Thunderbolt and LIghtfoot (1974)

This movie was not what I expected, and it was a nice surprise. In retrospect, this seems to fit well with Clint's path in movies over the years from reveling in violence to making anti-violence statements. He did not direct this, but his character sets the tone.

The movie starts with Clint (Thunderbolt) posing as a preacher in a small town. In the middle of a Sunday sermon he is interrupted by a former colleague opening fire on him, and he takes off running. Literally. At this point he meets and is rescued by a young Jeff Bridges as Lightfoot. (Clint was 44 when this movie was released; Bridges was 25.) Bridges is a crook or con man rather than a hardened criminal. He is also young, sweet and an incredibly good-natured and cheerful kid. He is basically looking for fun. His character makes this movie. Clint's character is more cerebral than violent, the man who masterminds bank robberies and doesn't kill his former colleagues even when they are trying to kill him.

Eventually Clint's old buddies, which include a nasty and brutal George Kennedy, catch up with the duo and they all determine to rob another bank. George has a visceral dislike for Lightfoot, but is kept from hurting him by Clint. But Clint can't always be there.

This movie starts as a lighthearted romp of a chase film. It then morphs into a robbery film, and ends as a tragedy. I loved it - watched it twice in a row. The ending is awesome. This movie really made me aware of Jeff Bridges - he's from an acting family and was born to act. His charisma is palpable, and his acting is both natural and physical.

Island of Lost Souls (1932)

OK - this baby is creepy, and some might find is scary. It is, I believe, the first film made of the H.G. Wells story about Dr. Moreau. There wasn't much in the way of restrictions at this time, so there is talk of vivisection, mating, eating "long pig" (human) and of course, medical experimentation. This Dr. Moreau, as played by Charles Laughton, is a monster who relishes his experiments. His eyes gleam. I found him very disturbing. I was definitely looking forward to his comeuppance. This movie does not feel 80 years old. It just cam out on DVD, so pick it up. And watch for Bela Lugosi as the Sayer of the Law.

Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011)

OK - this movie blew me away! The Descendants may have suffered in comparison because I saw them back-to-back.

This was written and directed by Sean Durkin, and it's his first feature length film. How does someone get this assured out of the gate? This movie treads the line between thriller and psychological drama very, very well. The tension mounts and your attention is riveted - I think he'll get a screenplay nomination. I hope he gets a best picture nomination.

Martha, played by an amazing Elizabeth Olsen, is in a cult when we meet her. She is planning her escape, but we don't realize it until we watch her run, which is a stressful way to start a movie. She calls her sister, who hasn't heard from her in two years, and who comes immediately to get her.

Martha seems to be about 20 when she runs from the cult, but it's hard to say. She looks very young, but her behavior is off. She swims naked when it is not appropriate, she sleeps all the time, she cleans and gardens like a pro. And she gets more and more odd. Her behavior and conversation lead her sister and brother-in-law to wonder about what happened to her, and their discomfort grows. They ask her where she was, but Martha isn't talking.

In flashbacks we see her arriving at the cult, being indoctrinated, having her name changed to Marcy May. Each scene at the cult and with her sister gets steadily more upsetting as the movie progresses. And the ending is as it should be. Which is very satisfying.

Elizabeth Olsen will probably get a nomination for Best Actress. She won't win, because dues have to be paid (think Jennifer Lawrence last year in Winter's Bone). John Hawkes, as the cult leader, should get nominated for Best Supporting Actor again for this one. Hopefully this year he'll win.

The Descendants (2011)

OK, I am not getting the hype about this one. It's a solid movie about a family going through a bad time, but it did not blow me away. George Clooney is really good, the girls who play his daughters are awesome, and all the smaller performances are at least solid. It also showed family groups of real-looking people: some with good teeth, some with bad, some dressed like crap, lots of bad hair. Hollywood doesn't normally show us real people, so I liked this.

I did not like the editing, which was choppy. I also thought there were far too many long takes of scenery (yes, Hawaii is pretty) and close ups that gave no value. I was a bit bored. And the soundtrack - 100% Hawaiian music - was grating and distracting after a while. I do not think this is Alexander Payne's best film. Some of his other movies/characters really tread the edge of human behavior, like Thomas Hayden Church gleefully and compulsively sleeping around on his bachelor-party trip and Paul Giametti frantically drinking his prized bottle of wine at a hamburger stand instead of seeing his ex-wife at a wedding. Or Reese Witherspoon's Tracy Flick! Now there's a character to watch.

