Newest articles on The Sacramento Press tagged as "film review"

Film Review: Big Miracle

2012-02-03T07:41:41Z

Big Miracle
Directed by Ken Kwapis

One film this week has noteworthy political content and the most surprising thing is which film it is. From a casual distance, “Big Miracle” looks like a very generic animal rescue story, essentially “Free Willy” x2.5, as assorted people try to help two adults and one juvenile whale escape from behind an ice barrier in the Beaufort Sea. It’s based on a true story of an event that captured national attention in 1988, and the film makes use of news footage from that period, with every major network anchor commenting on the situation as it unfolds.

It also embellishes the story with various formulaic characters and circumstances, including a love story, a somewhat precocious local boy, and an evil “big oil” tycoon. The basic storytelling is no less unsubtle than the recent “The Muppets,” for example. However, what’s surprising, and where the movie manages to shine on some level, are the moments during which several of the major players’ motivations are explored.

It would have been very easy to show involvement from the White House as being a matter of national pride or jingoism, especially in a movie aimed mostly at kids, but it’s described as much more of a compromise of conflicting interests. This was the end of the Reagan administration and we’re given staff who want to send Reagan out with an episode that might help cover for a bad environmental record, while also boosting (the senior) Bush’s election chances, but only if it won’t go bad and cause an even larger stain on the legacy. Similarly, we’re shown conflicts involving the use of a Russian icebreaker ship (in reality there were two) and standoffs between the political interests and Greenpeace (as embodied by an activist played by Drew Barrymore).

Another episode depicts the oil company boss (Ted Danson) being manipulated by his wife into realizing that he can appear friendly to the environment in a way that will probably make it easier to rape it later. It’s a retrospective, narrative example of ‘greenwashing’ a company’s image at a point in time that’s almost as early as the phrase was coined.

This might actually be a good movie for kids, not just as predictable entertainment, but as a way of educating them about how the media and various political interests operate. We see rival television outlets and personalities more interested in ratings than the story, and clear conflicts between local and wider cultural perspectives, along with the other interests already outlined. The film also delivers little after-the-fact nuggets, like the quadrupling of Greenpeace's membership following the incident.

As a story, it offers relatively little that hasn’t been done multiple times before, although this time there might be a little nostalgia for those parents who remember the story. But as a surprisingly nuanced examination of questionable motives, especially for a children’s movie, it exceeds expectations.

Film Review: The Woman in Black

2012-02-03T07:36:20Z

The Woman in Black
Directed by James Watkins

Daniel Radcliffe has made nine theatrical movies in the last decade and eight of them have been episodes in the “Harry Potter” saga. So it’s hardly surprising that when he first appears onscreen in “The Woman in Black,” you find yourself expecting his Hogwarts sidekicks to show up, or a wand to appear in his hand (not helped by an early train journey). But that slight disorientation passes and he turns in a fairly solid performance as the young father who has been sent by his London firm to settle the paperwork of a dead woman who lived in a fabulously spooky house on the far side of a remote tidal causeway.

Outside of the “Potter” films, he’s proved himself to be a versatile performer, probably more lauded on stage than on the big screen, but also willing to throw himself into almost anything as demonstrated in a recent “Saturday Night Live” (including playing the part of Casey Anthony’s yorkie). In interviews, he has described “The Woman in Black” as simply being the best script he'd read at the time he chose to get involved. And it’s a very interesting project, not just for a prospective lead actor, his fans, and genre aficionados, but also for filmmakers and those who are intrigued by the way films are made.

This is a creepy film.

I’m not an easily scared person but there was no shortage of squeals and jumpiness among the audience at the press screening. Which is only to be expected from a film about disappearing children and a haunted house. But what’s noteworthy is how that level of creepiness is achieved. There are virtually no elaborate special effects – it’s almost exclusively an outcome of camera angles, makeup, and timing. This is a $17m production that, in the hands of a different production team could very easily have cost two or three times as much, without being any better at establishing an atmosphere. And that also makes it a good pick for Radcliffe, who gets to headline a film that doesn’t require him to stray far from his comfort zone, and which won’t need to measure success in hundreds of millions of dollars.

That’s not to say it doesn’t have any problems – it does. You can’t afford to think for more than a moment about almost any of the plot details. And much of the logic appears to have been sucked into the marshes on either side of that tidal causeway I mentioned earlier. It’s a brief film at 95 minutes and it doesn’t pause to explain very much: It’s not a complicated story but we’re never told how or why Radcliffe’s character decides what to do or, for example, why residents of the local village never seem to ponder the possibility of moving away despite it clearly being the worst possible location in which to raise a family.

But for the right audience, none of that will matter. It’s creepy and it stars Harry Potter…err, Daniel Radcliffe.

"The Grey" - Part 2: Interview

2012-01-27T09:23:33Z

INTERVIEW: DIRECTOR JOE CARNAHAN AND ACTOR FRANK GRILLO

[NOTE: THE INTERVIEW CONTAINS SOME MILD PLOT SPOILERS FOR “THE GREY”.]

Recently, in San Francisco, I had a chance to chat with co-writer and director Joe Carnahan and actor Frank Grillo about their new release “The Grey” which opens this week. The film, which is reviewed in a separate article, tells the story of a group of oil workers whose plane crashes in the Alaskan wilderness, where they find themselves stalked by a pack of almost mythically large wolves. Joe is a Sacramento native and we’ve known each other for several years through the local film community and the Sacramento Film and Music Festival.

As we were setting up for the interview, Joe happened to make a self-deprecatory joke about his own intelligence, which led to an interesting opening:

Tony: You see I would counter that right away. I watched “The Grey” a few weeks ago - I don’t like to read production notes before seeing a film and I knew virtually nothing going in – but I knew it wasn’t going to be “Alive” meets “Cujo”… [they both agree] … because I don’t think you’re capable of writing a script that’s that one dimensional.

Joe: Right. You may hate it for its other dimensions but it won’t be mono-dimensional.

Frank: [laughs]

Tony: The other things you’ve written – even a film like “Smokin’ Aces” which is a ‘shoot-em-up’ has a very intricate story.

Joe: “Smokin’ Aces” to me, the construct, was Iraq. I based the movie on Iraq. It starts with misinformation, it leads to this kind of heedless violence, a bunch of people who shouldn’t die do, they make a better deal at the end, and it’s over – that’s it.

