“GHOSTBUSTERS” (2016) Review

kinopoisk.ru-Ghostbusters-2750954

 

“GHOSTBUSTERS” (2016) Review

I cannot say that the summer of 2016 movie season produced a great number of first-rate films. There were a few that really impressed me. But I cannot deny that it has seen its share of controversy. One of the two controversies that ignited this summer proved to be over the casting for “GHOSTBUSTERS”, Paul Fieg’s reboot of Ivan Reitman’s pair of supernatural comedies from the 1980s.

The movie begins with physics researcher Dr. Erin Gilbert beginning her employment at Columbia University as a professor. However, her employment and bid for tenure is threatened when she learns that her former associate, Dr. Abigail “Abby” Yates had republished a book they had written together about the existence of paranormal phenomena such as ghosts. Erin decides to assist Abby and the latter’s new partner, engineer Dr. Jillian Holtzmann, on a paranormal investigation. The trio witnesses and documents a ghost, renewing Erin’s belief in ghosts. Unfortunately, Abby has posted a video clip of their investigation and Erin’s reaction, causing the latter to lose her job and tenure bid at Columbia. She joins Abby and Jillian’s project, but they are fired from their position at a technical college, when the director learns the nature of their research. The trio eventually open an office to capture and study ghosts above a Chinese restaurant and name themselves, “Conductors of the Metaphysical Examination”. They also hire a dim-witted, yet handsome receptionist named Kevin Beckman.

Meanwhile, a MTA worker named Patty Tolan witnesses a ghost inside one of the city’s subway tunnels. She contacts the “Conductors” and the group investigates. They witness, document and capture the ghost, using Jillian’s proton containment laser, but their proof is dismissed. Despite this, the group continues its ghost investigations. Patty, who is also history buff, joins the team and provides a historic knowledge of New York City and a redesigned hearse dubbed “Ecto-1”. The newly formed quartet slowly becomes aware of the fact that ghosts are being summoned by an occultist/mad scientist named Rowan North, who hopes to bring about the Apocalypse.

When I first heard that a reboot of the old “GHOSTBUSTERS” movies was being made, I simply groaned with dismay. I would not have minded a second sequel to the 1984 movie. But since one of the stars, Harold Ramis, had recently passed away, I realized it would never happened. But I was not that thrilled by the news of a reboot. And when I heard that the leads would all be women, I privately accused the film’s producers (in which Dan Ackroyd is one of them) of resorting to gimmick casting. A lot of people did and the movie became shrouded by controversy. But I went to see the movie anyway, due to my own curiosity and the public hullabaloo over the four leads. And you know what? I enjoyed it. I enjoyed “GHOSTBUSTERS” so much that it has become one of my favorite movies of the summer.

Mind you, “GHOSTBUSTERS” was not perfect. I found a few aspects of it to complain about. One, I have slightly mixed feelings about the movie’s antagonist, Rowan North. Rowan was an interesting character on his own. But I found it hard to imagine any living person going out of his or her way to commit suicide in order to transform into a supernatural being and bring about an apocalypse. That seemed a bit too much. I have to give kudos to Paul Feig for providing more details into the creation of the four “Conductors of the Metaphysical Examination” . . . or Ghostbusters. But it seemed at times that the movie’s set up of the four characters sped by a bit too fast, despite the addition of more details. There were other moments in the film in which the pacing seemed a bit too fast. And I found the character of Dr. Jillian Holtzmann a little superficial. Thanks to Katie Dippold and Feig’s screenplay, she seemed to have less depth than the other three leads. In fact, she seemed to mainly serve as the team’s comic relief. I wish Feig and Dippold had done more with her character.

Otherwise, I had no problems with “GHOSTBUSTERS”. One, the movie benefited from a first-class screen team. All of them – Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon – had a great chemistry together. There were complaints that Jones’ character, Patty Tolan, was not a scientist – especially since the actress is an African-American. I was thrilled that Patty was a history buff and avid reader, which is what I am. I was also a little teed off that many did not regard historical knowledge as “intelligent” as scientific knowledge. I can only assume that many believe we actually live in the world of “STAR TREK”.

