with the other soldiers on the boat.

    The DVD includes some terrific extras, one of which is the great audio commentary from Coppola himself. His comments are interesting and honest as he looks back at his work and the trials and tribulations he encountered along the way. There are also several deleted scenes, including a bizarre “Monkey Sampan” scene. The behind the scenes featurettes cover a lot of ground, most notably the technical issues of the film, such as the revolutionary sound, the soundtrack and more. There are also, on the second disc, retrospectives on the film from Coppola when he showed Redux at Cannes in 2001, and a reunion of cast members who discuss their experience on the film. The editing of Redux is also detailed, as is the development of Now’s visual look. Lastly, there is the Redux marker, which I personally think is one of the best extras I’ve seen on a film that includes an extended version. It really should be a standard on all films that include extended versions, because I thought it was a wonderful tool to understand the difference between the original cut and its new version.

  • ’13 Tzameti’ is quiet, yet deadly good

    George Babluani stars in '13 Tzameti'
    George Babluani stars in ’13 Tzameti’

    Thrillers in Europe are so often different than thrillers here in the United States. Here you’re given kinetic cuts, harsh music and intense dialogue. In Europe, very often, thrillers are much more calm. The editing is deliberate, but not MTV-like. You don’t always get music, and the actors speak like it’s just another day when a gun is pressed to their temple.

    I’m not saying one method is better than the other, because both can work. It’s just been my experience that European films aren’t afraid to be different, and I respect that. 13 Tzameti is one of those quiet films, and it works.

    The story finds Sébastien (George Babluani) working to repair a roof on a house belonging to the drug-addicted Jean-François Godon (Philippe Passon). Desperate for money, he over hears that Godon will be taking part in something that, if he makes it, will net him a pile of dough. He is merely waiting for a mysterious letter to arrive. But when Godon dies of an accidental overdose, Sébastien steals the letter and follows the obscure directions inside. Those directions lead him to a dark form of game where losing means you’re dead.

    Now, there is one thing I didn’t like about this movie. The advertising campaign. Personally, I think it reveals far too much. I’m not ruining anything when I say that the game Sébastien goes to play is an organized form of Russian roulette. Just think about The Deer Hunter, on a larger scale. This is what you see in the trailer. But I can’t quite understand why the producers of this flick would want to tell you that.

    I posted a news article about this flick the other day showing the film’s poster. And I said then, before seeing the movie, that it seemed as if the blurb told you too much about the film. I then watched the trailer, which basically tells you the same amount. But I had the strange feeling as if the film was treating this part of the story as a bit of a mystery. And it does. You don’t find out what exactly Sébastien has gotten himself into until about 30 minutes or more into the film. Now, if the reveal comes that late in the movie, why on Earth would you ruin it? I don’t understand that.

    Either way, 13 Tzameti is still excellent. It moves at a careful pace, and honestly the less you know about it the more you’re likely going to enjoy it. The scenes during the roulette games are tense and wonderfully done. There’s none of the absurd gore you’re likely to see in the planned American version.

    The film is also shot in black and white, which I am a great fan of. However, I felt as if it didn’t take advantage of the lack of color in terms of the camera work and cinematography. I get it was an indie film, so that probably limited the filmmakers in certain ways, but if you’re going to shoot in black and white then you should revel in it. Use the contrast and the shadows. This film didn’t do that, and it was a little disappointing, visually.

    13 Tzameti is still a smartly told, carefully paced thriller that was very well done and entertaining. A film worthy of your time and $10.50.

  • Short film ‘Witchwise’ deserves a feature film treatement

    Short film ‘Witchwise’ deserves a feature film treatement

    Spencer Daniels finds his aunt’s magical ring in ‘Witchwise’

    Reviewing short films isn’t always easy. Not because of anything in terms of quality, although that can sometimes be a factor, but it’s how much you can say. Some short films are so simple there isn’t much I can offer in terms of my thoughts that would span more than a paragraph or two.

    That was a challenge I had with Witchwise. Written and directed by Joe Harris, who served as the writer for the horror flick, Darkness Falls, it’s a 13-minute tale about a young boy, Andrew, and his mysterious aunt.