This will be nominated for an Academy Award for best picture, director and maybe adapted screenplay. Clooney may be nominated. But I suggest you watch Sideways or Election if you have limited time rather than this one. These people were way too sane and controlled for me. Even when they acted out, they did so in a tame manner. I did not buy it.

Crazy Stupid Love (2011)

OK - this is a contrived wreck of a movie. It is not a believable depiction of cheating or divorcing couples or - anything. It's actually laughable.

However, it has Ryan Gosling. He is so hot that it is just scary. He takes off his shirt. He has a long scene without his shirt on. I was talking about this in a bar the other night with GF's, and the male bartender called Mr. Gosling his guy crush. I believe it. And he can act!

The scene where he and Emma Stone fall in love is so damn cute that it is worth watching the movie. Or you could just skip to that scene and watch it several times.

Julianne Moore is great, but it's a stupid role. Steve Carell is charming. But the movie is a waste. Watch Cookie's Fortune and Drive instead.

Easy Virtue (2008)

This movie blows. Stay away. Here are the main problems:

1. Jessica Biel cannot act. She is horrible in this.
2. The script sucks. A couple of the biggest scenes in the movie are ludicrous (Jessica sits on the family dog by accident and kills it, someone performs the cancan without underwear)
3. The casting is generally bad.
4. There are really two movies here - one where Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas are actually acting in a drama; whereas Jessica and her erstwhile husband cannot act and are perhaps in a farce.

Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas are parents of adult children in England about 15 years after WWI. Their son, the eldest, brings home an American race car driving bride. I think this is supposed to be funny, but it's not. Rent Gosford Park instead.

The Widow of Saint-Pierre (2000)

I was bored and perplexed by this one. In 1850 on the island of Saint-Pierre, a fisherman slaughters a man for no good reason and is sentenced to death. He is supposed to be guillotined, but there is no guillotine on the island. While they are waiting for the machine to be shipped in, literally, the prisoner is put under the care of the French Captain assigned to the island, played by Daniel Auteuil. The Captain and his wife, played by Juliette Binoche, take the prisoner under their wing. This is primarily Madame la Capitane's doing, and soon the condemned is fixing roofs and doing other good works on the island. He fathers a baby and gets married. By acting responsibly he become responsible. Pretty soon the islanders want him spared. It doesn't end well.

What I found perplexing was the relationship between the Captain and his wife. They adore each other, but there is some odd intensity there that I didn't understand, revolving around the Captain's pride in his wife and his need to defend her and be her protector. If anyone understands, let me know.

J. Edgar (2011)

I think there will be some nominations from this movie. I do not think it will be picture or director, but I do think Leonardo DiCaprio will be nominated in the lead actor role. I would also like to see Armie Hammer and Naomi Watts nominated in the supporting categories. I will predict costumes and makeup will also be nominated.

This is a Clint Eastwood film, and he is a very assured director. This movie looks at Hoover's personality and personal life rather than focusing on his famous secret files or vendettas. We see some of that, but as a way to learn about Hoover's personality, as he was paranoid and maniacal and power hungry and incredibly guarded. He had an inflated opinion of himself and his talents, seeing himself as brave and persecuted, when in reality he hid behind the men in the field and his files. He persecuted many people, but he had enough cunning to develop the FBI and run it during the tenure of 8 presidents. He wasn't stupid. The movie flashes back and forth between Hoover's first years at the FBI and the years before his death.

A large focus of this movie is the love story between Hoover and Clyde Tolson. This is portrayed as a platonic love, and you'll understand why after watching Hoover's relationship with his mom (Judi Dench). These men were devoted to each other, and while we may never know the details of the relationship, Tolson did inherit Hoover's estate and is buried next to him in the Congressional Cemetery. The relationship is lovingly portrayed in the movie, though realistically. After all, Hoover was a prick. He wasn't easy to be around. There were hard times.

Clint takes his time with a story. He doesn't go for flash when he doesn't need to, but he gets a lot from his actors. He lets you really sink into a story and make your own decisions. I like his films.