Tony: Let’s come back to the war topic later. As I said, I watched “The Grey” knowing nothing about it and had to write my comment for the studio, and I said this isn’t a film about men and wolves, this is a film about life and death, and going out on your own terms.

Joe: Yes. 100%.

Tony: So, I was intrigued as to whether when you read the short story if it came out of nowhere and grabbed you or if you were already thinking of this as a subject you wanted to tackle.

Joe: No, you know what Tony, I responded to the short story because I was on “Mission Impossible 3” and I was going to quit before I was fired. I had run my course on that and here I was presented with this very simple, spare, kind of bare bones survival story - versus where I was at that moment which was a big star, big franchise, big studio, with a big budget at 33 years old and feeling I didn’t deserve any of that….

Frank: No, by the way you do.

Joe: …at the same time “The A-Team” represents me finishing that business on “MI3” – doing a big popcorn movie. So it [“The Grey”] appealed to me in every way that it could, because its simplicity was beautiful to me. But then Ian [Ian Mackenzie Jeffers who co-wrote the screenplay and wrote the short story “The Ghost Walker” on which it is based] did a draft of his own short story and I took that, and over the next 4-5 years rewrote it, fashioned it, and fine-tuned it.

[Joe continued by describing how, with the passage of time, topics which might not have developed quite so readily in a more rushed circumstance, including religion and spirituality, evolved as the story became more polished.]

Tony: So, you guys met on “Pride and Glory” [for which Joe co-wrote the screenplay]?

Frank: A little before that.

Tony: [To Frank] When this first came to you, did you see the script first or was it still an idea? How close was it to the final script?

Frank: I think it was fairly close to what we actually shot by the time I saw it.

Joe: Yes, I gave it to you in September and we were shooting in January.

Frank: Yeah. He had seen some of “Warrior” and I had said to him “I want to work with you, just whatever it is, find me something, I’ll do anything – I’m a huge fan” and he sent me this script. He said to me “January we’re shooting this movie and that’s the role!” And he could have had anybody he wanted for the role, obviously, and he said “It might take me some time but you’re doing the movie – January – don’t take a job!” And I said “Joe, I can’t…” He said “January, don’t take a job! Go gain some weight, beef up, this is what we have to do.” And there we were in January.

Tony: Although underneath something like three parkas…

Joe: Yeah – I had three parkas on but Frank didn’t!

Frank: [laughs]

Joe: You said you wanted the role pal!

Tony: It’s such a neat story and neat characters. I was interested in what drew you to it. The Ottway part [Liam Neeson’s character] is interesting – he’s watched somebody who didn’t have the opportunity to go out on her own terms and he respects that opportunity when it arises. There’s a scene in the wreckage where a guy is dying and the others are saying “You’ve got to do something” and he goes over and says [paraphrased] “You’re going to die – but that’s OK” You don’t see that often.

Joe: No. You see a lot of people killed but you don’t see a lot of people die.

Frank: In the original script – and at first I was kind of upset that we took it out – but when he says that to him, my character says “What are you doing?” But there was such a rhythm, there was such a gorgeous poetic rhythm to the connection that these two guys had that if I had interjected, interrupted, and taken it away from that, it would have destroyed the scene. And that’s my favorite scene in the movie.

Tony: It reminds me - and I don’t think this is a comparison you’ll dislike [to Joe] given that you say you don’t see people die very often - it reminds me of Giovanni Ribisi in “Saving Private Ryan.”

Joe: Which is a brilliant death scene.

Tony: It’s the best scene of the movie.

Joe: And he says “Tell me, tell me what’s wrong” and the blood is almost black and he’s asking for his mother.

Tony: And he basically instructs them to overdose him on morphine. He’s a medic….

Joe: Right, he’s a medic, he knows he going to die. But that’s … anytime there’s a Spielberg comparison, I am firmly in your camp.

Frank: I got a chance to work with him and he said when he saw that scene he actually went back and wrote more for Giovanni earlier in the movie, so there would be more of him in the movie.

Joe: Oh, wow!

[The three of us then went off on a tangent for a minute or two about Giovanni Ribisi’s career starting as a child actor in the sitcom “My Two Dads.”]

Tony: In “the Grey” it seems to me that there were at least quadruple threats: There’s the location that they’re in, there’s the lack of any kind of supplies they would need to survive in that location, the climate obviously, and the wolves. But this isn’t about the wolves, the wolves are just part of that.

Joe: Tony, you see that – but you’re literally one of the only people that has ever said that, right there.

Tony: It’s an obstacle, of which part just happens to be the wolves. They could have just been eyes in the distance and mysteriously, every now and then somebody dies and you never know how they die. It’s almost a MacGuffin.

Joe: Right – they’re as close to a MacGuffin as a traditional film like this would have. Because essentially it’s a plotless movie.

Tony: In fact, to some extent, the whole bundle of obstacles: location, supplies, climate, wolves altogether are a MacGuffin.

Joe: Absolutely

Tony: It’s just there to cause these people to think about the meaning of life.

Frank: Exactly. That’s an accurate reading of the script. You asked what attracted me to the film. As a middle-aged man – this is what I think about all day.

Joe: And also that the wolves are just a force of nature – like the cliff, like the blizzard, like the river.

Tony: Have you been following the news – the timing is really interesting.

Joe: Oh – OR7 – the wolf that’s crossed into California. Yeah, I invited him to the premiere. It’s a very elaborate joke, a very elaborate stunt when he shows up and around his neck he’s got a little pass, a VIP pass.

Frank: It’s a great story

Tony: You clearly wanted something more profound than an action film and you succeeded. But do you worry about the apparent dichotomy between what films are and how films are marketed?

Joe: You know what, Tony, I don’t because what I would like, in fairness to an audience, this is something where I’d like them to cast as wide a net as possible – to get people who are even casual genre fans, who are casual Liam Neeson fans into the theater. Because I swear to God it will become the water cooler talk for days to come. I really believe that. What I’ve said about this film, my ultimate goal, is that it plays for you for longer than the two hours it took to watch. That’s what I want – because I think so much of movies today are just disposable experiences.

Tony: I guess my question is that we’re sitting here saying this is a profound movie about life and death and the human experience….

