Category: Reviews

  • ‘The Quiet Man’ brings ‘Taming of the Shrew’ to Ireland

    ‘The Quiet Man’ brings ‘Taming of the Shrew’ to Ireland

    John Wayne kisses Maureen OHara in 'The Quiet Man'
    John Wayne kisses Maureen OHara in ‘The Quiet Man’

    The basic story of The Quiet Man is that of Sean Thornton (John Wayne), a native of a small Irish town who has spent most of his life in America (“Pittsburgh, Massachusetts”, as one character claims) and has just returned to his native land to start over.

    He bears a terrible secret: as a boxer in America he once accidentally killed a man in the ring. Now he wishes to put that behind him and start a new life with the girl of his dreams, Mary Kate Danaher (Maureen O’Hara). The only obstacle is her obnoxious, overbearing brother, “Red Will” (Victor McLaglen), who attempts to sabotage Thornton at every chance he gets. Ultimately, Thornton must decide whether to fight Red Will over Mary Kate’s dowry, a decision which goes against his will to remain non-violent but which is demanded by Mary Kate’s (and the community at large’s) sense of honor.

    The basic frame already seems to bear many traits of the Fordian Western. The Quiet Man contains many of the same archetypes as can be found in a film such as The Searchers or High Noon. The fact that on the surface the film’s symbols appear different is no matter, they still signify the same meanings for the narrative.

    The differences which occur arise out of setting: the Western takes place on the frontier, where everything is new, customs and practices are still developing, and there is little to no established procedure for anything. Ireland, on the other hand, is the “old country”. Things are run by tradition and people judged by their lineage (Thornton is only truly accepted back home once it is revealed who his father and grandfather were). In other words, the ways of living have long been set, and there is little room for change. These two distinct settings become the lenses through which the archetypes shared by the Western and The Quiet Man are to be viewed.

    While the customs of the frontier and rural Ireland are seemingly opposing forces, they serve the same narrative purpose: they are the motivating force behind the protagonist’s actions. In The Quiet Man, Thornton is constantly at odds with the established order, and the conflicts between his individual desires and the demands of the community fuel the majority of the plot (much like in any number of Ford’s westerns).

    First, he is frustrated by the very formal customs surrounding courting. He cannot understand why Mary Kate cannot see him without the permission of her brother (her oldest living male relative). The rest of the community, however, despite the fact that they support Thornton and wish him to be with Mary Kate, also insist that the family obligations be respected and upheld. Even after Thornton is finally allowed to court Mary Kate, he must do so with the Matchmaker, Michaleen Flynn (Barry Fitzgerald), present at all times. Once Thornton and Mary Kate are finally married, Red Will refuses to give Mary Kate her dowry. The significance of this act is very different for the two newlyweds.

    With his American identity, Thornton feels that it would be shameful to “beg” for the money, and because of his shadowy past as a boxer he does not wish to fight Will. He would rather live with the stigma of being a coward afraid to fight than risk another potentially fatal encounter. For Mary Kate and the community, however, it is shameful for Thornton not to demand what is rightfully his (or hers). The fact that he won’t fight compounds the shame. It becomes so bad that Mary Kate, despite loving Thornton, decides to leave him. It is not until Thornton compromises his own sensibilities that he wins Mary Kate back, but he does so by integrating the customs of the community with his own ideals.

    Even with all of these themes and motifs set aside, the basic underlying conflict has a great deal in common with the Western. At its heart, there is the “good man” or protagonist, an outsider, who comes into conflict with the “bad man”, the established, rich, and overbearing land owner. The conflict centers around love (Mary Kate), honor (the dowry) and community acceptance. The Quiet Man is a distinctly Fordian film in every sense. Not only thematically, but in style and presentation as well. Along with having all the old familiar Fordian faces such as Ward Bond, Victor McLaglen and Mildred Natwick, the film possesses the same broad sense of humor and beautiful geographical environment. The cinematography is bright and beautiful, and the characters are suitably archetypal while also being individually complex and flawed. If I were pressured, I would have to rank The Quiet Man as one of my two or three favorite John Ford films ever.

    The new special edition DVD has several interesting features, but overall the quality of the disc is a little suspect. The print is bright and colorful, but by today’s standards it’s little more than average. This is not a disc of the quality of some of the Criterion Collection re-masters. Still, the overall package coupled with the relatively low price make it a bargain for any fan of this classic film.