Handful of Dust (1988)

This is a tough one. It is beautifully shot, wonderfully acted, and tragic. I can't say I want to ever see it again, but I am glad I saw it once.

This is based on an Evelyn Waugh novel considered one of the best novels of the 20th century. It is about the pointlessness of our lives, and the harm people do to each other. That's not an upper, but the civility of this movie masks the nastiness for quite a while. The characters are British, see, so they are so incredibly polite to each other, even when acting in the basest possible way.

Kristin Scott Thomas plays Brenda, married to Tony. They are Lord and Lady, living on Tony's family estate, which takes all Tony's money and time to maintain. Tony is described as a "stick", and it's true that he prefers country life and church to town and parties. Brenda is bored. When an acquaintance of Tony's from his club, John, shows up at the estate for a weekend visit on the barest pretense of an invitation, he and Brenda start an affair. Tony is oblivious.

Brenda is cold and evil, but always sweet and polite and smiling. She seems sincere, but her actions tell about her real character. Using a terrible death as an excuse, she leaves Tony and plans to marry John. John, though, is just a gold-digger, and he is only interested in a rich divorcee. When Tony has finally had enough, and denies Brenda what she wants, John is gone like a shot.

But then things get worse. Tony runs from his life for a six month break, and manages to find someone (Alec Guinness, or Obi Wan) just as evil as Brenda who literally takes away the one thing Tony has left. And Brenda? Things work out just fine for her. This is a very disturbing view of humanity. And it's probably a true and accurate portrait of life, which is oh so discouraging. If you love a great story (and a period costume drama to boot), pick this one up. If you're in a fragile place, rent Bridesmaids again.

Sarah's Key (2010)

This movie is pretty bad. Considering that it has some great performances and an interesting story, that's saying something. Unfortunately, it happens a lot. The story and the performances in a movie are related to, but not necessary tied to what the director does with the material. The problem here is the script, (lack of) editing, and the direction, which combine to make this movie reminiscent of a mushy soap opera.

Mélusine Mayance is the real star of the movie, and she is amazing. At the time of filming, I would guess she was about 10. And the kid can act. She can do so much with just facial expressions that most of Hollywood should sit up and re-think all that Botox. She plays a Jewish kid in a Paris apartment, and we meet her as she is playing joyously with her brother in one of the bedrooms. This happiness only lasts about a minute of screen time because the police pound on the door and round up the family to go to Vel' d'Hiv, the Paris velodrome. Parisian Jews are being held there in filth and heat before being shipped to the camps. The French police and officials are doing the round-up for the Germans. It's harrowing, to say the least.

Before leaving the apartment, Sarah hides her little brother in a locked cupboard. She tries and is unable to pass the key to a neighbor. She is eventually separated from her parents, and her entire being is now focused on getting back to that cupboard. Sarah's story is riveting. The parallel story being told about and by Kristin Scott Thomas in 2010 is not nearly as interesting. Parts of it are totally unnecessary and distracting and should have been edited out of the script and movie. I have heard fantastic things about this book, and it is very likely that the modern story is great in the book. But a movie usually cannot include all of a book.

There are also way too many conversations like this:
- You need to know the truth!
- I don't want the truth. Take your stories away from me.
And later...
- Why did you have to tell me the truth?

Kristin Scott Thomas is under-used, but it's still fun to watch her switch back and forth from French to English.

Pass on this one. Maybe read the book.

Sugarland Express (1974)

This is an early Steven Spielberg film, and it's pretty bad. It has a hard time deciding on a tone - social commentary? Chase film? Farce or tragedy? Also, you can see some early versions of Spielberg's contrived scenes and shots that seem to me like a slap in the head saying - hey! you're supposed to be sad now!

Goldie Hawn plays a petty criminal / shoplifter who gets out of jail (in Texas) to find her son (2 year-old Baby Langston) has been put in foster care and has found a permanent home. Determined to get him back, she breaks her husband Clovis out of jail (not a tough job), and they take off to get the baby. They are immediately stopped by a state trooper, so they take him hostage. Pretty soon they have a trail of 50 or so police cars. Clovis is not a total idiot, so he figures out how to take bathroom and food breaks, and even get to a gas station when the tank is empty, all while being tailed by massive police.