Joe: Right.

Tony: …so do you worry that the people who do in fact want to see a profound movie about life and death and the human experience are not going to come and watch “The Grey” based on the trailer somebody’s cut of the film that makes it look like “Alive” meets “Cujo”?

Joe: No. Unfortunately, if those people you just described were in the majority, we wouldn’t all be about to speak Mandarin in the next ten years. You know what I mean? If we had that level of engagement or that level of high mindedness, without trying to sound snobbish or arrogant about it, if those kinds of people were in the majority then I think it would be a radically different marketing angle.

Tony: If you think of film classics like 1936’s “Modern Times” or 1957’s “12 Angry Men” – those were mainstream films because you didn’t have studios, indies, direct to cable, and all those kinds of things, so those were films people were going to watch. They were deep films – but they were either social satires or social commentaries. We’ve had this conversation before – now you see things like “Lions for Lambs” [written by Joe’s brother Matthew Michael Carnahan] which is a brilliant piece of writing and “In the Valley of Elah,” and films like “The Company Men” about unemployment and layoffs. I’ve heard it said that folks on the left don’t want to go and see these stories and be reminded of what they already know and folks on the right don’t want to go and get lectured by Hollywood.

Joe: Yes.

Tony: So, do you think there’s a political divide – is it that we’re telling the wrong stories or are we telling the right stories but telling them too soon?

Joe: Well listen, you mentioned “Lions for Lambs” and “In the Valley of Elah” – those are movie about hot button issues. My brother had written “The Kingdom” which in a lot of ways to me was a knock on the Saudis and the Saudi royal family. It was meant to be, not a condemnation but he was certainly taking a shot – it wasn’t just this kind of prosaic look at a different culture – he was going after them. But if you don’t mix in gunfights it becomes this almost geopolitical…whatever. I found, and I got this from my benefactor Ridley [Scott] – I loved the filmmaking in “Black Hawk Down” but it became very jingoistic. And the part about the Somalis and what they were dealing with … and I understand why that was jettisoned. I get it, but it was also a case of looking at how much more money that made than a film like “Lions for Lambs” which was more about talking points.

Tony: If you get me on “Black Hawk Down” we’ll be here all day. But “The Kingdom” and “Lions for Lambs” are an interesting comparison because they’re both good scripts and they both have a lot to say politically….

Joe: Yes.

Tony: ...and I don’t remember the box office….

Joe: “The Kingdom” made a lot more money.

Tony: “The Kingdom” has a lot of shooting and action and “Lions for Lambs” is more like a play

Joe: Yeah, it’s a three act play. It’s a play.

Tony: So if you want to have political content and you want to get something out there and you want to hit a mainstream audience….

Joe: Good luck

Tony: …do you have to disguise it as something else?

Frank: I think you do.

Joe: Oh, absolutely.

Frank: You have to, not sneak it in, but you have to….

Joe: It’s everything short of sneaking it in. It’s very difficult to come straight at somebody with that kind of argument being that political, spiritual, whatever it may be that you’re trying to tackle. In this country more so than any other in the world – we love to slap labels on as quickly possible. And if you’re doing that it’s a “specialized” kind of film.

Tony: [To Frank] In the film, you’re the tough guy’s tough guy. It reminded me of this kid I knew at summer camp who was tough and would never let his guard down – and then I saw him break down completely riding a roller coaster.

Frank: That’s a great analogy.

Tony: Did you know those guys growing up or were you that guy?

Frank: I wasn’t that guy – I was on the other end of it. But I did know those guys and I also spent some time visiting some jails around New York because I wanted to talk to some guys on the other side of that reality. And they all seemed to be the same – you’re right – it’s the big bully who goes on the roller coaster and that was my jump off point. It’s such a cool journey that this guy makes and we all know those people. And how did I get to the point where my hands are always up and I’m threatened all the time. When you’re afraid you get angry and Diaz [his character in the film] is angry all the time. Why? Because he’s afraid all the time. And it was a gift to me as an actor to get to explore this character.

Tony: The amazing thing about “The Grey” is that I don’t think there’s a weak link in the film. The problem with an ensemble movie is that there’s often a character that you want to get eaten by a wolf early on in the movie just so that you don’t get to see him for the next hour. And this movie doesn’t have that.

Joe: I think you really do come to fall for those guys and you appreciate those guys and you pull for them. And that’s as it should be.

[At this point we discussed several characters and their unusual paths in the movie, including specific outcomes for some of them.]

Joe: But there’s bravery and heroism that isn’t always obvious and that you don’t see coming from a mile away

Frank: But we can talk about this all day – this guy [his character] finally got a chance to be part of something. That’s the beauty of it.

Joe: Yeah – absolutely man

Tony: What’s next for you Joe?

Joe: If I get any real run off the Grey, if it allows me to do something else, I’d like to put all those chips toward “Killing Pablo.” For me that particular project is like this vastly undernourished orphan and I need to get this kid a meal.

Tony: That’s Pablo Escobar?

Joe: Yes. I’ve been to Colombia three times, I’ve been to Medellin three times and I love it – as attrition goes it getting pretty close. Somebody asked me why do you want to make that project so badly and I was interviewing this 78 year old man who was there at the time it happened, and I asked him if he remembered anything that day, when they got Pablo. And he said “I was sitting in my house and I thought it was an early winter thunder storm” because the level of gunfire was such that the guy couldn’t discern individual shots and I thought “I’m ****ing making this movie!”

Tony: And anything back in Sacramento – are we going to see you back in town?

Joe: Tony if I could just get, and I’ve said this before – what you need is a full time film commissioner and we need to quit dicking around. And in that City which is one of the great untapped shooting locations – in two hours you can be in the snow, you can be on the river….

Tony: And the neighborhoods can be anywhere.

Joe: Dude, the Fabulous 40’s – all you have to do is switch the cars out and you could be in the 1950’s. I would love to do it. I think the City has to get a lot more aggressive about what it wants to do. You know Kevin Johnson kept the Kings – and that would not have happened with Heather Fargo, they would have been gone. So if he can apply that kind of determination to getting movies shot there….

Tony: You know the “For Arts Sake” manager just left, this week.

Joe: Really? Well you know I’m looking for a job!

Disclosure: The author is co-director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival and Joe Carnahan is a former special guest of that event.