  • ‘Win a Date with Tad Hamilton’ is a bit of a loser

    ‘Win a Date with Tad Hamilton’ is a bit of a loser

    Topher Grace, Kate Bosworth and Josh Duhamel in 'Win A Date With Tad Hamilton'
    Topher Grace, Kate Bosworth and Josh Duhamel in ‘Win A Date With Tad Hamilton’

    Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! attempts to draw on our secret fantasies of dating movie stars but falls short. At worst, an effort in voyeurism, its attempt to become a cutesy romance is awkward and weak. The story centers on a love triangle that includes celebrity bad boy Tad Hamilton, a Piggly Wiggly checkout girl named Rosalee Futch and her best friend Pete. Pete’s lack of last name in the film only foreshadows the problems in the plot.

    Omigosh! So, like, when naïve Virginia hick, Rosalee Futch (aka Small-town Barbie) enters a charity contest where she can “WIN A DATE WITH TAD HAMILTON!” Well, she wins a date with Tad Hamilton. Rosalee doesn’t know that the contest is a ruse created by Tad’s managers Richard Lewis and his agent Richard Lewis (ahem) to clean up Tad’s image after a night of debauchery puts a damper on his future film prospects.

    Kate Bosworth dons some bangs and an effervescent smile to make Ms. Futch, the one-of-a-kind ingénue that any pair of guys would squabble over. She isn’t coy, she doesn’t play any mind games and sometimes she acts a little (what’s the word?)…retarded. Whenever she’s nervous, Rosalee jumbles her words up so that “Hello, how are you” becomes “you how hello are”. Of course, everyone thinks it’s gee-golly-adorable, including the audience.

    The drama in this comedy arises after Rosalee and Tad’s win-a-date is over. When Tad finds himself irresistibly drawn to Rosalee’s “goodness,” he rearranges his entire life to move to Virginia to be closer to her. Pete isn’t too pleased with all this. Not only does he find Tad utterly artificial, Tad’s cramping his style at the worst moment since Pete has finally come up with the nerve to tell Rosalee his true feelings.

    The problems with the film begin when we’re lured into feeling sympathy for Pete while realizing that Tad is the most appealing suitor. Sure, until he meets Rosalee, Tad is incredibly lame and superficial but Rosalee makes him want to be a better man. All we know is that our acerbic Pete, the best manager Piggly Wiggly manager ever, has plans to go on to college and take Rosalee with him. All the gusto Topher Graces infers upon Eric Forman in That 70’s Show is nowhere to be seen.

    Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! spends so much time focusing on the lip-locks between Rosalee and Tad that we never really understand Pete. There is one wonderful montage where we see a night in the lives of Tad and Pete, both lonely but the latter more fun than the former. The film needed much more of this and less of Josh Duhamel’s alluring gazes. I adore Topher Grace but even I found myself beset by Duhamel’s come hither eyes.

    Despite its plot troubles, Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! is considerably less bland than many of its predecessors. It promises equal doses of sweet and funny devoid of any depth and an ending that should be fulfilling but isn’t. The stylized version of California we see through Rosalee’s eyes is a biting commentary on how superficial the west coast can seem (or be) to an outsider. Unfortunately, to an outsider, the film, despite its quirky characters, is nothing more than skin-deep.

    The deleted scenes on the DVD include an alternate opening that’s a throwback to Jerry Maguire and an alternate ending that’s much more fulfilling. Many of the deleted scenes would have made Pete a better candidate for best beau had they been incorporated in the film. Luckily, two (groan) Paris Hilton cameos were justifiably scrapped. The Gag Reel isn’t very funny but it will make you see Duhamel in a whole new light.

  • ‘The Shape of Things’ goes from stage to screen with entertaining grace

    Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd star in 'The Shape of Things'
    Rachel Weisz and Paul Rudd star in ‘The Shape of Things’

    The Shape of Things first sparked my interest when it was playing off-Broadway on the New York stage. I found it curious that film stars Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz were giving the stage a shot in roles that seemed completely out-of-character. I missed the chance to see the story unfold on stage, only to find out that it was debuting in theaters shortly after with the original cast.

    The film opens with a rebellious MFA student Evelyn (Weisz) surveying what she has deemed “fake” art in a museum. She plans to deface a sculpture to make a point. Paul Rudd enters to stop her as Adam, an anxious, nerdy museum guard. Somehow, a quirky courtship begins.

    The quirky courtship quickly becomes frightening. Evelyn is a twisted Henry Higgins sculpting a new Adam before our eyes. Adam becomes more and more good-looking. His personality alters as the changes to his appearance become more drastic. She doesn’t stop at changing his attire. She wants to change his friends, his life and, well, his nose. While she molds him like clay, all signs point to a dangerous turn of events that’s about as far as you can get from My Fair Lady.

