ChickFlix

Star Trek Into Darkness

Hannah Buchdahl — Sat, 25 May 2013 22:32:30 +0000

I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness, but I wouldn’t call it a “must-see” unless you’re a true Trekkie – or, at the very least, a casual fan of the TV and/or movie franchise. The more you know of the characters and the mythology going in, the more you’re likely to appreciate the latest round of challenges facing the familial crew of the Starship Enterprise. Most of the diehard fans have already seen the movie or read the spoilers relating to the villain. But I’m going to play it safe and keep it simple. Basically, the plot involves the Starfleet facing a major threat from within. Ultimately, Captain Kirk and his crew take it upon themselves to venture into some dark territory to capture the one-man wrecking crew responsible for a whole lot of death and destruction. The bad guy is played by Benedict Cumberbatch, who I’d never heard of, but certainly has a name (and face) to remember!

The characters and the casting are generally spot-on, with most of the major players returning from the 2009 Star Trek reboot. There’s Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk, Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Karl Urban as Bones, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, and Anton Yelchin as Chekov. And once again, J.J. Abrams (Lost, Alias, Super 8) directs.

The heart of the movie is the bromance between Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. Their relationship is – well – it’s complicated. But in the end, they’ve got each other’s backs. It’s quite sweet, really.

Star Trek Into Darkness is part action-adventure sci-fi drama, and part comedy, in a Galaxy Quest sort of way. Purists may not appreciate the dichotomy, but I think the campiness helps broaden the film’s appeal. Bottom line: Star Trek Into Darkness is a decent ride that boldly goes where no one has gone before – unless you’re a Klingon or something.

Note: If you like Chris Pine, but don’t exactly like sci-fi, then check out People Like Us. It’s one of those good movies that seemed to fall through the cracks last year, and it shows that the guy really does have range beyond the Captain’s chair.

No

Jill Boniske — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:54:13 +0000

Academy Award nominee No is another film based on a true story, but what makes it remarkable is that this story changed history. It takes place in Chile in 1988, when the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet bowed to increasing international pressure and allowed the people to vote YES or NO to keep him in power. He assumed that it would be an easy win, what with his goon squad intimidating the country. But what he did not count on was the ad campaign that the NO side was able to muster. Think Don Draper takes on Hitler.

Gael Garcia Bernal stars as René Saavedra, a successful advertising executive at one of Chile’s top agencies. He’s approached by a friend from the NO campaign, and he is at first leery of getting involved. And besides, the NO side is made up of a lot of different parties with no particular defining ideology except they are against Pinochet. Nevertheless, he goes to see what they have in mind. The way the referendum works is that each side gets 15 minutes each night on the state run television to air whatever they want. The NO campaign’s first pass leaves Saavedra cold. He thinks it needs to be more positive and creative. He encounters resistance from the older politicos who think the people need to see images of all the horrors that Pinochet has perpetrated on his people, but once Saavedra is on board, he uses his significant advertising skills and his large roster of creative contacts to wage a fabulously empowering and hopeful campaign. (There is a great moment where the Pinochet people can’t find any good actors and dancers, because they are all working with the NO side.)

The YES side had assumed they did not really have to do anything to win, but once the NO ads get on television, they realize they have a problem. They try every kind of dirty trick including some serious intimidation of Saavedra and his son, as well as the others involved in the NO campaign. But in the end, the NO side wins, and one of the great things about the film is that even though you know the outcome, there is a great deal of suspense right up until they call it. No is based on a play, and Saavedra is an invention, but as true stories go, the idea that you can overthrow a dictator with a great ad campaign is heartening. And it definitely has some telling parallels with our current political landscape. The differences in the campaigns were that one was selling fear and promises of wealth, while the other was pushing the idea that happiness is possible. Happiness won!

Even though the film is covering a pretty heavy subject, it has some wonderfully comic moments, including several of the ads that the NO campaign airs, and it is for the most part upbeat. The only downside (for some) might be the look of the film. The director chose to shoot the whole thing on the video that was used in the 80s, which makes splicing the old ads and historical footage in seamless, but could displease people accustomed to a high-def world. I got used to it pretty quickly. I really enjoyed No and even if you are not a history lover, the story of a despot taken down by a rainbow logo and a catchy jingle has got to be a draw.