And although I thought the idea of a human committing suicide in order to become a destructive supernatural force was a bit too much, I must admit that I also found this plot line very original. And to be honest, this world needs some kind of originality in movies, which seemed to be really lacking in today’s world. Even more original, the “Ghostbusters” in this film are not immediately acknowledged for their pursuit of the supernatural. The quartet keep encountering nay-sayers (including one portrayed by former Ghostbuster Bill Murray) and government officials in the form of New York’s dippy mayor and two Department of Homeland Security agents, who want them to remain silent on their findings. Again . . . original, for this was never done before in the two previous movies.

What was the best thing about this movie? Well, I thought it was a bit scary – especially in the sequence featuring the Ghostbusters’ final encounter with the supernatural Rowan North. More importantly, this was a damn funny movie. Hell, it was hilarious. Some of the movie’s funniest moments featured the four Ghostbusters’ interactions with their personal “dumb blonde” receptionist, Kevin Beckman, portrayed by Chris Hemsworth. Watching Melissa McCarthy’s Abby Yates react to Kristen Wiig’s infatuation with the idiotic and shallow Kevin was a joy to behold. Another hilarious scene featured the Ghostbusters’ encounter with a poltergeist at a live music venue. This led to a very close encounter for Leslie Jones’ Patty Tolan, who uttered one of my favorite lines:

“Okay, I don’t know if it was a race thing or a lady thing, but I’m mad as hell.”

But it is not surprising that “GHOSTBUSTERS” proved to be so funny to me. Paul Feig and the movie’s casting director really did this movie proud with a first-rate cast. I have already commented on the chemistry between the four leads. Melissa McCarthy was in top form as the sardonic Dr. Abby Yates. I really enjoyed how she mixed her character’s enthusiasm for her profession and her cynical sense of humor. Kristen Wiig provided a fine contrast as the more reserved Dr. Erin Gilbert, who not only renew her friendship with Abby, but also develops a hilarious infatuation toward the group’s receptionist. Leslie Jones gave a sharp, funny and intelligent performance as the group’s historian Patty Tolan. She was especially in fine form in the sequence featuring the live music venue. Although I had complaints about Feig and Dippold’s handling of the Dr. Jillian Holtzmann character, I must admit that Kate McKinnon more than made up for their shortcomings with a very funny and entertaining portrayal of the character.

The movie also featured some very funny performances from the likes of Andy Garcia (who portrayed the dippy New York mayor), Charles Dance, Steve Higgins, and Cecily Strong. The movie also provided solid performances from the likes of Michael K. Williams, Matt Walsh, Zach Woods and Ed Begley Jr. Neil Casey gave a very interesting performance as Rowan North, who proved to be one of the most eccentric and odd villains I have ever come across. And then there was Chris Hemsworth. Many have expressed surprise at his hilarious portrayal of the Ghostbusters’ dim-witted receptionist, Kevin Beckman. I was not surprised . . . just vastly entertained by his performance. After all, I have been aware of Hemsworth’s talent for comedy for the past five years. Last, but not least, the movie featured some surprising cameos. The most enjoyable ones proved to be those cameos from the original cast from the 1980s – namely producer Dan Ackroyd, Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts.

Yes, “GHOSTBUSTERS” had a few shortcomings. I will not deny it. But for me, it had a lot more virtues. More importantly, it proved to be one of the most entertaining surprises I have encountered during the 2016 summer movie season. I feel that Paul Feig did an excellent job in rebooting Ivan Reitman’s two movies. He had ample help from the likes of screenwriter Katie Dippold and an excellent cast led by Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon.