    The newly affianced Jenny (Mol) and Phillip (Weller) are Adam’s friends, alarmed by the rapid changes they are observing in Adam. At first, they tiptoe around the fact that they know it’s all Evelyn’s doing. That all goes out the window when they realize they dislike Evelyn. The feeling is mutual. Jenny is a sweet and unassuming contrast to Evelyn’s biting character. Phillip is already the self-centered playboy before Adam begins to develop his weakness of character.

    The Shape of Things is director/writer Neil LaBute’s commentary on our superficial society is powerful and shocking. It is only mildly hampered by the clipped dialogue of the characters, which seem out-of-place in their surroundings. The Shape of Things still feels more like a play than a film on-screen. The film flounders until the characters backstab each other with a foray in infidelity that culminates in emotional violence and a surprising, disturbing twist.

    Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz both deliver spectacular performances in this film. The final confrontation between them brings a whole new meaning to “breaking up is hard to do.” Rudd is dazzling to watch as he erupts with a range of painful emotions both beautifully and articulately. As Adam, he is sympathetic though morally questionable. Through Adam, LaBute strikes at society’s moral code and makes it as questionable.

    But it is Weisz as Evelyn that LaBute utilizes as a weapon. She follows Rudd’s cue to give what I believe is her best performance to date. Evelyn would scare Hannibal Lector on a good day. She is the creepy crawly sort of character that sneaks under your skin and tortures your soul long after the film credits roll. I still get shivers thinking about her.

    The Shape of Things is a monstrous social experiment meant to keep all of us on our toes. It is thought provoking and unsettling, growing from subtle nuance to a final, vicious blow. A new form of fable, The Shape of Things is sickening, entertaining and educational.

    LaBute breaks it all down for us on the DVD in great detail. Paul Rudd also offers an actor’s perspective on the DVD commentary. The Welcome to Mercy College featurette feels like a school video tour and stars the film’s fractured foursome. The Shape of Things >From Stage to Screen: An Introduction by Neil LaBute gives us an all access, backstage pass to the transition from stage to screen. It’s an especially fun special feature for those who love to see how everything comes together.

  • ‘Calendar Girls’ has its moments, but not many

    ‘Calendar Girls’ has its moments, but not many

    Helen Mirren in 'Calendar Girls'
    Helen Mirren in ‘Calendar Girls’

    Call me crazy but I love movies about old people. They just seem more interesting, more mature. A person can only stand so many films agonizing about the confusion and reckless fecklessness of youth before reaching the breaking point. Perhaps, that’s why Calendar Girls drew me in with its witty group of English gals, a comedy billed as the female The Full Monty.

    I was all set to be impressed by this true story of the members of a Women’s Institute of North Yorkshire. These women pooled their resourcefulness to bare it all for a nude calendar they hoped would raise money for the hospital where one member’s husband was dying of cancer. The true story is fun, sad and brave, everything that the film captures manages to capture only briefly in scenes that depict the real life experiences of the members.

    Calendar Girls is at its height when all the fuss is over and the women finally come together to create a beautiful calendar. The calendar is beautiful and artistic. The actresses are stunning and humorous as they overcome their bashfulness to bare it all collectively. It is unfortunate that the height of the film lands right smack in the middle, leaving the rest unbearably dull.

    I love British comedies like Love Actually, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Full Monty and Bridget Jones’s Diary. I could spend hours naming some others. I had hoped to add Calendar Girls to the list. But it is almost too British in a sense. The slang and its inflections are almost wholly inaccessible to American audiences that don’t own a copy of The American-British British-American Dictionary. I found myself debating whether or not to watch the film with subtitles.

    After the world is whipped into media frenzy over the calendars, Calendar Girls too quickly becomes more of a judgment about how 15 minutes of fame can go to your head than a lovely tale featuring middle-aged nudity. Helen Mirren and Julie Walters carry the film fantastically but their performances are easy to overlook when the film begins to spiral into sluggishness.

    The is sweet and unexpectedly funny at times, but you have to endure the more unfunny times to get to them. The phrase of the day in Calendar Girls is “the last phase is the most glorious.” Unfortunately, the last phase of the film is anything but glorious. Only about 15 minutes of the film is glorious. This is disappointing, as the film runs 108 minutes long.

    The featurettes are a mite more captivating than the film. Calendar Girls was obviously fun to work on behind-the-scenes. In “The Naked Truth,” the “girls” behind the real calendar offer insight into their story. Meanwhile, “Creating the Calendar” gives the actresses, production photographer and director the chance to offer theirs.