    As it begins, Andrew’s aunt has died, and he is at the wake. Looking over her corpse in the coffin, he remembers back to when his aunt passed away. During the flashback we learn that the boy may have had a hand in his aunt’s death, and it may have concerned a bizarre ring.

    My first thought upon the film’s conclusion, honestly, was: is that it? This as a very brief film with little to no dialogue, that seemed to leave more questions than answers. What explanation there is only leaves the audience to put pieces together on their own. And I kind of liked that. At the same time, I felt the concept could easily have been explored in more depth and expanded into a feature film.

    Harris makes some interesting choices here. He doesn’t show you everything. The aunt is shot largely from the back or in angles that conceal her face. The parents, too, are not seen directly. That said, Witchwise is far from perfect. There are some moments that betray the film’s low budget. But when it works, which is most of the time, Witchwise is an interesting 13 minutes.

    Spencer Daniels, the central character and the only one you really see, does a fine job. The simple visual effects with the ring were great. And the story does have enough meat to leave you looking for more. That often enough can make a short film enjoyable, when you’re left wondering what it was all about, and piece together ideas in your own mind. For example, was the aunt a good witch, or a bad one? Was Andrew actually the bad guy here? If Harris were to develop this concept into a larger film, I know I’d be happy to see the outcome.

  • Take a dip with ‘Lady of the Water’

    Take a dip with ‘Lady of the Water’

    Paul Giamatti in Lady in the Water

    In the world of M. Night Shyamalan, there always seems to be people who love his flicks, and people who hate them. In terms of critics, they have apparently declared war on the guy for his perceived failure with The Village.

    I am neither a critic, nor a fan of Shyamalan. I don’t particular care for all his movies, but I also don’t get into the hype surrounding the man. That documentary hoax, this new book concerning his fallout with Disney, all that nonsense. What’s any of that got to do with a movie?

    Nothing.

    So I’m here to just talk about Lady in the Water. Personally, I thought it was his best film since Unbreakable. It’s a lighthearted fantasy with colorful characters and dialogue. Its anchor is Paul Giamatti, the instantly likable actor whose made a career out of playing the wounded average guy. If nothing else, Shyamalan is a master at casting his main leads for his films.

    In this case, Giamatti plays Cleveland Heep, a superintendent for an apartment building outside Philadelphia. One night he encounters a mysterious woman (Bryce Dallas Howard) swimming in the building’s pool. The woman turns out to be a Narf, a mystical being who has come to our world in order to find a writer whom she must help inspire. But that part proves quite simple. Getting her back to her world, however, proves far deadlier, as a vicious beast from her world has broken the laws of her kind and sets out to destroy her before she can return to her people. It is then up to Cleveland, and the collection of unique individuals who live in the apartment building, to help get her home.

    In terms of Shyamalan’s previous films, there is something unique, yet familiar, to Lady in the Water. His usual themes of people looking for purpose in their lives continues, and in that way, Lady is very similar to Signs. However, the humor is much heavier than any of his previous films. This isn’t a dark, brooding movie full of sad people like The Village or Unbreakable. Lady in the Water is light and fun. It’s far more of a happy movie, which makes it unique (for Shyamalan), and that was something that I enjoyed.

    Bryce Dallas Howard and Paul Giamatti in Lady in the Water

    Much of the humor in this film comes from the colorful collection of misfits who populate “The Cove”, Shyamalan’s fictional apartment building. There’s the Korean mother and her punk-loving daughter; the man obsessed with lifting weights — but only with his right arm; a cabal of pot smoking stoners and a woman who loves to share her husband’s most intimate secrets.

    While I enjoyed it, I can sort of understand why many people may not. There is a silliness to the whole thing, with the mixture of fairy tale like fantasy inserted into a rather plain and real world. But that’s what Shyamalan’s films are always about. I also think critics are often panning the film largely because of two things — the silly hype surrounding Shyamalan and the fact that he basically lampoons critics in Lady in the Water. Critics don’t like to be made fun of, and they are rather strongly parodied here.