Advertisements

“POLITICAL ANIMALS” (2012): Episode Ranking

003

Below is my ranking of USA Network’s 2012 six-episode limited series called “POLITICAL ANIMALS”. Created by Greg Berlanti, the series starred Sigourney Weaver, Carla Gugino and Ciarán Hinds:

 

“POLITICAL ANIMALS” (2012): Episode Ranking

1- 1.05 16 Hours

1. (1.05) “16 Hours” – Secretary of State Elaine Barrish instructs one of her twin sons, Douglas “Doug” Hammond, to keep an eye on journalist Susan Berg during a trip to San Diego regarding a sunken Chinese submarine, in order to keep her distracted from any news regarding the drug overdose of her other son, T.J. Unexpected sparks results. And Elaine’s mother, Margaret Barrish, discovers that Doug’s fiancee, Anne Ogami, is bulimic.

 

 

2- 1.01 Pilot

2. (1.02) “Pilot” – After a failed attempt to win the Democratic nomination for President, Elaine asks her husband, former President Donald “Bud” Hammond, for a divorce and becomes Secretary of State for election winner Paul Garcetti in this episode that introduces the series.

 

 

3- 1.04 Lost Boys

3. (1.04) “Lost Boys” – This episode featured flashbacks that revealed the origins of an earlier suicide attempt of T.J. Hammond, while he struggles to open a new nightclub. Meanwhile, Elaine and President Garcetti deal with a Chinese submarine that nearly sunk off the U.S. West Coast.

 

 

4- 1.06 Resignation Day

4. (1.06) “Resignation Day” – While the Garcetti Administration deal with the tragic crash of Air Force One and President Garcetti, Doug decides to elope with Anne; and both Elaine and Bud contemplate her running for president again in the near future.

 

 

5- 1.02 Second Time Around

5. (1.02) “Second Time Around” – Elaine convinces President Garcetti to appoint Bud as a negotiator to release three journalists held hostage in Iran. Susan serves as a member of the journalist corps, appointed to cover the story. And Doug leaks to Susan that Elaine will make another bid for president.

 

 

6- 1.03 The Woman Problem

6. (1.03) “The Woman Problem” – To prevent Elaine from running for President again; President Garcetti asks her mentor, Justice Diane Nash, to retire from the Supreme Court, so that he can appoint Elaine to replace her. And Elaine’s announcement of her decision to run for President draws negative reactions from Margaret, Doug and T.J.

Favorite ALIEN INVASION Movies

cover

Below is a list of my favorite movies about alien invasions: 

FAVORITE ALIEN INVASION MOVIES

1-The Avengers

1. “The Avengers” (2012) – In what probably is one of my favorite movies of all time, various Marvel Comics heroes band together to battle an alien invasion led by Thor’s stepbrother, Loki. The movie featured superb writing and direction by Joss Whedon.

2-Avatar

2. “Avatar” (2009) – In this twist on the alien invasion genre, James Cameron produced, wrote and directed this visually stunning tale about a paraplegic ex-marine who becomes part of a unique science program on the moon of another planet and ends up helping the inhabitants of Pandora protect their world from human invaders. Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana star.

3-Independence Day

3. “Independence Day” (1996) – Dean Devlin produced and Roland Emmerich directed this blockbuster about humanity facing an alien invasion during the Fourth of July weekend. Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum and Bill Pullman starred.

4-Battle - Los Angeles

4. “Battle: Los Angeles” (2011) – Aaron Eckhart and Michelle Rodriguez star in this surprisingly satisfying science-fiction thriller about a platoon of U.S. Marines battling invading aliens in Los Angeles.

5-War of the Worlds 2005

5. “War of the Worlds” (2005) – Steven Spielberg directed this excellent adaptation of H.G. Wells’ 1898 novel about a New Jersey man who tries to keep his family intact during an alien invasion. Tom Cruise starred.