"The Grey" - Part 1: Review

2012-01-27T09:22:47Z

The Grey
Directed by Joe Carnahan

The promotional materials for “The Grey” would probably cause you to believe that this is a “Jaws”-like adventure, with sharks replaced by wolves. And that’s certainly an easy way to sell a movie – but the truth is somewhat more complicated and worthy of greater respect.

This isn’t just a movie about men and wolves, and the conflict between them after a plane of oil industry workers crashes in the Alaskan wilderness. Underneath that surface, it’s more about life and death and our ability to determine our own fate. Liam Neeson plays Ottway, a man whose job is to shoot wolves and remove other threats to the men who work in this desolate place. But he’s also a man with tragedy in his past and consequently empty eyes. When the plane goes down, it triggers in him the need to survive – not so much because he has things to live for, but because he isn’t willing to let anybody or anything else dictate his fate.

It’s an interesting and quite profound premise for what might otherwise seem like a shallow action adventure. But it’s also in keeping for co-writer and director (and Sacramentan) Joe Carnahan, who tends to favor stories that are more complex than they appear.

Some detractors have complained that the behavior of the wolves in “The Grey” is unrealistic, but this isn’t a nature documentary. And the wolves themselves are not the only complication in the men’s lives, existing as they do alongside the extreme cold, remote location, and lack of supplies that they're faced with. As such, the wolves are simply a part of a bundled obstacle, and no more or less a force of nature than the blizzards and low temperatures. They exist as a test within the context of the movie, increased to almost mythical size and actions. They're simply something to be overcome - and they might just as easily have been bears, ghouls, or invisible beings.

Within this premise are some of the best on-film encounters with death – not simply in the sense of the staged violent ends that we've come to expect from the action genre, but philosophical contemplations of what it means to recognize and sometimes accept death, even when it isn’t sought out. And these are genuinely thought-provoking moments: As Carnahan himself said during a recent interview, “...it will become the water cooler talk for days to come. I really believe that. My ultimate goal is that it plays for you for longer than the two hours it took to watch. That’s what I want – because I think so much of movies today are just disposable experiences.” And it succeeds.

The outcome is quite remarkable in that he’s made a film that can satisfy those who are simply looking for a solid roller coaster action adventure, but also those who like to ponder the deeper meaning of a film and the lessons it might evoke, over dinner afterwards, or the next day. It might even cure a dysfunctional family’s inability to choose a movie that appeals to both the parents and the teenagers.

Disclosure: The author is co-director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival and Joe Carnahan is a former special guest of that event.

Mediation and conflict resolution featured at the Crest Theatre

2011-08-19T19:42:47Z

The third night of the 12 annual Sacramento Film & Music Festival brings a solid lineup of three narrative feature films to the Crest historic main screen. The first of these, "Face to Face," is an Australian drama that can only be seen at film festivals and which isn't even scheduled to open theatrically in Australia until next month.

"Face to Face" is reminiscent of the classic film "12 Angry Men," with the action moved from a jury room to a mediation session. Ten people and a mediator meet to discuss an employment dispute, but it soon becomes apparent that there is far more at stake and more shared history than one young man's rash actions. The screenplay was adapted from a stage play that was originally written based on actual transcripts of mediation sessions and the result is both powerful and genuine in the relationships and interpersonal dynamics in the room.

"Face to Face" is followed by the dark romantic comedy "Stan" and the horror film "The Corridor." The Festival recommends the later films for adult audiences only. Trailers and synopses for all three films can be found by selecting film titles on the Festival's schedule page here.

The Festival continues at the Crest through Sunday.

Disclosure: Tony Sheppard is Co-Director of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival.

Review: Conan O'Brien Can't Stop

2011-06-23T09:44:12Z

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop
Directed by Rodman Flender

Last summer, Sacramento’s Memorial Auditorium was one of the venues for Conan O’Brien’s “The Legally Prohibited From Being Funny on Television Tour.” That tour is now the focus of the behind the scenes documentary “Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop” – a somewhat unflinching look at an attempt to make show business lemonade from a deluge of unwanted lemons (or perhaps, in some opinions, a single unwanted Leno).

For those who live in caves, go to bed at 9pm, or go to bed at 9pm in caves, last year saw messy contract negotiations over late night programming at NBC. Years earlier, O’Brien had been promised the holy grail of talk shows, “The Tonight Show” at 11:35pm. However, when the moment arrived, incumbent host Jay Leno made it clear that he wasn’t ready or willing to retire. Rather than risk the possibility of having Leno end up with a competitive show on another network, NBC created an earlier 10pm talk show for Leno, and simultaneously attempted to cash in on the fact that shows of this nature also happen to be cheaper to produce than hour-long dramas, traditional favorites in that time period.

But the experiment failed. Leno fans, and other fans of “The Tonight Show” who preferred to get to bed sooner, now had a favorable option 95 minutes earlier in the evening. Meanwhile later night audiences and O’Brien fans watched the traditional timeslot, with both shows generating what were considered by the network to be disappointing ratings. Leno was still reluctant to walk away and NBC pitched a desperate attempt to solve the problem by suggesting that Leno return to 11:35pm, but in a truncated 30 minute format. O’Brien would then follow at 12:05am, with Jimmy Fallon’s later show being pushed back from a 12:35am start to 1:05am, and Carson Daly going even later.

O’Brien rejected this plan, saying at the time that he didn’t want to be the host who took “The Tonight Show” into a timeslot that meant it was no longer “tonight.” He also clearly felt that his contract was being breached and that there was a lack of good faith in both the way that he was being treated as well as the ripple effects that would impact the hosts of the later shows. And so he walked away from the prize franchise, leaving himself out of work, contractually prohibited from appearing on television, heavily compensated, but also overwhelmingly angry. And the short term result of channeling that anger was the aforementioned tour.