    In fact, it is Shyamalan’s use of the “critic” — played by actor Bob Balaban — that also makes Lady in the Water different. He breaches the fourth wall, as it were, using the critic to remind audiences that this is a movie and pokes fun at the conventions of movies, such as story structure and how characters are often used. Personally, I thought it was funny.

    That’s not to say that Lady in the Water is a perfect film, it is not. There’s an opening animation that explains the mythology of the fairy tale world that was rather unnecessary, and Shyamalan is honestly not a good enough actor to be playing such a large role. He also sets himself up for criticism for the very role he chooses to play. The ending was far more satisfying than I feared, but at the same time, he uses a similar trick he did with Signs that I found more frustrating than artful.

    For those of you heading out to the theaters this weekend, I hope you enjoy Lady in the Water as much as I did. If you don’t, that won’t necessarily surprise me, either.

  • ‘Moosecock’ is hilarious

    ‘Moosecock’ is hilarious

    Brian Baumgartner co-stars in ‘Moosecock’

    When I was first sent an e-mail about Moosecock, well, naturally, I thought it was a joke. It seemed like a put on. I mean, who the hell would make a movie called Moosecock? Plus, how you do make a short film that is basically about a very simple, if bizarre, joke?

    Then I actually watched Moosecock, and I couldn’t stop laughing. This is just about the funniest short film I have ever seen in my entire life. I laughed non-stop for about six minutes. So, yes, that means I’ll have to say it:

    I like Moosecock.

    What makes this film so brilliantly funny is that it uses the joke in every way possible to keep you laughing for more than six minutes. It starts off with two guys in a diner — Paul (Brian Baumgartner) and Jimmy (Kevin Rahm). They sit and drink coffee, and play a game. Paul tries to think of a word, and Jimmy has to guess it. The results are hilarious.

    Now, that’s the famous joke. However, the film doesn’t end there. What follows is a mockumentary about the making of the “joke short film”, which is ten times as funny as the joke itself. I promise, you’ll laugh through the entire film. I know I did, anyway.

    In this portion, Jared Hillman is Micah Crenowitz, the fictional director of the “Moosecock” short film who narrates the mockumentary.

    Because this short is, well, short, there isn’t much more for me to say about the flick. Everyone in it is terrific, including Baumgartner, who fans will recognize as Kevin in NBC’s The Office. Rahm is also familiar to me, and while I read the list of television series he’d appeared it, I finally realized where. He was in an episode of Deep Space Nine’s last season. Yeah, I’m a geek.

    Moosecock has appeared in nearly a dozen festivals, and if you ever get a chance to catch it, tell them Tail Slate sent ya. We highly recommend it.

  • Meryl Streep is hell on heels in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’

    Meryl Streep is hell on heels in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’

    Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’

    The Devil Wears Prada, starring Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway, with Stanley Tucci and Emily Blount in strong supporting roles, is from an acclaimed novel by Lauren Weisberger which I have not read. The good news is that you do not have to have read the novel to enjoy this film that takes a great big satirical bite out of the fashion magazine business in New York City.

    Directed by David Frankel (Miami Rhapsody, episodes of Sex and the City) and from a screenplay adaptation of the novel penned by Aline Brosh McKenna (Laws of Attraction, Three to Tango), Prada stars Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly, the managing editor of “Runway”, which is the fashion magazine of the moment and the last ten thousand moments. She has enormous clout in both the fashion and publishing worlds and is also well known as the most difficult boss to work for. Think for a moment of the worst boss you’ve ever had and then multiply by a factor of ten. She puts the “I” into impossible with her everyday demands and her list of whims are endless. In fact, so demanding is she, that she needs two assistants, and poor Andrea Sachs (Hathaway) has landed an interview for the recently vacated position of second assistant.

    Andy (for some reason the credits spell her name with the Y rather than I as is typical for a female) lives in New York with her boyfriend Nate; has just graduated from college where she was the managing editor of the school newspaper; and she wants to break into journalism. She’s smart, a good writer and according to Miranda’s first assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), fashion challenged and totally wrong for the job.