6-Men in Black 3

6. “Men in Black 3” (2012) – Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin starred in this entertaining third entry in the MEN IN BLACK franchise about Agent J’s effort to prevent an alien assassin from killing his partner in the past . . . and act that will allow the assassin’s species to invade Earth. Barry Sonnenfeld directed.

7-Cowboys and Aliens

7. “Cowboys and Aliens” (2011) – Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford starred in this entertaining adaptation of Scott Mitchell Rosenberg’s graphic novel about a New Mexico community in the 1870s, staving off an alien invasion. Jon Favreau directed.

8-Star Trek - First Contact

8. “Star Trek: First Contact” (1996) – Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-E travel to Earth’s past to prevent the Borg from assimilating Earth. Jonathan Frakes directed.

9-War of the Worlds 1953

9. “The War of the Worlds” (1953) – Gene Barry and Ann Robinson starred in this solid (and first) adaptation of H.G. Wells’ 1898 novel about Martians invading Earth. Byron Haskin directed.

“ABDUCTION” (2011) Review

“ABDUCTION” (2011) Review

It is very rare to find a Hollywood action film that features a leading man under the age of twenty (20). But I recently came across one, when I saw Taylor Lautner’s new film called “ABDUCTION”

Directed by John Singleton and written by Shawn Christensen, “ABDUCTION” is an action thriller about a Pennsylvania teen, who sets out to uncover the truth about his life after finding his baby photo on a missing persons website. Nathan Harper has a recurring nightmare featuring the death of an unknown woman and consults a psychiatrist named Dr. Geraldine Bennett to discover why. One day, Nathan is partnered with his neighbor and fellow classmate Karen Murphy for a school assignment about missing children. When Karen finds a website that shows how the children would look like as adults, Nathan discovers that a young boy named Steven Price would look exactly like him at an older age. Searching in his basement, he finds the same shirt that Steven is wearing in the picture and realizes that he and Steven are the same person. Nathan calls the website’s owner, unaware that he is a Russian terrorist named Viktor Kozlow.

Not long after Nathan’s call, Kozlow sends two of his agents to Nathan’s house. They attack Nathan’s parents, Kevin and Mara, who tell him to run before being murdered and the house is destroyed. Nathan and Karen escape and attempt to call the police, but the call is intercepted by CIA operative Frank Burton, who tells Nathan that he’s in danger and sends a team to pick him up. Before the CIA’s arrival, Dr. Bennett appears and tells Nathan that Burton cannot be trusted and reveals that Nathan’s adoptive parents were CIA agents assigned to look after him. She also reveals that Nathan’s biological father, Martin, is a CIA agent who stole a list from Kozlow with the names of corrupt CIA operatives. Kozlow had created the website in order to locate Nathan and use him as leverage to force Martin to return the list.

When I first saw the preview for “ABDUCTION”, I had assumed it would be another “HANNA” – namely about a genetically enhanced adolescent trained in self defense and to be an assassin. Thankfully, it did not turned out that way. I suspect that many critics would have been more satisfied if “ABDUCTION” had been another “HANNA”. Personally, I found “HANNA” to be a pretentious bore. And the last thing I wanted to see was another “profound” movie about some highly skilled teenager wanted by various governments and terrorists. “ABDUCTION” does feature a hunt by an intelligence agency and terrorist for an adolescent. But this hunt has nothing to do with him being genetically enhanced. Instead, he is wanted as a bargaining chip for a source of valuable information.

Was “ABDUCTION” any good? Most critics seemed to think otherwise. A great deal of negative reviews practically swamped this film. And if I must be frank, “ABDUCTION” is not another “DIE HARD” or “LETHAL WEAPON”. However, I do not find this surprising. No Hollywood producer would ever heavily finance an action thriller starring an 18-to-19 year-old star, who is only known for co-starring in a series of adolescent vampire flicks. But I must admit . . . “ABDUCTION” was not a disappointment. In fact, I thought it was an entertaining movie. One, the movie featured a solid story about a teenager being used by the CIA and foreign terrorists, because of his father’s profession. Two, thanks to director John Singleton’s direction, “ABDUCTION” was a well-paced film that featured exciting action sequences and solid dramatic moments. I also have to commend Peter Menzies Jr. for his beautiful photography of Pittsburgh and the area around southwestern Pennsylvania.