The film goes behind the scenes as the tour is planned and executed, and examines the dynamics of life on the road – in this case for someone unused to that schedule. Fans of O’Brien get to see a side normally hidden from view, as he works with his creative team, not always entirely positively – and he doesn’t attempt to hide his feelings about the situation. Non-fans will likely find it a fascinating examination of celebrity, including the difficulty of remaining upbeat in front of adoring fans. It’s not unusual to hear fans of certain artists complaining about abrupt or inhospitable encounters with their idols. What this film illustrates is how remarkable it can be that any celebrities ever manage to avoid that kind of behavior in the face of constant demands for their time, regardless of what else is happening. At times, O’Brien seems like he won’t make it, not because of the already grueling schedule of the shows themselves, but because of the endless extra commitments: Meet-and-greets, private parties, extra shows, hordes of adoring fans, and even his own college reunion at Harvard.

The title of the film is taken from an exchange in which it becomes apparent that O’Brien can’t imagine not working and, as was reported at the time, some of his motivation also came from trying to keep at least some of his production team employed. The end result is a neat film about a funny guy dealing with a difficult period in his career in what appears to be the only way he knows how – by laughing about it, and hoping others will too. It’s insightful, personal, and well worth checking out.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop opens on Friday, June 24th at the Crest Theatre. Information and showtimes can be found at www.thecrest.com.

The film's official website, including the trailer, can be found at www.conanobriencantstop.com.

Original "Survivor" Richard Hatch in Sacramento this weekend

2011-01-12T21:52:15Z

Richard Hatch is one of the featured interviewees in the locally produced documentary "Death or Taxes: The Sad Truth About Our American Taxation System" that will be screened as part of the Sacramento Film & Music Festival's WinterFEST this weekend. Mr. Hatch will be attending the screening in support of the film and a question and answer session with the filmmakers will follow the screening.

About the film - from the producers:
With a run time of 78 minutes, Death or Taxes takes a hard look at the horrifying realities faced by the millions of taxpayers who owe back taxes, many of whom are forced to make life-changing decisions. Should they pay their rent or pay their back taxes? Put food on the table or pay the often exorbitant fines issued by IRS agents in the name of Uncle Sam? Death or Taxes tells the story of the good, honest people who get caught in IRS quicksand—some of whom are pushed beyond hope into the last decision they’ll ever make.

About Mr. Hatch:
Richard Hatch is best known for winning the first ever season of Survivor. Following his success on the reality television show and his $1,000,000 prize, Richard worked with attorneys and accountants to determine his tax obligations for the prize money. In spite of his best efforts, Richard was accused and convicted of tax evasion. Richard served 52 months in federal prison, 4 months spent in solitary confinement, without ever having been assessed a tax debt. Richard’s ongoing battle with the tax and legal systems continue today, as Richard works to clear his name, and come to a settlement with the IRS.

Death or Taxes screens at 1:30pm on Sunday, January 16th at the Crest Theatre.

The Sacramento Film & Music Festival WinterFEST is at the Crest Theatre from Saturday, January 15th - Monday, January 17th and the full schedule, with ticketing links and links to individual film pages can be found online at www.sacfilm.com/schedule.html

See also the overview Sacramento Press article about the Festival: LINK

Disclosure: Tony Shepppard is a Festival Co-Director.

Review: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

2010-01-16T00:16:04Z

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Directed by Terry Gilliam

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

This is a movie that will be seen for two reasons: The movie itself and morbid curiosity associated with the death of its star, Heath Ledger. Ledger had completed “The Dark Knight” and was shooting this when he died of an accidental drug overdose, leaving Director Terry Gilliam with half a movie, no lead actor, and an uncertain future for the project.

Gilliam is still best known by some of us as the wacky animator for the original Monty Python shows. But he’s also an accomplished director of not just Python movies, but also “Brazil,” “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” and “Twelve Monkeys,” amongst others. He’s also been trying to film “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” (currently back in production with Johnny Depp involved) for years, with a truly disastrous earlier attempt chronicled in the noteworthy documentary “Lost in La Mancha.” So he’s no stranger to adversity in production.

But a dead lead actor is extreme adversity. Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell all stepped up and agreed to fill in for Ledger. Gilliam was able to make that work in a manner that is far more successful than it might sound. The story revolves around the ancient and mystical Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) who, we discover, has spent a great deal of time making questionable wagers and agreements with the Devil (Tom Waits). He currently drags a ragtag group around in an amazing horse-drawn sideshow in which audience members are able to pass through a magical mirror into imaginary worlds. This is where the heart of the film lies, in Gilliam’s extraordinary view of a fantasy world – one that makes you want to peak under the rocks and into the crevices of his very weird mind.

Into this arrives Tony Sheppard—played mainly by Ledger and, yes, that’s really the character’s name!—a mysterious stranger who falls in with this odd group and possibly has an agenda of his own.

This is a very cool movie – both for the crazy visuals (Gilliam at his best) and for the extraordinarily effective writing that pulled such a winning outcome out of such tragic circumstances. It might be the morbid curiosity that drives you to see it, but the movie can capably take it from there.

Review: A Single Man

2010-01-08T09:30:12Z

A Single Man
Directed by Tom Ford

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Colin Firth plays George Falconer, a professor in 1962 Los Angeles who loses his long time partner in a distant car wreck and struggles through the lonely aftermath, trying to get through each day without him. There’s nothing unique about losing a loved one but Falconer, as a gay man in that period, has only one person he can share his feelings with, his best friend Charley (Julianne Moore) with whom he also shares a complicated past. At work and in his daily life, he maintains a stoicism that hides the lost romance that was always hidden.

“A Single Man” is based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood – the Chris of “Chris and Don” and the writer of the source material for “Cabaret.” The film is directed by fashion designer Tom Ford. There are some directorial choices that are a little too self-conscious at times, but the result is still powerful and one of the top picks of the year (it’s a 2009 film opening slightly late in Sacramento). Firth is excellent in the lead role [side note: Firth himself is the child of two college educators] and is supported well by Moore and by Matthew Goode as lost love Jim (seen in flashbacks – and also seen in another release this week: “Leap Year”). All grown up since 2002’s “About a Boy,” Nicholas Hoult plays a concerned student in one of George’s classes and rounds out the cast nicely.

It’s perhaps too easy to look at “A Single Man” in the context of the era depicted and sympathize with George for the time in which he lived. This was California a decade before Harvey Milk moved from New York City to San Francisco and a period when ‘moral turpitude’ was still very much an issue, especially for educators. But, almost 50 years later, and despite much greater acceptance of gays in society, many individuals still live in fear of adverse family reactions and even the loss of employment for simply being themselves. One of the complications for George is that he isn’t welcome at Jim’s funeral—and is only even aware of it because of the kindness of a single sympathetic family member. This is not something that will be hard to appreciate for gay members of the audience, especially those who have had to cope with similar inhospitality and homophobia. And the fictional George and Jim, as well as the real life Chris and Don, would still not be able to marry in today’s California.