  • ’21 Grams’ is disorienting and confusing

    ’21 Grams’ is disorienting and confusing

    Naomi Watts and Sean Penn co-star in '21 Grams'
    Naomi Watts and Sean Penn co-star in ’21 Grams’

    Choppy as all hell, 21 Grams aims to disorient the viewer with scenes that are discontinuous and thoroughly confusing. If you’re used to cohesive, linear narratives, you’ll find that 21 Grams is like that theme park ride that spins round and round until the riders wonder if they made a mistake by opting on to the ride.

    A hit and run ties together a dying math teacher in need of a transplant, a grieving mother and a frantically religious ex-con played by Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro, respectively. Though their performances are spectacular, the jarring quality of the storytelling devices utilized to unravel the story takes more away from the actors than it gives.

    The scenes hit you with the impact a runaway train in an order that delights in unpredictable randomness. Viewers are assaulted with one scene, one more piece of the master plan, just as the next “clue” hits them again without any context or method to the madness. The effect is less dazzling than dizzying.

    21 Grams is a roller coaster of painful, brutal scenes that downward spiral at every turn. Tragically intertwined by fate the final scene for these miserable characters culminates in dangerous gunplay. The gunplay should lead to more death but goes one better to exercise the kind of surprising twist that filmmakers take pleasure in leaving for the end.

    The title comes from a comment Penn’s character, Paul Rivers, makes in the middle of the film: “We all lose twenty-one grams when we die.” The film is a painful collage of confusion, horrifyingly sickly events and macabre comments like this. This is not a “feel good movie.” It’s a harsh, disturbing statement about life and death.

    It is difficult to ascertain whether we’re supposed to love, hate or pity these three who all seem to wish their lives would end. Though they are spared by the tragic car wreck, they are like zombies, the walking dead, because of it. If anything, they merit our pity and possibly our revulsion.

    The DVD offers absolutely no special features, commentary or enlightenment. Think of it as a glorified VHS. This is quite an astonishing circumstance considering that 21 Grams leaves much to be explained, explored and dissected.

  • ‘Runaway Jury’ will leave you feeling swindled… and you’ll like it

    John Cusack and Rachel Weisz co-star in 'Runaway Jury'
    John Cusack and Rachel Weisz co-star in ‘Runaway Jury’

    I’m always slightly alarmed when I see a new film and find that John Cusack is no longer the gawky, awkward teen I remember in Say Anything. In Runaway Jury, Cusack is anything but gawky in a fast-paced thriller about jury tampering. In fact, Cusack, the proverbial nice guy,” is Nicholas Easter, a mysterious class clown that’s also one of Runaway Jury’s stealthiest manipulators.

    Runaway Jury is a courtroom drama full of the kind of suspense, sudden plot twists and turns that make for a fun ride. Gun companies are on trial after a scary shooting kills a loving father (Dylan McDermott) in the workplace. As the trial proceeds, an all-star group of very diverse jurors — look for appearances by Jennifer Beals and Luis Guzman — is chosen. That’s when the real intrigue begins.

    Heavy hitter Gene Hackman is Rankin Fitch, leader of a team uncovers the deepest, darkest secrets of the jury to blackmail jurors to vote the gun company’s way. Hackman’s sly devil is a sharp contrast to Dustin Hoffman’s noble litigator, Wendell Rohr. Dustin is a prosecutor trying to play it straight while psychoanalyzing the rotten roughnecks trying to destroy his case.

    Cusack and Rachel Weisz are startlingly slick tag team planning to sell the jury’s vote for a cool $10 million. Weisz is the behind-the-scenes mastermind of the operation while Cusack sits tight with his ear to the ground as a double-crossing juror. Action sequences with Weisz prove she’s the not only the brains behind the brawn. Her kick-ass scenes establish her as a force to be reckoned with. They are viciously violent in a film that is otherwise an intellectual cat and mouse game.

    The conspiracy behind jury selection is fascinating. The final confrontation between Hackman and Hoffman is even better. The breakneck pace coupled with a tangled web of deceit make for a shocking ending.

    Runaway Jury lures you into a sense of security, leading you to believe you’re in on the game when in fact, you’re not. It’s all one big on-screen hustle that leads to an off-screen hoodwink the audience doesn’t realize until the very end. And hell, I loved being swindled!

    The DVD offers features that make no qualms about showcasing the real stars of this film, Hackman and Hoffman. Besides scene-specific commentary by the dynamic duo, there is a featurette devoted to the exploring their final scene together. And though the other stars of the film come together to share their own views about the Runaway Jury, it is easy to see they were overwhelmed by the prospect of working with powerhouses like Hackman and Hoffman.