Singleton also worked well with a cast that featured solid performances from the likes of Maria Bello, Jason Isaacs, Sigourney Weaver, Michael Nyqvist, Dermot Mulroney and Alfred Molina. Any of these performers could have easily carried this film. But it was all up to the likes of Taylor Lautner and his co-star, Lily Collins, to achieve this task. And while many critics and moviegoers may believe that these two failed, I do not believe they did. Actually, they did a very good job – especially Lautner – in carrying the film. More importantly, both Lautner and Collins managed to create a great screen chemistry. Screenwriter Shawn Christensen could have easily ended this film on an illogical note by allowing the Nathan character to save the day and outwit the highly skilled Kozlow. Fortunately, the screenwriter used common sense and allowed Nathan to receive some much needed help in the end.

Would I view “ABDUCTION” as a potential film classic? No. I would say that it is a near-mediocre film. I say . . .near-mediocre, because I feel that it was able to raise above the line of mediocrity. I would never consider it at the same level as the likes “DIE HARD” or “LETHAL WEAPON”. But I must admit that it was a pretty solid action thriller that would be great to watch on a rainy day, thanks to director John Singleton and leading man Taylor Lautner. Speaking of Lautner, he is probably too young to be seriously considered as an action star. But he has the looks, the presence and talent to achieve this goal in less than a decade. Good luck to him.

“HEARTBREAKERS” (2001) Review

Here is my review of the 2001 comedy, “HEARTBREAKERS”, about a mother-daughter pair who happened to be grifters:

“HEARTBREAKERS” (2001) Review

Directed by David Mirkin, ”HEARTBREAKERS” is a romantic comedy caper about an elaborate con set up by a mother-daughter team to swindle wealthy men out of their money, and what happens during their “last” con together. This 2001 comedy starred Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love-Hewitt as the mother-daughter pair, along with Gene Hackman and Ray Liotta as their wealthy marks.

The movie begins with Max and Page Connors (Weaver and Love-Hewitt) conning an auto-body shop owner and small time crook named Dean Cumanno (Liotta). The con, which is implied has been done a number of times before on other men, involves Max marrying Dean, passing out on their wedding night to avoid consummating the marriage, and then Page (posing as Dean’s secretary) luring Dean into a compromising position to justify Max’s immediate divorce and hefty settlement. Following the success of this con, Page decides that she wants her half of their money before going solo. Max relents, but the two learn from an I.R.S. agent (Anne Bancroft) that that they owe the government a considerable sum on top of the rest of their savings, which have already been seized. Page reluctantly agrees to work together with Max on one last con in Palm Beach (which would result in enough money to pay off the I.R.S. and set Page up to work on her own). For their target, they choose widower William B. Tensy (Gene Hackman), a tobacco millionaire and chain smoker who is addicted to his own product. Complicating matters is beachfront bartender named Jack Withrowe (Jason Lee), whom Page meets without her mother’s knowledge, while attempting to go after another target on her own.

Robert Dunn, Paul Guay and Stephen Mazur; who wrote the screenplay for ”HEARTBREAKERS”, were also responsible for movies like ”THE LITTLE RASCALS” and ”LIAR, LIAR”. But quite frankly, those two movies were chopped liver as far as I am concerned in compare to ”HEARTBREAKERS”. The movie’s story struck me as sly, witty and absolutely hilarious. Page’s romance with Jack; along with Max and Dean’s love stories were romantic and at the same time, sharp and unsentimental. Max’s attempts to seduce William Tensy, while impersonating a Russian expatriate featured some of the most hilarious moments in the movie – especially a particularly biting sequence that featured the Connors’ dealings with Tensy’s hard-nosed and grasping maid, portrayed by Nora Dunn. Between Tensy’s smoking and pallor and Max’s ordeal in being forced to consume steak tartare, this movie has put me off smoking and raw beef for all eternity. And if the Connors’ misadventures with Tensy were not bad enough, emotions jump a few notches when Dean arrives in Palm Beach in search of Max. It seems that he was really in love with her . . . and she has admitted to having feelings for him. Much to Page’s disgust.