But, politics aside, the movie is excellent and reminiscent of both “Lost in Translation” and “The Visitor” in terms of capturing a mood and a moment in the life of a middle aged man who no longer expects to form the type of personal connections he has previously. It would make an interesting double-header with the character study of middle-aged isolation, albeit more self-inflicted, depicted by George Clooney in the similarly excellent “Up in the Air.”

"A Single Man" opens at the Crest Theatre, January 8th.
For showtimes and other details visit www.thecrest.com.

Review: District 9

2009-08-22T19:04:17Z

District 9
Directed by Neill Blomkamp

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Sitting at the Number 1 spot in this week’s box office rankings and modestly masquerading as a relatively low-budget creature feature, “District 9” is brought to you in a hands-off way by producer Peter Jackson (the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy).

I say masquerading, as it’s really quite an insightful commentary on politics and international power-brokering, both past and current. The story has aliens arriving over Johannesburg, complete with their clearly superior technology and weaponry but also with a broken spaceship and apparently no intergalactic towing service. This results in two outcomes – a giant refugee camp for the stranded “prawns, “as they become known, and a great desire to crack the potentially lucrative mystery of their guns, which don’t operate in human hands. The film unfolds in the style of a news story or reality TV show, as we watch a mid-level manager undertake the manipulative relocation of 1.8 million refugees from their longstanding slum environment to a new purpose-built tent city.

But what is most noteworthy is the effective way that the film reflects our treatment of not just refugees, but people who we deem unworthy of integration. Being set in South Africa, it’s impossible to watch the movie and not think of Apartheid. But it also looks like a cross between Gaza and any number of shanty towns worldwide, with a trapped population driven to desperation in the face of a complete lack of opportunity. It’s also uncomfortably believable to watch the policing of this fictional environment being performed not by the quasi-UN-type organization depicted, but by a multi-national company of mercenaries and arms manufacturing who clearly have a greater vested interest in the hidden arsenal than in the well-being of the prawns.

Like the best of the genre, this is science fiction against a backdrop of our political and social vulnerabilities and shortcomings. The aliens and their city-sized cosmic-utility-vehicle may be hard to believe, but the humans and their actions are all too real. “District 9” is the best sci-fi of the year, with more thought-provoking content than four years at Starfleet Academy—and without all the financial aid.

Review: (500) Days of Summer

2009-08-08T07:45:44Z

(500) Days of Summer
Directed by Marc Webb

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

The Summer of the title is a girl and not the season and the movie tells the story of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and 500 days during his relationship with her (Zooey Deschanel). This could be a fairly mundane story, with few significant surprises, except for the way in which it’s told. And that telling will appeal to some audience members and drive others completely crazy as to some extent the movie becomes more about the form than simply about the tale, a phenomenon that often leaves me on the crazy side of the fence but which this time around I found really appealing.

As the story unfolds, the audience is presented with an onscreen counter that tells us which day of the relationship we are on and the story itself is completely non-linear. Such stories are sometimes frustrating, depending on the effectiveness of the direction, as they jump from one point in time to another without immediate clarity in the chronology. In this movie, we always know exactly what moment we’re experiencing and it rapidly becomes both a roadmap and a running inside joke.

This is just one visual trick in a movie that employs several, perhaps one or two too many, which on balance I enjoyed. Mainstream feature films are often very formulaic in nature, whereas short films and music videos are often more visually innovative. “(500) Days…” is a debut feature from a director, Marc Webb, who has previously made shorter projects and seems to have carried that innovation forward, in my opinion successfully.

Certainly to the advantage of the overall outcome, Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel are both appealing and believable in most moments of their respective roles as the hopeful and smitten young man and the girl who is skeptical about the existence of true love. This is a story that could fail purely on an absence of chemistry and audience sympathy with other actors in these roles, but they are well matched and effective during both the highs and the lows of their relationship. Additionally, the movie has one of the best pairs of opening and closing scenes I’ve seen in a while, contributing to my overall positive response.

Review: Public Enemies

2009-07-04T00:15:19Z

Public Enemies
Directed by Michael Mann

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Public Enemies” tells the story of bank robber John Dillinger (Johnny Depp), who became both the nemesis and the inspiration for J. Edgar Hoover as he was expanding the FBI. It’s a film that I would expect to enjoy, despite not being a big Depp fan, as it has numerous other cast members and the fact that I usually like cops-and-gangsters themes. But there are aspects of the project that took me out of the moment and left the whole experience feeling flat.

I’ve enjoyed the work of Christian Bale (Special Agent Melvin Purvis) and Stephen Dorff since they were both child actors, albeit with some misses, and I especially liked the appearance here of some other favorites in smaller supporting roles: Billy Crudup (as J. Edgar Hoover), Rory Cochrane, and Giovanni Ribisi. But the film takes a somewhat stand-offish tone with the characters. After initially introducing the major protagonists, we don’t seem to be encouraged to sympathize with either side. It’s hard to tell if this is an attempt at being non-partisan or an avoidance of the inherent risk of having an audience side with a doomed character. But the outcome made me feel detached, not really caring too much about anybody’s ultimate fates. And there is a lot of ugly fate at work. In recent years police have lamented the advanced fire power of criminals, but there are enough bullets flying around in “Public Enemies” to destroy vehicles and buildings, as well as human bodies.

My larger problem with the film, and this may have been very personal, was in the manner in which it was shot. There was a turning point in the movie for me, during a scene at the Little Bohemia Lodge, in the woods of Wisconsin (and a historic location in the Dillinger story), when the nature of the action and cinematography suddenly made me acutely aware that I was watching video and not film. I’m not sure why it hadn’t occurred to me sooner than that, but it then bothered me for the rest of the movie. Film and video, depending on quite how the video is shot and what cameras are used, have a different appearance and at times “Public Enemies” felt like an extremely high budget home movie, or at least something that seemed sub-par for a production of this type, more like the video standards of a few years ago.