All is going pretty well until they are found in a used car lot by a couple of hunters who proceed to blow the place up in the name of civic duty. This scene is totally ridiculous, and the already stretched premise devolves into fantasy. And of course it cannot end well. And the ending is bad on many levels. The final scene manages to focus more on a lovely sunset than the characters. Spielberg really likes to cram stuff into a film, but most of it is a distraction.

Goldie Hawn makes a charming criminal. Clovis is played by William Atherton, and he's OK. I'm always distracted by Atherton, as his later career has been spent primarily playing villains with a strong weasel streak. I find him distasteful. But he's ok here. An odd choice, but OK.

I would pass on this and pick up Vanishing Point, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. This is very derivative of better films.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

I am a summer gal. I hate it when the weather cools and the leaves die. Winter blows. But there is one silver lining. At least for a couple of months, starting November 1, the movie situation gets pretty damn awesome. This is primarily due to the Academy Awards and advertising budgets. A movie has to be released by 12/31 to be eligible, and movies fresh in the public's mind are more likely to win than a movie already forgotten (think Social Network and The King's Speech).

So I do look forward to this time of year for movie purposes. Today I went with my mom to one of my favorite lunch places, and then we went to a movie. The new Pedro Almodóvar movie. How perfect is that? Pedro is one of the world's best directors, and this movie did not disappoint. It was really well made and well acted.

My mom called it sick. I said, but what about...?" And she interrupted with "sick, sick, sick." She requested that I never take her to a movie by "that director" again.

So, beware. I thought this movie would have a horror element, but it is more a twisted psychological study. A plastic surgeon, Antonio Banderas, has a woman captive in his house. They have an odd relationship. Antonio is really creepy, and the more you learn about him, the less you will like him. How did the woman get there? Will she be able to leave? You have to watch and find out. And the ending is awesome. This is very stylistic, and I think it will stick with you.

Back to the sick part. The first hour really drags. The subject matter is tough. We meet some horrible characters. This is not for everyone.

Tower Heist (2011)

OK - there's good news and bad news. First the good news. This movie is a LOT of fun. I had a couple of huge huge huge laughs with this one. And they come from an obvious place and a couple perhaps not so obvious. The obvious - Eddie Murphy is fantastic, and he steals some scenes. He doesn't, however, steal the movie; this truly is ensemble work. Téa Leoni and Gabourey Sidibe are hilarious. Téa is only given one scene to really work with, but it's a great scene. Gabourey has more fun with her character, and she's good. I look forward to seeing her in more films.

Which brings me to the bad news: this could have been better. The goal here was to be a boneheaded version of Ocean's Eleven. Well, the movie should have been more raucous and used its people more effectively. Eddie is great, but the gals above could have done a lot more. Ben Stiller played a straight man - what the fuck? Matthew Broderick and Casey Affleck were both too tame, playing nebbish type chicken shits. If this movie had thrown in some Hangover type nuttiness it would have reached stratospheric heights.

The NYT (I think A.O. Scott) was disturbed by the stereotype of Eddie's character and the plot holes. Who gives a shit about plot holes? Is there reality in the movies? Especially in heist films? (Or horror, or romantic comedies....and on and on.) I don't care about the reality part. And I found every character to be a stereotype, but not necessarily used effectively. By not pushing the envelope, there were scenes that stalled a bit, dialogue that seemed forced.

But the upshot - this is fun. Enjoy yourself. And watch for the improv scene between Gabourey and Eddie.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

This wasn't bad. Sure, it's still a formulaic action / adventure / superhero movie, which translates to mediocre dialogue and little character development, plus an explosion filled ending. Nevertheless, it is better than most. We know these characters, and it is fun to learn how Xavier, Mystique and Magneto all met, grew up together and split. Some things are answered - like where Magneto's dorky metal hat came from - but some things are still hanging. Michael Fassbender is great - he is a compelling actor, and James McAvoy is pretty damn good as Xavier. Kevin Bacon is totally wasted as the villain.

The time went quickly while I watched this, and who doesn't need a couple of mindless hours every once in a while?

FYI - Jennifer Lawrence can act (see Winter's Bone), so she tries to do something with Mystique. She does what she can. If you want an action / thriller, pick up Winter's Bone.