The Iceman

Jill Boniske — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:03:26 +0000

The Iceman is based on the true story of a psychopath who led a double life. On the one hand, he killed people for a living for the mob. On the other hand, he had a wife and two daughters that he doted on who knew absolutely nothing about what Daddy did for a living. And he pulled it off perfectly for a couple of decades, killing well over 100 people. Michael Shannon plays Richard Kuklinski the man who came to be known as The Iceman. The nickname was based on two things: he froze many of his victims to disguise the time of death, and he was usually totally emotionless.

In The Iceman, Kuklinski starts out working in a porn production house, though he tells the woman he is wooing, Deborah (Winona Ryder), that he dubs films for Disney. She is taken with him and they eventually marry. And he leaves the film biz for better employment with the mob, telling Deb he’s working in the currency exchange. Soon he and wifey have a kid and a house in the New Jersey suburbs, and he is the go-to guy for “icing” anyone that the boss (Ray Liotta) is displeased with. The film follows this basic story through a couple of decades, though Kuklinski branches out and becomes a regular gun/poison/bludgeon for hire. Then eventually he makes a mistake and gets caught.

Michael Shannon is perfect at the ice-cold killer/caring dad. There are a few scenes revealing his horrid childhood that I guess are supposed to explain his lack of empathy. But the big problem with the film is that it doesn’t build. It is more a clip show of the murders, with a few cameos along the way (James Franco, David Schwimmer, Stephen Dorff). The mob stuff is kind of Goodfellas lite. And the eventual fall does not mean anything. There is no one to root for. I’d say go if you are a huge mob flick fan, or even a Michael Shannon fan. But otherwise, wait for it online or on a plane.

Stories We Tell

Jill Boniske — Tue, 14 May 2013 20:05:53 +0000

Stories We Tell begins as a fairly straightforward documentary about a mother who died young and the family that has a lot of stories to tell about her, but it becomes much more than garden-variety biography. The film was made by her daughter, who happens to be accomplished actress and director Sarah Polley (Take this Waltz, Away from Her), and the film’s narration is done by the father/husband who was once an actor and was inspired to write the story of the documentary. Polley’s brothers and sister and an assortment of friends add their spin on the stories of Diane Polley who lived large, but was ultimately a mystery to even those closest too her.

This is not your usual talking heads biographical documentary. Sarah Polley isn’t the invisible director off camera, but very much an integral part of the film, joking with her interviewees, inserting herself into the narrative when necessary, and as the story unfolds she becomes a more and more important part of her mother’s story, though not because of ego. Besides breaking that 4th wall rule, Polley also uses actors to bring her mother and others to life, mixing newly shot scenes with older Super-8 footage and photographs, which works quite well to bring the story to life. But then the question is who’s truth is being told? And I think that is the point of the film, that there are stories we tell and stores behind those stories.

The film really turns on a period in her mom’s life when she spent a couple of months away from her family before Sarah was born, acting in a play in Montreal, and what happened there. Family mythology surrounds that period, and as Sarah gets closer to the truth, her own story changes. What is well done in the film is that this one incident does not dominate the film. What the film is about are the ways that each of the storytellers frames the same woman’s life. The most insightful and sympathetic of them all is her Dad, who met her mother when he was an actor, but felt he did not live up to her expectations as a husband. And one of the best elements of the film is the story he has written of her life that he reads aloud as narration, with Sarah cutting in from time to time asking him to reread what she sees as a significant passage.

Watching this film gave me a different view of Sarah Polley’s other recent film, Take this Waltz. It didn’t make me like it a lot more, but it did explain why as a writer/director she is so interested in women who are looking outside their marriages for love and excitement. Her own mother’s adventures in Montreal must have informed that script as well as her previous script Away from Her. Diane Polley was undoubtedly a charismatic and complicated woman who was searching for more, and I’m not sure she would be happy about all her secrets being told, but I think she would be proud that her daughter was able to tell them in this entertaining and engaging film.