It is not simply the script for ”HEARTBREAKERS” that had me in stitches. Weaver and Love Hewitt lead a first-rate cast that was just as funny as the script. Weaver (deservedly) earned a Golden Satellite Awards nomination as the elegant and quick-thinking Max. However, Love Hewitt matched her in screen presence and comedic skills as the equally intelligent, yet brusque Page. For once Ray Liotta’s intensity came into comedic use as Max’s faux husband, auto shop owner Dean Cummano whose love for the grafter/mother refuses to die, despite his discovery that Max and Page had conned him. Anne Bancroft gave a sly performance as Barbara aka Gloria Vogel, the I.R.S. agent who turned out to be Max’s mentor . . . and the woman who had stolen Max and Page’s bank funds. And of course, there was Gene Hackman, who played the chain smoking William Tensy. I loved his portrayal of the self-absorbed and caustic tobacco magnate. I could tell that he was truly enjoying himself. The only hiccup in this first-rate cast turned out to be Jason Lee. He played Jack Withrowe, the bartender who turned out to be owner of a beachfront bar and minor millionaire. Actually, the problem was not Lee’s performance. It was the writers’ portrayal of him. Quite frankly, Jack was a rather dull boy – a character unworthy of the talented and usually funny Lee. Not even the so-called one-liners they fed the character could not overcome his dullness.

”HEARTBREAKERS” turned out to be another example of a caper film featuring grifters that I find enjoyable. It had a first-rate plot, hilarious and complex characters (with the exception of Lee’s character), delicious scenery featuring Palm Beach and Southern California (standing in as Palm Beach) and a catchy score written by John Debney and Emmanuel Kiriakou. Director David Mirkin was given all of this – some at the last moment – and created comedy magic with it.

“INFAMOUS” (2006) Review

“INFAMOUS” (2006) Review

I have heard a lot about the two movie biographies based upon Truman Capote’s experiences while working on his famous non-fiction novel, “In Cold Blood”“CAPOTE” and “INFAMOUS”. I have watched them both, but have decided to discuss the second one . . . namely “INFAMOUS”, which was written and directed by Douglas McGrath. Although I could never compare the two movies, I might as talk about the one that featured British actor Toby Jones, as the diminutive writer.

To be honest, I did not know what to expect of “INFAMOUS”. Since it was the second Capote movie to be released, it failed to garner any prestigious critic awards or nominations – aside from an Independent Spirit Best Supporting Actor nod for Daniel Craig, who played one of the Clutters’ murderers, Perry Smith. After watching the movie, I found myself wondering why Toby Jones had failed to earn his own nomination. The man’s complex portrayal of Capote seemed all at once witty, sharp, manipulative, vulnerable and rather sad. In all, it was a brilliant performance. He seemed to revel in Capote’s legendary flamboyant wit and charm in all its glory. One of Jones’ funniest scenes involved Capote’s snappy repartees to prison inmates shouting lewd propositions at him, during his first visit to the prison. Yet at the same time, Jones also revealed the author’s talent for cold-blooded deception and manipulation, which he used to gain the trust of his New York friends, along with the citizens of Holcomb and the two killers, whose anecdotes he needed to complete his book. This talent for drawing out secrets . . . and disclosing them not only attracted the suspicion of Perry Smith, but also got Capote in hot water with his “swans” in the mid-1970s, thanks to an unpublished manuscript of his book, “Answered Prayers”. A few chapters managed to end up in the New York magazine, “Esquire”. But what is more interesting about Jones’ performance in the movie is that his experiences in Kansas ended up peeling away Capote’s flamboyant façade, forcing him to face the pain and sorrow created by an unhappy childhood.