The story itself seems sound, and the problems I perceived may not bother others. But I came away from it in a strangely ambivalent mood, wondering if I would have liked it even less with a different cast or liked it better with different cameras.

Review: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

2009-06-14T04:37:20Z

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Directed by Tony Scott

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

In the early-mid 70’s, my father subscribed to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Book series. This was my introduction to “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three,” “Jaws” and assorted other titles. I remember liking the story and, later, I enjoyed the 1974 film adaptation starring Walther Matthau and Robert Shaw. I don’t recall watching the 1998 TV remake, which, based on web comments, may have been a good thing, but it’s fair to say that this 2009 adaptation had to fill some pretty big shoes from my adolescence.

It’s a different film for a different time – there’s more blatant violence than I remember. John Travolta, as the lead subway hijacker, is unsympathetic and coarse. Denzel Washington, as the subway controller who takes the initial call (changed from a traffic cop in the original), is an overworked civil servant in the wrong seat at the wrong time. And a lot has changed in over three decades. You can’t realistically tell a story about a subway hijacking in New York City, or perhaps anywhere, without the subject of terrorism entering the screenplay, even if only as a source of fear.

But despite the differences and updates, the movie still works. It’s well-acted and tautly directed in real time, with neat action and solid secondary characters, including John Turturro as a hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as the mayor. The basic plot elements remain the same, with the complexity and fears associated with the capture of a subway train under busy city streets being as compelling now as ever. Thirty-plus years later, “Jaws” still scares me when I’m swimming, and “Pelham” still entertains me.

Review: Night at the Museum - Battle of the Smithsonian

2009-05-23T07:03:23Z

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
Directed by Shawn Levy

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

I was pleasantly surprised by “NatM:BotS” and it may be one of those rare sequels that manages to surpass the original, albeit by taking a slightly different tack.

Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daley, erstwhile museum night guard and now successful inventor and infomercial pitch man (supported in his commercial enterprises by another pitch man, George Forman). His old work place, New York’s Museum of Natural History, is undergoing renovations and updates, and the exhibits are scheduled to be archived in Washington. This of course is problematic, given the presence of an ancient Egyptian artifact that re-animates those exhibits at night. Suffice to say that the move is not entirely smooth, and fighting breaks out amongst the new residents and their incumbent neighbors.

Where the original movie was driven by the basic concept of museum exhibits that come to life, the sequel succeeds by going beyond that. This one is more character-driven, with greater time dedicated to appreciating the new historical figures involved, including Amelia Earhart (another delightful performance by Amy Adams), Kahmunrah (the older brother of the owner of the magic artifact – played by Hank Azaria, who also gives voice to two other characters), and Napoleon Bonaparte (in a scene stealing performance by Alain Chabat). Azaria in particular is given a lot of time and opportunity to engage Stiller, and “wins” most of the shared time on screen. Much of this novelty is at the expense, however, of the relatively under-utilized returning characters who are given very little to do—most notably Robin Williams.

One nice additional touch is the animation of the paintings on the walls of the Smithsonian, but it’s offset by some flaws in the internal logic of the film. At one point, Larry and Amelia get to fly the Wright Brothers’ first plane, the Wright Flyer. The real plane made a historic but very short and straight flight before falling victim to a stray gust of wind. But they fly it like it’s an air show stunt plane, crop duster and an X-Wing fighter all rolled into one. Later, they put a suspiciously heavy load in a Lockheed Vega.

The film also makes no suggestion of there being a range of effect for the magical reanimating artifact, whether above or below ground. It might actually be more fun—and plot-helpful—for characters to lose their mojo as the artifact moves out of some pre-determined range.

All of which is not really the kind of analysis that may seem appropriate for a kid’s movie. But a film like this should also be somewhat respectful of actual historic characters and objects, in my opinion. You could come away from this thinking the Wright Brothers were simply bad pilots of an awesomely capable plane, for example. That said, I had a far better time than I expected. I recommend it.

Review: Terminator Salvation

2009-05-23T06:59:26Z

Terminator Salvation
Directed by McG

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

If the recent “Star Trek” was a total system reboot of an aging franchise, then “Terminator Salvation” is more like a welcome software upgrade, complete with flashier graphics and increased memory.

Set in 2018, it follows John Connor (Christian Bale) as he exhibits inspiring leadership in the battle against Skynet and the machines. If all of this seems a bit familiar, with outposts of humans battling overwhelming odds against hard to kill opponents led by a crusty Bale, it may not be the previous “Terminator” movies that you’re thinking of. At times it’s a little reminiscent of “Reign of Fire” only with bullet-spewing robots instead of fire-spewing dragons. And slimmed down bat-bikes.

All of which works pretty well. There’s nothing especially groundbreaking here, but it hums along quite nicely in a manner that ably jump-starts the series. “Terminator Salvation” is directed by McG, a former music video director who helmed the two big screen adaptations of the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise, and who manages here to interrupt the early scenes of this movie with one of the most gratuitous and redundant onscreen director’s credits I can recall.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie, for industry watchers, is the second half of the sudden rise to ascendancy of Anton Yelchin, as Kyle Reese, John Connor’s time traveling teenaged father. Just a week ago, he was hitting the big screens as Pavel Chekov in the aforementioned “Star Trek.” In other interesting casting notes: Both Helena Bonham Carter and Jane Alexander have small roles that seem undemanding with respect to their talents; much of the movie is carried by Sam Worthington, not Bale; and a secondary but pivotal character is played by Moon Bloodgood, who seems destined to be the best ever use of a single vowel purchase on a future episode of “Wheel of Fortune.”

At some early screenings, there are gimmicky little movie-related gifts. At the end of “Terminator Salvation” I was expecting a network cable or an organ donor card. Instead I had to settle for a modest sense of contentment regarding a series that will be back. Probably starring Anton Yelchin.

Review: Angels and Demons

2009-05-16T07:10:56Z

Angels and Demons
Directed by Ron Howard

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Angels and Demons” is the second movie made from a Dan Brown book featuring the character of Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). The other is “The Da Vinci Code” and while the “Angels and Demons” novel appeared first, the films are being presented to audiences in the reverse order, with the implication in the film that the stories are sequentially switched. This works in the sense that the events of the two novels are independent of each other and the sequence is unimportant, so there’s no real point in selling the second film as a prequel just to preserve the original publication order. But it also presents some problems of another kind, both in the production and the marketing of the film.