  • ‘Love Actually’ is a warm and fuzzy affair

    Hugh Grant and Martine McCutcheon in 'Love Actually'
    Hugh Grant and Martine McCutcheon in ‘Love Actually’

    If you are generally disgusted by warm and fuzzy affairs, stop reading this review! Love Actually is so sickly sweet that it’s possible to overdose on the syrupy quality of it all. Diabetics take cover. Dewy-eyed romantics stop clutching your Harlequin novels, Bridget Jones’s Diary and Notting Hill scribe Richard Curtis is taking prisoners. Love Actually packs a lethal punch of numerous London love stories all rolled into one super (long!!!) film.

    Hugh Grant leads an all-star ensemble cast of lovers falling in love and out of love a month before a chaotic Christmas. Grant’s prime minister has the hots for his assistant (Martine McCutcheon). Liam Neeson’s affecting widower has his hands full with a precocious stepson (Thomas Sangster) in the throes of first love. Colin Firth, always the cuckold, finds that the language of love isn’t English. Kiera Knightly is part of a topsy-turvy love triangle. Emma Thompson paired with Alan Rickman as clever hubby trying to steer clear of his smoldering secretary.

    Got all that? Don’t worry, for the most part, it’s all easier to follow on-screen. Curtis carefully weaves back and forth between countless romances with surprising effortlessness as the story counts down to Christmas day. The heartbreaking love songs and Christmas tunes certainly help set the mood. Tracks from Kelly Clarkson, Dido, Maroon 5, Nora Jones and Joni Mitchell decimate anyone’s intolerance to this voluminous narrative.

    Between Grant shaking it like a Polaroid picture to “Jump for My Love” and Sangster literally jumping for love, Curtis treats all the romances with equal care and attention. Some are just more interesting and meaningful than others. Who can help but groan when Colin (Kris Marshall), self professed “God of Sex”, flies from the UK to the USA to score with a willing American honey? Thompson, however, is heartrending as a woman whose marriage falls apart before our eyes. In her most pivotal scene, when Thompson breaks down as Joni croons in the background, you can’t help but fall apart right along with her.

    Everyone is very funny and charming. Curtis is no newbie—he knows what he’s doing. He is an exacting puppet master plucking at the heartstrings of a receptive audience. He poses loveable British actors in loveable roles and worms his way into our hearts. One of his successes is Bill Nighy’s crass washed up rockstar who induces the warm fuzzies with his hilarious portrayal of former junkie trying to make a comeback singing a Christmas cover of “Love Is All Around.”

    Be prepared for scattered cameos that let Claudia Schiffer, Mr. Bean Rowan Atkinson, Elisa Cuthbert, Shannon Elizabeth, Billy Bob Thorton and Denise Richards in on the love. Really, who isn’t in this film? Love Actually embraces all into the shameless kind of heartfelt mushiness you’d expect to find in a valentine, not the romantic comedies of late.

    Some critics have panned this film for being saccharine but excuse me, what did they expect from a Christmas story literally bursting at the seams with love stories? Love Actually triumphs over all while juggling the ratio of broken hearts to budding romances skillfully and proving that “love is all around,” at least in this film.

    Commentary on the DVD starring director Richard Curtis and actors Hugh Grant, Bill Nighy and Thomas Sangster is as uproarious as can be expected. The amusing deleted scenes could have been included as part of an extended version of Love Actually. And Richard Curtis is humble enough to pay homage to the sultry music in the film in “The Music of the Film.”

  • Douglas Sirk’s ‘Imitation of Life’ (1959) is a bonafide classic

    Poster for Douglas Sirk's 1959 classic, 'Imitation of Life'
    Poster for Douglas Sirk’s 1959 classic, ‘Imitation of Life’

    Douglas Sirk’s Imitation of Life (1959) was the second adaptation of Fannie Hurst’s popular novel of the same name. The film tells the story of two women, white aspiring actress Lora Meredith (Lana Turner), and her black confidante/maidservant Annie Johnson (Juanita Moore), and their struggles to raise their respective daughters, Susie (Sandra Dee) and Sarah Jane (Susan Kohner).

    Using his own highly ironic interpretation of the original story, Sirk utilized the lens of fifties melodrama in order to project social issues such as race relations, maternal and sexual womanhood, and the artificial construction of whiteness, and in doing so, criticize the shallow representations that these issues find in “everyday” life.