Take This Waltz

Jill Boniske — Sat, 11 May 2013 21:04:59 +0000

Take This Waltz is one of those indies that I kept thinking might have a different sense of pace and was maybe just going to take a bit of breath before it got going, and then it would make the ride worth my time. But sadly, I was wrong. It promises to be a love story, but love is what is missing. Instead there is a lot of weird cutsieness that I guess is supposed to be a good substitute for romance, but ends up being pretty annoying.

It stars Michelle Williams as Margot, a writer married to another writer Lou (Seth Rogan), and she’s unfulfilled by their relationship. On the plane coming home from a writing assignment Margot meets an artist named Daniel, who just happens to live a few doors down from her and hubby. And for the rest of the film they kind of slip slowly into a relationship that gives her what she is lacking in her marriage. And what is she lacking? You can’t really say. She and Lou laugh and play their little silly lovey-dovey games with one another, have parties, and celebrate their anniversary. He seems to care about her, except when she is interrupting his cooking. And he is a cookbook writer, so maybe he has a right to be a bit annoyed. Their life is not perfect, but then who’s is? It is kind of a clichéd premise that a few years into a marriage, the guy who is there starts looking too familiar, so the obvious solution is to ditch him for the more interesting guy down the road.

The biggest problem for me with the whole film though is the lack of chemistry between Margot and Daniel. The scenes with Lou are definitely more interesting. And then there is the subplot of Lou’s sister (Sarah Silverman) and her alcoholism, which doesn’t add anything to the story whatsoever. All the actors are fine, but the script and the direction are simply lacking in any conception of romance or interesting character development. You don’t really like any of these people. And at nearly 2 hours, it is ultimately an unsatisfying experience. I’d say skip this one.

The Great Gatsby

Hannah Buchdahl — Fri, 10 May 2013 03:41:58 +0000

The Great Gatsby is a glitzy and fantastical cautionary tale about excess and heartbreak. It’s a literary classic brought to 3D life with decent actors, lavish party scenes, and a cool soundtrack that somehow manages to infuse contemporary rap into the rhythms of the Roaring 1920s. So why didn’t I like it all that much? Perhaps because, ultimately, I felt as disconnected and disillusioned as the characters themselves. They didn’t make me care. Or cry. Or laugh. Or feel much of anything. Granted, the book never grabbed me either, unlike my favorite high school read, “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Now that movie (with Gregory Peck) never fails to move me. It’s as brilliant and enduring in its simplicity as Gatsby is boring and fleeting in its grandiosity. That said, if you do like “The Great Gatsby” novel, then you may glean something more from the movie than I did. My literary-minded seatmate thoroughly enjoyed it.

For those unfamiliar with the story (by F. Scott Fitzgerald), here goes: A nice, smart and idealistic young man named Nick Carraway (Spidey’s Tobey Maguire) moves to New York in the summer of 1922 to get into the bond business. He rents a small house in West Egg, Long Island, next to a garish mansion owned by Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mysterious and charming nouveau riche war vet who likes to throw big parties, affect an English accent, and call everyone “Old Sport”. Nick and Gatsby become fast friends, mostly because Nick happens to be the cousin of Gatsby’s true love, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), who lives across the harbor in East Egg with her rich, philandering husband Tom (Joel Edgerton). Gatsby needs Nick’s help to win Daisy back. Nick obliges. Gatsby and Daisy engage in an affair. Things go horribly wrong. Somebody dies. Nick lands in a sanitarium. It’s all quite tragic. Lesson learned: money isn’t everything – especially when it’s wrapped up in corruption, dishonesty and illusions of grandeur.

The highlight of the two-and-a-half-hour long movie comes about 20 minutes in, with the pivotal reveal of DiCaprio as Gatsby. He is, without a doubt, an attractive and commanding presence onscreen. I think he’s an incredibly versatile and underrated actor, though his Gatsby did strike me a bit familiar – almost like a mash-up of his star turns in Catch Me If You Can and The Aviator.

Director Baz Luhrman (Moulin Rouge!) has created a movie that is heavy on style (thus, the marketing tie-ins from the likes of Tiffany’s) but light on substance. It simply lacks the emotional pull that is needed to adapt great words into a truly great film.