    However when Miranda shows up early she decides to interview this new candidate herself and ends up hiring Andy, taking a chance that perhaps brains might make up for the lack of fashion sense. Of course, Andy hates her new job, her new boss and her co-worker Emily, but she is determined to stick it out because “after a year with Miranda, so many doors will be opened for me.” The question is, will the sacrifices that this year, or however long it lasts, be worth those open doors?

    Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’

    At first she makes fun of the women she works with, calling them clackers because of the clacking sound that their impossibly high heels make on the hard floor of the building lobby and the sidewalk outside, and poking fun at their efforts to be dressed as fashionably as possible. But there comes a moment of frustration and awakening where she realizes that if she is going to succeed in her position, she can’t remain an outsider. To gain Miranda’s confidence she has to become a fashion queen herself, and with Hathaway’s good looks, this transformation comes off quite nicely.

    But with these changes come inward changes that don’t go over well with Nate, or Andy’s friends. She fawns over them with expensive gifts, Miranda’s cast-offs, which they adore. However they want her time and she has precious little of it as her cell rings constantly with more and more frequent needs of Miranda. The demands of serving every single whim of Miranda immediately, while trying to have a life reach a critical mass when her father comes to visit for a weekend.

    There is more and I won’t spoil the rest of the tale except to say that I would have preferred any of several other possible endings. Satire allows for hard edged choices in the final resolution and not making one of those choices illustrates the unwillingness of the creators to go all the way.

    The acting is first rate, Streep delivering her usual fine work although do not expect her to receive any nominations for her performance.  Hathaway was okay, but I think there were other actresses who might have done better in the role. Then again, that could be because every scene that she shared with either Stanley Tucci or Emily Blunt was stolen by them, both doing wonderful work in their supporting roles. Tucci’s work as “Nigel”, the career executive at “Runway”, toiling away in obscurity, waiting for that great reward from Miranda that may well never come might be his best performance yet.

    The Devil Wears Prada was fun and funny. Enjoy it.

  • ‘Take Four’ delivers four terrific stories

    ‘Take Four’ delivers four terrific stories

    Heather Carrol in ‘Take Four’

    One of the differences between a feature length film and a short film is that shorts don’t have to adhere to the standard rules of storytelling. They can be about an idea, or a single moment in time. The most effective shorts are generally the most simplistic. You only have a limited amount of time to get your point across, so the film needs to keep it simple.

    That’s not to say a short can’t be complex, instead that simplicity better serves the formula. Take Four is a short film that adheres to this notion. In this case, four separate yet simple stories are told simultaneously. The film, co-directed and co-written by Omar Chavez Jr. and Adrian Orozco, is visually terrific and entertaining throughout. The four stories are uniquely different, with a dry sense of humor and sexuality.

    The four stories go as follows:

    A young boy (Nicholas Alexander) struggles against bullies and household chores in order to win a challenging video game.

    A punk teen (Candace Marie) must clean up her war zone of a room in order to get the keys to the family car.

    An unsatisfied wife (Heather Carrol) longs for sexual satisfaction, but when her husband is more interested in his ballgame, she relies are herself to reach her goal.

    An actor (Jeremy Mitchell) struggles to memorize a monologue for a play he will appear in that night.

    These four stories are not related in character, meaning none of the individuals encounter one another, but they are related in terms of their arcs. Each person, be it the young boy or the wife, are seeking something. Something that seems unattainable, where obstacles continually pop up to try and stop them. In this way, Take Four is clever and intriguing. There is little to no dialogue, except for the actor, whose monologue serves as a kind of narration for the entire film. The way Chavez and Orozco tell these stories without any dialogue was its most interesting aspect. It feels like a music video, but with more depth.

    At the same time, the film ironically felt a little too long. As entertaining as it was, I felt half way through that it was spending too much time getting to the point. This wasn’t an overpowering issue, and didn’t take away my enjoyment of the film, but it was there. Had Take Four lost a minute or two of runtime, the film would have moved faster and been more satisfying.

    The different actors are also terrific. Alexander provides the film’s biggest laugh with his opening gesture, and Mitchell delivers his monologue with passion that makes the ending moments work so well. Marie’s screen time is limited, in that she really just spends the whole film dancing around and cleaning, while Carrol’s self gratification gives Take Four a unique edge.