    Lora Meredith starts out as a struggling single mother who has just moved from the midwest to New York City. Her ambition to be a successful actress instantly seems odd, even selfish, especially considering the reality of supporting a small daughter. In addition to this, Lora is in her mid-thirties, hardly a “spring chicken” as one agent points out to her. Her age and situation call into question the soundness of her attempt to make it big as an actress instead of finding more stable work.

    When Annie comes to live with Lora, she allows the would-be actress to disregard even more of her motherly duties. Initially having a live-in maid (although the role is not official until the second half of the film) allows Lora to leave home and audition constantly. After a rough start (including a harrowing modeling job for a flea powder ad), she finally starts getting steady acting work, at which point she is distanced even further from her home life.

    She succeeds in her career, becoming a successful stage actress, but even this success is undercut by Sirk. Her success is seen to be as much a result of her sex appeal as her ability, and she is often portrayed as little more than a clothes horse for seedy agents and self-righteous playwrights. Sirk makes a conscious decision to have all the sets that Lora performs in front of appear trite-looking, flat, and archaic. These sets are so blatantly fake as to remind the audience of the imitationwhich is taking place.

    About halfway through the film, the focus of the story shifts from Lora and her tribulations as an actress to Sarah Jane and the far more significant trials she faces as a young black woman in a culture that is strictly divided along racial and economic lines.

    Central to Sarah Jane’s problems is how quickly and easily her mother Annie slips into the role of domestic servant in Lora’s household. The greater Lora’s financial success, the more clearly defined Annie’s maid-role becomes. The transition is played deftly, no attention is ever directly brought to it; it feels like a quite obvious turn of events. Annie plays into the conventional “mammy” role, the universal nurturer who stays at home and cares for both her own child and for the white mistress’ child. This situation, however, is anything but natural to Sarah Jane, who, despite being loved by Lora and Susie, feels the unconscious exclusion from the white women’s ascension to wealth.

    This places Sarah Jane, a very fair-skinned black, into the uncomfortable position of appearing white or “superior” while being in a living situation where she is “inferior” because of her black heritage, symbolized by her mother. She continually acts out against her mother and Lora alike, rejecting what she sees as an unfair social situation. Throughout the film, Sarah Jane identifies material success with being white, a common construction of whiteness that she has fully adopted.

    On the surface the acting appears to be vintage 50s melodrama: overwrought and overdone. But well before Todd Haynes’ dull and awkward attempt with Far From Heaven (2002), Douglas Sirk was intentionally using the melodrama in a sardonic fashion in order to get at the real issue of the film.

    Lora and Susie are self-involved, overly dramatic, and completely clueless. The sappy love which both mother and daughter share for Steve Archer (John Gavin) is over the top ridiculous and is a damning condemnation of their obliviousness to the problems Sarah Jane is struggling with. The mannered style of Lana Turner and the Gidget-in-training turn of Sandra Dee bring to the forefront the shallow nature of the society they represent. Juanita Moore is elegant as the reserved but observant Annie. Annie is a generation apart from her rebellious daughter, so she appears on the surface to be more accepting of the subservient role handed to her. Oftentimes she over-parents Sarah Jane and seems confused by her daughter’s desire to “pass”. She is however, completely aware of the injustices of society.

    We ultimately come to see that Annie’s trouble with Sarah Jane is not her daughter’s resentment of the white society, but that she has unwittingly bought into that society’s opinion of her, and as a result she herself has come to look on being black as something lesser.

    In the end, Imitation of Life deals with just that, the artificiality of the social, racial, and sexual institutions by which the characters try to live their lives. The inherently shallow nature of these constructs fate these characters to either exist obliviously within them or struggle futily against them. It is a bonafide classic which transcends its genre and form to stand as a truly timeless piece of cultural commentary.

    Finding a copy of Imitation of Life can be a bit tricky, as its initial printing is currently out of print. If you can find it at your local video store you would do well to give it a look, though disappointingly there are no extras of any kind on the disc.

  • Superhero genre established by ‘Superman II’

    Superhero genre established by ‘Superman II’

    Jor El (Marlon Brando) puts General Zod on trial in 'Superman II'
    Jor El (Marlon Brando) puts General Zod on trial in ‘Superman II’

    By the end of the 1980s, the movie-going public had tired of campy comic book hero film translations and was in the mood for something darker and grittier. The putrid Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987) was the perfect precursor to Tim Burton’s moody and violent retelling of Batman in ’89. The wheel never stops turning, however, and it wasn’t too long before these new dark “edgy” revisionings started too look as hackneyed as their forerunners.