Venus and Serena

Hannah Buchdahl — Fri, 10 May 2013 03:37:27 +0000

The poster and the trailer for this documentary promise to reveal “the truth behind the legends”. That’s a bit of a stretch, but the film does offer an interesting, if uneven, glimpse into the Williams sisters’ rise from the gritty streets of Compton, California to the Center Courts of the championship tennis circuit. I still can’t tell them apart. But I now know that Venus is the older one – by 15 months. And together, they are one fierce, super-talented, competitive, intimidating and inspiring pair.

The film starts out strong, with a well-paced montage of images and quotes solidifying Venus and Serena’s status as icons, rivals, champions, and above all – sisters. But then it slows down – a lot. It also jumps around – a lot. Alternating between the girls’ early years under the driving force of their father, Richard, who looks like he took managerial lessons from Colonel Parker… and the later, glory years (which, by the way, aren’t necessarily over yet). Richard Williams appears to be almost single-handedly responsible for tennis’s greatest Sister Act. But he’s also one strange dude, with an obvious penchant for procreation and philandering. It’s all a bit distracting – especially as various themes are hinted at but never fully explored.

The documentary producers followed Venus and Serena over the course of the 2011 season – a year that saw both women battle and emerge from a bevy of a physical and emotional challenges. It would seem like a stroke of luck, time-wise, but the narrative never quite solidifies, and the cameras never seem to capture the full picture of what they are going through (I don’t think gross tight shots of self-injections and stomach drains count as valuable ‘insight’.) The film barely scratches the surface of their personal lives outside their stated devotion to God as Jehovah’s Witnesses, their desire to play tennis into old age, and their obvious love and devotion to each other – on and off the court.

The film features a rather random mix of talking heads, from fashionista Anna Wintour (to comment on the sisters’ unique sense of style) to former President Bill Clinton (who thinks the public should cut them a break when they do or say something self-destructive. really!?). Thank goodness tennis legend John McEnroe is featured prominently throughout to provide some actual, on-point commentary and perspective.

Venus and Serena is part documentary, part soap opera, and part inspirational sports movie that is most entertaining when it focuses on the behind-the-scenes, open mic moments. Just don’t expect too much. It’s okay, but not nearly as compelling as the trailer might suggest:

Mud

Jill Boniske — Sun, 05 May 2013 22:39:36 +0000

Mud is a fairly straightforward adventure/coming-of-age story about a 14-year-old boy’s struggle to understand love and romance, while aiding and abetting a lovelorn criminal. Matthew McConaughey plays a fugitive named Mud, who happens to be hiding out on an island that teenagers Ellis (Tye Sheridan, Tree of Life) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland)) have an interest in. When they meet up, they enter into an arrangement.

The film takes place in the Arkansas Delta, where best friends Ellis and Neckbone and their families live off the river, subsisting at poverty level. But the boys are always looking for adventure, and as the story begins, they’re heading out to an island, knowing that if their parents found out they’d be in trouble. But there is this boat up in a tree, probably washed there by a flood, and they have staked their claim on it. Unfortunately, when they get there, someone else is living in it — a superstitious and charming character named Mud who tells the boys he is there waiting for someone. He’d like the boys to bring him some food, which they do, because even though they don’t really trust him, it is an adventure, keeping this secret from everyone, especially after they see the wanted posters. Pressed for more info by the boys, Mud explains he is waiting for the love of his life, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), for whom he committed a crime of passion, and a whole lot of mean-ass people are after him for retribution. Ellis is attracted to the idea that he can bring two lovebirds together. Neckbone, on the other hand, is less romantic and makes a deal to help if Mud gives him his pistol.

And so the boys help Mud keep his location secret, take notes to Juniper who’s living in a cheap motel, and find all the pieces needed to fix the boat and get it out of the tree, all to help Mud sail away with his true love. Of course, things don’t go as planned. The undercurrent to the whole movie is Ellis’s coming of age. He’s crushing on a girl, working at being her boyfriend, and watching his parents’ marriage fall apart. And he really just wants true love to conquer all. One of the things Mud does really well is it deals with this kid’s eye view of love and commitment. The other thing that makes it very watchable is Matthew McConaughey’s performance. It is one of his best. His Mud doesn’t rely on his usual pretty boy persona. He’s cagey and wounded, and knows he is dependent on two teenagers to save him.