Ironically, it was Capote’s encounters with convicted murderer, Perry Smith, which forced the author to face his personal demons. What can I say about Daniel Craig’s performance? Other than the British actor not only deserved his Independent Spirit Award nomination, but like Jones, he also deserved both a Golden Globe and Academy Award nomination. His Perry Smith was a brooding, quiet man who projected vulnerability, intelligence and brutal menace. It was easy to see how Capote and Smith had developed a close relationship. Both shared a taste for intellectual and artistic pursuits that allowed them to hide from unhappy childhoods that included suicidal mothers. Both actors created an dynamic screen chemistry through two contrasting personalities that seemed to share similar childhood experiences. Craig brilliantly projected Smith’s varying personalities in two scenes – one in which he expressed polite distaste at Capote’s gift of pornographic magazines; and in another, his terrifying anger at the “In Cold Blood” title, which led to a threat of rape of the author.

“INFAMOUS” could boast a first-class supporting cast led by Sandra Bullock, who portrayed Capote’s close friend and fellow author, Harper Lee (“To Kill a Mockingbird”). Many critics seemed surprised by Bullock’s excellent portrayal of the warm and wryly amused Alabama author. Apparently, they must have been deluded by some belief that Bullock was only capable of light comedy. The actress was given to showcase her dramatic chops in one “documentary” interview scene in which she expressed Lee’s bitter anger at the public’s demand for an endless supply of entertainment by talented artists. I also enjoyed Jeff Daniels’ wry and sardonic portrayal of the Kansas Bureau Investigations officer in charge of the Clutter case, whose family eventually befriended Capote. His performance was highlighted in a favorite scene of mine that featured the development of Capote and Dewey’s friendship over an arm wrestling match.

Lee Pace portrayed Dick Hickock, Smith’s partner and the alleged brains behind the attempt to rob the Clutters. I found his performance rather humorous and gregarious, yet there were times it threatened to be a touch frantic. Since “INFAMOUS” gave the audience a wide glimpse into Capote’s New York lifestyle, the movie also included his circle of “swans”, whom he developed a close relationship until his disclosure of their secrets in the mid-70s. Those “swans” included Babe Paley (Sigourney Weaver) – the wife of CBS baron Bill Paley; Diana Vreeland (Juliet Stevenson), the fashion magazine editor; Slim Keith (Hope Davis), the woman who was married to Howard Hawks and Leland Hayward; and Marella Agnelli (Isabella Rossellini), Italian-American princess who became a furniture designer and tastemaker. Also included in that group were publisher Bennett Cerf (Peter Bogdanovich), novelist and Capote’s rival Gore Vidal (Michael Panes). I was especially amused by Stevenson’s humorous portrayal of the vivacious Vreeland, who seemed proud of her own eccentric nature and appreciative of Capote’s attitude toward it.

Some reviews have criticized McGrath’s tendency to switch the movie’s setting between Capote’s glittering New York world and the somber atmosphere of Holcomb, Kansas. I understood why he did it. Both settings seemed like metaphors for the writer’s contrasting psyche during those six years he worked on “In Cold Blood”. It started out with a glittering night with Capote and Babe Paley at the El Morocco nightclub (with a sultry Gwenyth Paltrow singing “What Is This Thing Called Love”) and ended with Capote unable to keep the dark memories of Kansas out of his mind. In fact, once Capote had finally set eyes upon Smith, Holcomb’s bleak setting slowly threatened to puncture the frivolous façade he had created, whenever he was in New York. The emotional cost from the book and his relationship with Smith resulted in his inability to write his next book – “Answered Prayers”, as shown in the movie’s final scene.