    Recent comic-to-film translations such as Spiderman and the two X-Men pictures have tried to rekindle some of the fun of their source material and have tempered their action with varying amounts of goofy humor. Still, none of these films has rekindled the pure unadulterated joy of watching grown men and women prance around in tights while whacking each other over the head as Richard Lester’s first crack at the Superman mythos in Superman II.

    Itself a sequel, the second Superman film wasn’t so much a homage to the old television series as the first Superman was. Rather, it was the first major step in the evolution of a newly burgeoning genre that would come to dominate the summer cineplexes for the next two decades and counting.

    Superman II‘s story deals with Superman’s (Christopher Reeve) desire to have a normal, human life when he’s not fighting crime in his underwear. This desire finds its focus in Lois Lane (Margot Kidder), the spunky reporter for the Daily Planet and the co-worker of Superman’s alter ego, Clark Kent.

    Clark is completely enamoured with Lois, so it is doubly vexing to him when she falls head over heals for the Man in Tights. He realizes that it would be dangerous for Lois if she were to discover his true identity, and so he continues to pine for her as Clark while teasing her with glimpses of Superman. Eventually, however, even Lois can’t miss the not-so-subtle connection that the nerdy reporter and the superhunk hero share. In one of the more ridiculous (and wonderful) scenes in the movie, she realizes the truth when Clark trips over a bearskin rug and drops his hand into a roaring fire without getting burned.

    He may possess super speed and strength, but apparently he can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Now that Lois knows the truth, there is still an impediment to the star-crossed lovers’ romance: namely, Superman isn’t human. Using one of his trusty green crystals, Superman gets a visit from his dead mother via an interactive hologram and learns of a process that would render him human and enable him to be with Lois. The caveat: he will lose all of his powers and cease to be Superman. In haste to get his life with Lois moving forward, Superman undergoes the procedure and he and Lois happily unite.

    But there’s a problem, of course. Clark is used to being super strong, and now that he’s just a normal man he can’t even stand up to the thuggish truck driver who hits on Lois at a roadside diner. What’s worse, after being pummeled by said truck driver, Clark learns that three of his fellow Kryptonians, the villanous General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O’Halloran), have been freed from their interdimensional prison and have found their way to Earth.

    Now they, too, have superpowers, and seeing as they were imprisoned by Superman’s father on Krypton, they’ve got an axe to grind. As if that weren’t bad enough, the trio are aided by Superman’s arch nemesis, Lex Luther (GeneHackman), who has uncovered the location of his Fortress of Solitude.

    So now Clark has a tough decision: return to being Superman and lose Lois, or stay with the woman he loves and watch Zod and his lackeys enslave humanity? Decisions, decisions. From here on out the film rocks and rolls all the way to its satisfying and clever conclusion.

    One of the most satisfying things about Superman II is the depth they give to Superman as a character. Make no mistake, this is still a comic book character, and the colors which fill in the inked outlines remain bright and primary. Still, he is much more than the muscle-headed naif that he was in the first film. The main problem with the first picture was that Lex Luther was smarter than Superman, who always broke through walls first and asked questions later. It made Superman’s inevitable victory less palatable since it was the result not of his cunning, but of his superpowers and more than a little luck.

    In this sequel, Superman shows that he has the super brain to match his super brawn and it is ultimately his wits that save him from the enemies allied against him.

    Everything about Superman II screams campy goodness. The special effects, which were state of the art when the film was released, maintain some cartoonish charm despite the fact that they seem hopelessly outdated by today’s standards. The story is interesting and involving without ever taking itself too seriously. If ever an actor was meant to play a role, Christopher Reeve was meant to play Superman. He is so good as both the steely-eyed Superman and the geeky Clark Kent that you can almost buy the fact that everybody in the city of Metropolis is fooled by a pair of thick black-rimmed glasses (almost).

    Gene Hackman is delightfully over the top as Lex Luther, and he instills the film with massive doses of needed humor, much as he did in the first film. Margot Kidder gives a convincing portrayal of Lois Lane as a reporter so dedicated to uncovering the truth that she would throw herself into a raging river and risk death just to prove that Clark is really Superman. Terence Stamp always brings something undeniably cool to any role he takes on, and his General Zod is deliciously evil and pompous, vacillating between maniacal glee at inflicting damage and boredom at not having more worthy opponents to vanquish.

    The recent DVD release of Superman II (concurrent with the releases of I, III, and IV) leaves quite a bit to be desired, unfortunately.

    There are no extras aside from the obligatory theatrical trailer and cast bios. The picture is presented in its original anamorphic widescreen format and everything looks crisp and clean, but it definitely shows its age. Overall, it feels like the film was just slapped cheaply onto a disc without much thought or care being put into the overall product. Why is it that you can get a 47-disc special edition of Matrix: Revulsions (with three discs dedicated exclusively to apologies) but this bare bones disc is all we Superman junkies can lay our hands on?