Of course Mud is a big character, but ultimately the film is Ellis’s. And fortunately Tye Sheridan is able to bring this boy’s tenuous hold on his world to life. Writer/Director Jeff Nichols clearly understands that stage where teenage boys are grappling with the meaning of relationships, and brings out the kid and the adult in Ellis. I’d recommend Mud for the whole family, at least pre-teens and older. (It is rated PG-13.) There are no big special effects or sweeping camera moves. It depends entirely on what may seem to be a lost art these days — good old-fashioned storytelling that places you in a distinctive place with engaging characters. And it does it quite well, keeping the audience in suspense right up until the end as to whether love will conquer all.

Midnight’s Children

Hannah Buchdahl — Fri, 03 May 2013 05:49:11 +0000

I knew I was in trouble when a friend of mine described the book “Midnight’s Children” as a “classic – but emotionally draining.” I generally don’t do very well with emotionally-draining classics – in literature, or on the big screen. And sure enough, I had a tough time with this film version of Salman Rushdie’s novel about two babies switched at birth in a Bombay hospital as India was declaring its independence from Great Britain in August, 1947.

In many ways, the film is a study in nature versus nurture. One of the boys, Saleem Sinai, is the illegitimate child of a beggar woman; the other, Shiva, is the son of a wealthy couple. A misguided nurse makes the swap at the behest of a communist boyfriend who declares, “Let the rich be poor and the poor be rich!” as India struggles along its newly independent path.

As the years wear on, we see how the lives and fates of Saleem and Shiva are intertwined against a backdrop of political and social upheaval in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. There’s also a heavy mystical element involving the two boys and dozens of other children born in that fateful midnight hour. The concept is intriguing. But overall, the characters never really grabbed me, the location and time shifts got confusing, and the movie felt even longer than its lengthy running time of two hours and twenty minutes.

Fans of the book may want to check it out. But I suspect that “Midnight’s Children” will have a hard time attracting a larger, mainstream audience. Let us know what you think!

Iron Man 3

Hannah Buchdahl — Fri, 03 May 2013 02:43:27 +0000

The plot of Iron Man 3 is wonky. But when you’ve got Robert Downey Jr. donning the suit, it doesn’t really matter. You’re in for a fun ride – especially if you’ve seen the previous two Iron Man movies and The Avengers, one of my favorite flicks of 2012.

This time around, wealthy industrialist Tony Stark/Iron Man (Downey) finds his Malibu complex reduced to rubble and his loved ones (most notably, Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts) threatened by a menacing terrorist known as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley).

The movie opens with a voiceover from Tony recounting an encounter on New Year’s Eve 1999, the height of his brash playboy days. Fast forward to “present day” and the still-brash-but-loveable Tony is tinkering with his many flying suits, having trouble sleeping, and suffering from anxiety attacks that appear to be related to The Avengers’ recent battle with aliens. Let’s face it – the guy’s got issues.

Ever the cocky superhero, Tony draws The Mandarin’s ire – and fire – to his doorstep, then must do damage control, while trying to figure out why people are (literally) blowing up around him. The explosions have something to do with manipulating DNA and turning wounded warriors into incendiary devices. His quest takes him to snowy Tennessee at Christmastime, where he enlists the help of a sassy kid named Harley (Ty Simpkins). Their relationship yields the bulk of the film’s heart, soul and humor.

The cast also includes: Jon Favreau as Stark’s hapless buddy Happy Hogan; Don Cheadle as Iron Man’s wingman, Colonel James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes; Guy Pearce as a smarmy, misguided scientist named Aldrich Killian; and Rebecca Hall as Maya Hansen, a biologist specializing in nano-technology.

Kingsley has a scene-stealing turn as The Mandarin. But ultimately, this movie is all RDJ. He’s sarcastic, cynical, charming, flawed, human, and heroic. You know who he is. He is Iron Man.

Note: IM3 isn’t as good as the first Iron Man (and not just because I’m an unseen extra in the opening scene) and the 3D technology doesn’t provide any added value. But it is better than IM2. And, as always, don’t forget to stay through the end credits for a cute little bonus scene.