The only problems I had with “INFAMOUS” were “documentary” interviews shown during the movie’s first half-hour. Frankly, I believe that the movie could have started out with these interviews, before segueing into the story. And aside from Capote’s tour of the Clutters’ home, I found the sequence featuring his interviews with some of Holcomb’s citizens a little dull and hard to watch. Fortunately, the arrival of Smith and Hickcock ended the dull sequence and from there, my interest in the movie remained constant until the end.

Whether you are a fan of the Philip Seymour Hoffman film, “CAPOTE”, I do recommend that you watch “INFAMOUS” . . . or at least give it a chance. Hopefully, you will discover that in its own way, it is just as fascinating as the 2005 Oscar-winning film.

9/10 stars

A Few Problems Regarding “AVATAR” (2009)

A Few Problems Regarding “AVATAR” (2009)

I am going to put my cards on the table. I have a problem with James Cameron’s new movie, ”AVATAR”. In fact, I have several problems with it. I was willing to remain silent about these problems, but after the movie’s recent big win at the Golden Globe Awards, I realized that I could not keep silent about them.

One would think I was just another fan expressing her dislike of ”AVATAR”. On the contrary, I happened to like ”AVATAR” very much. I saw the movie three times. And it became one of my top ten favorite movies of 2009. So, why post a rant against the movie? Because I fear that the movie has become a front runner for the Best Picture Academy Awards. And as much as I had enjoyed ”AVATAR”, I do not believe that it will not deserve all of its accolades. Even worse, I have a bone to pick about the movie’s distribution.

Award Season

Two nights ago, ”AVATAR” scored big at the Golden Globes Award show. It managed to collect at least two major awards – Best Director for James Cameron and Best Picture. In a documentary about 20th Century Fox called ”20TH CENTURY FOX: THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS” (1997), a former executive had pointed out that legendary producer and studio boss Darryl Zanuck believed that the backbone of any good movie was the story. Not the special effects, the casting or even the score; but the story.

Now, I am not claiming that ”AVATAR” has a weak story. Actually, I believe that it has a solid, good story with a relevant theme. However, many critics and moviegoers – including myself – believe that the story has mediocre dialogue. Even worse, it also seems very unoriginal. In fact, I would go as far to say that it is close to being a blatant rip-off of the 1990 Academy Award winner, ”DANCES WITH WOLVES”. Frankly, I cannot see how a movie that is unoriginal to the point that it seems to blatantly plagiarize another film deserves to win a Golden Globe Best Drama Picture award, let alone the Academy Award for Best Picture. I simply cannot.

3-D Special Effects and Movie Tickets

What has really ticked me off about ”AVATAR” is the fact that director James Cameron had decided to film the damn thing in 3-D. Well, he also provided regular prints of the movie. And the movie theaters have allowed filmgoers the choice to view the 3-D showings or regular showings. Unfortunately, all of the movie theaters that I usually attend, offer more showings of the film in 3-D. Worse, not only are the regular viewings scheduled late at night, filmgoers have to pay higher ticket prices for the 3-D showings. This really pisses me off. I find the 3-D glasses very uncomfortable. And the special effects struck me as being less impressive than those featured in the Terminator 2 3-D: Battle Across Time show at Universal Studios Hollywood. The higher ticket prices for the 3-D effects are simply not worth the effort. At least not to me. And I feel that Cameron, 20th Century Fox and the movie theaters are ripping off moviegoers in the process.

Will ”AVATAR” win the Best Picture Oscar? I suspect that it will. And frankly, I consider this a travesty. I am not saying that the movie is terrible. It is not. But Cameron has already managed to win a slew of Oscars for a movie with impressive visual effects and a mediocre script that turned out to be a blatant rip-off of 1937’s ”MAYTIME”. I am talking about 1997’s ”TITANIC”. And I fear that history will repeat itself when he wins a slew of awards for ”AVATAR” – a movie with the same virtues and flaws.