    Nearly twenty-five years after its release, Superman II remains as arguably one of the best superhero movies ever, staying true to its source material and poking fun at it without ever making fun of it. Smarter than Spiderman, more fun than X-Men, and just all around superior to the crudfest that was The Hulk, Superman proves again just how cool it is to have x-ray vision… and to use it for good.

  • Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton are wonderful together in ‘Something’s Gotta Give’

    Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton are wonderful together in ‘Something’s Gotta Give’

    Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton get cozy in 'Something's Gotta Give'
    Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton get cozy in ‘Something’s Gotta Give’

    Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton are characters that hit close to home in Something’s Gotta Give, a film that asks what if Jack and Diane got together and fell in love in a Nancy Meyers film? Jack is Harry Sanborn, a womanizer in his 60s who only dates women in their 20s. Diane Keaton is Erica Barry, an accomplished but neurotic playwright who hasn’t dated in quite a while and wears turtlenecks… in the summer. Harry, of course, is dating Erica’s 20-something daughter, Marin.

    All relationships have their obstacles.

    The fun ensues when Erica finds out that Marin is dating a man old enough to be her grandfather. Despite their closeness in age, (Harry is 10 years her senior) Erica can’t stand Harry, not to mention the idea of Harry and Marin together. Not to worry though, Harry has a heart attack before he can consummate his relationship with Marin. To top it all off, at the hospital, Erica meets Julian Mercer, Keanu Reeves as the sizzling, sexy doctor that rescues Harry from the brink of death. He’s about 10 years YOUNGER than Erica but he wants her number.

    And thus, a love triangle is born.

    Nicholson and Keaton are masterful actors as they fight and flirt their way to love. The dialogue by Nancy Meyers is witty and entertaining, especially when it gives two of the finest actors in Hollywood (and possibly ever) the chance to banter endlessly. Once everyone’s over the idea that Harry and Marin used to make kissy-face, Erica and Harry begin to discover each other and Nicholson and Keaton blossom together onscreen. Why didn’t they always do romantic comedies together?

    Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan? Julia Roberts and Richard Gere? Please! The romance starts here.

    Something’s Gotta Give is just like any romantic comedy. The stars just happen to be a bit more mature than usual. But love is blind to age. As the case always seems to be with guys and girls, Erica finds that she is still more emotionally mature than Harry despite their consecutive ages. Woefully, she’s the first to figure out that she’s falling for Harry. Harry’s just a little bit slow to figure out that he’s fallen in love with her.

    We agonize with Erica over Harry’s wide-eyed confusion. Diane Keaton is stunning, hilarious and endearing as a brokenhearted wreck that has lost the possible love of her life. Erica is more open and honest than I’ve seen a character be in years. Though, Keaton lets it all hang out, literally, in her first full-frontal sex scene, it is her eyes that win us over in this film. It is in them that we find the trials and tribulations of love forecasted. Love hurts.

    Harry’s confusion is classic Nicholson. Though, we become exasperated by Harry’s inability to commit, the anxiety he endures draws us back in. Sure, he’s a bit dim when it comes to love but by being a charming though possibly permanent bachelor, Harry forces us to be patient. We are more than happy to wait for him to come around.

    And it’s worth it.

    What the actors in Something’s Gotta Give are giving us is their best. Frances McDormand is uproarious as Erica’s younger sister, a militant feminist with her own ideas on love in middle ages. Reeves proves his acting chops by being sincere while playing second fiddle to Nicholson’s skirt chaser. It’s Nicholson not Reeves that’s given the cue to lose his pants and show us some cheek. Whoa. Even Amanda Peet is golden as a 20-something fearful of falling in love.

    Something’s Gotta Give glows on DVD. The scenes that seemed drawn out in theaters are perfectly paced for DVD. It is a stellar romantic comedy starring the best doing their best. What happens when Diane and Jack fall in love in a Nancy Meyers film? Something glorious that shouldn’t be missed.

    The DVD hosts a number of features. Commentary by director Nancy Meyers, producer Bruce Brock and actress Diane Keaton is really a tease. Keaton makes a cameo appearance. Commentary by director Nancy Meyers and actor Jack Nicholson is quite comical. Nicholson balances Meyer’s monotone voiceover with his sexy, craggily voice and wit. Amanda Peet stars in the “Hamptons House Set Tour,” while the singular deleted scene finds Nicholson singing karaoke to Keaton’s character.