“The Da Vinci Code” is canonically offensive to many Christians, especially the Catholic Church, and the Vatican was not supportive of the new film production, even obstructive, according to director Ron Howard. The other problem with the notoriety of the first film is that the stories are extremely different in both tone and content. “Angels and Demons” is a fairly straightforward murder mystery that happens to be set in the context of the Vatican during the time of the selection of a new Pope. If people are expecting another story that challenges basic church teachings then they will either be surprised (pleasantly or otherwise) or disappointed. If it’s offensive at all, it’s simply in treating the church and its traditions as a backdrop to murder and intrigue, which some may find crass, but it doesn’t contradict doctrine as “The Da Vinci Code” does. The film is actually quite respectful towards faith and people of faith.

Hanks reprises the role of Langdon, a Harvard professor and expert in religious symbols, who is called in by the Vatican (irony: common usage) to help solve a threat. He’s joined this time around by the always reliable Ewan MacGregor (as the Pope’s assistant, or ‘Camerlengo’), Stellan Skarsgard (as the Commander of the Swiss Guard), and Armin Mueller-Stahl (as a senior cardinal). The outcome is another film that is as slick in its presentation as one might expect from Howard, Hanks, and colleagues, and it’s entertaining in a shallow ‘whodunnit’ kind of way, but the story itself is really quite mundane and even somewhat flawed.

Without getting too deep into the film’s plot, there’s a threat against the lives of several cardinals, with a series of hourly deadlines that determine their safety. This ought to be the story’s strongest asset, as it should represent a plot that never lets up, progressing at a breakneck pace throughout. However the film preserves the book’s tendency to pause between events. This is a story in which you’d expect Hanks’ character to end the day wearing the same shirt he got blood on several hours earlier, not to give him time between deadlines to stop, clean up, and change into fresh clothes, with enough extra time for MacGregor’s Camerlengo to compliment his appearance. Isn’t there a cardinal somewhere that needs saving!?

In short, if you’re looking for a well-produced but routine murder mystery with a Vatican setting, then “Angels and Demons” is a satisfying holy rollercoaster, albeit also a fairly graphically violent one. If you’re expecting religion-redefining content and related controversy like that of “The Da Vinci Code” then it’s likely to make you question your faith in Hollywood’s ability to make people question their faith.

Review: Star Trek

2009-05-09T03:03:31Z

Star Trek
Directed by J.J. Abrams

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

I’ll open by cutting to the chase and saying that this is a neat movie, firing on all dilithium chambers and achieving everything I had hoped it would achieve, despite a host of hurdles to overcome. So what about those hurdles…

Star Trek has a back story that’s intimidating to say the least. One has to decide whether to stick to the original canon or branch off in a new direction and enrage a generation of fans. Or, in the case of Trekkies, a generation and a next generation of fans.

It’s now 40 years since the first TV series ended, and there have been six series, including an animated version, and 10 movies. Some of those projects have leapt off in different directions (“Star Trek: Voyager”) or gone back in time (“Star Trek: Enterprise”) in order to avoid conflicts with the mythology. So it was an ambitious plan to not only work within the existing setting, but to also with the original characters.

“Star Trek” tells the story of how those original characters came together as the crew of the Starship Enterprise. A lot of publicity has surrounded the choice of a fresh young cast to play the familiar names: James T. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban), Montgomery “Scotty” Scott (Simon Pegg), Uhuru (Zoe Soldana), Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), and Pavel Checkov (Anton Yelchin – whose accent impressed my Russian friend). The whole lineup is well chosen and successful, with each actor given the opportunity to pay homage to their respective predecessor and shine in their own right. It would be a neat pick for a Screen Actors Guild cast award.

This is a movie on the grand scale of summery blockbusters – with great special effects and all the pizzazz one might expect. But what makes it work as well as it does is that it’s a great exercise in writing. Without giving away the plot, the filmmakers have managed to respect the origins of the series, update it and give it a refreshing new lease on life, and also leave the door wide open to more films that still protect that history.

I mildly enjoyed “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a week ago, but “Star Trek” is like an object lesson in how to tell a back story in a manner that pleases fans, old and new. George Lucas could learn a lesson or two from this one. The rest of us can just have a blast watching it. Set phasers—and opinions—to stun!

Review: Battle for Terra

2009-05-02T06:01:29Z

Battle for Terra
Directed by Aristomenis Tsirbas

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Battle for Terra” is the latest politically-charged kids’ movie. It’s also the latest to come to the screen—where available—in ‘Real D’ 3D. Thankfully, it didn’t seem quite so overt in its pandering to the 3D technique and, as such, I think I enjoyed the effect more than when I feel like I’m being played by having things cinematically thrown at me.

Alternatively titled as just “Terra” the story expands on an idea that director Aristomenis Tsirbas explored in a seven minute animated short of the same name in 2003. We’re first introduced to an alien world of seemingly near-idyllic bliss, with a capable but seemingly low-tech species who fly and float around their planet in harmony with their neighbors and surroundings. This setting is disturbed by the appearance of an object in the sky, initially prompting religious questioning, but resulting in an attack by humans. We are told that in our future, humans have exhausted the limits of Earth and have terra-formed both Mars and Venus, with a subsequent war of independence between the planets resulting in disaster and a group of survivors on a quest for a suitable new planet to colonize.

For starters, the resource-centered themes are as heavy here as in any kids movie. But there’s also the even deeper question of the morality of invasion, conquest, and dominance. The story happens to focus on humans and aliens, but the message might just as easily be directed at perceptions of ethnic/religious superiority or the disregard towards native populations portrayed throughout our own history by assorted waves of expansion. Interestingly, the film also shares with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” a strong message of questioning authority and not following orders that seem contrary to societal lessons about right and wrong. It’s certainly well matched to the resurgent torture debate.

The imagery is designed to appeal to children. Though there is too much death and destruction for the youngest among them, and the material is certainly not lightweight and could prompt some pretty heavy discussions in the minivan/crossover/SUV on the way home from the theater. There’s also a resemblance to “The Village,” in the idea of a group of elders sheltering their people from reality, in a manner they believe to be for their benefit. It’s probably better than “The Village” in that regard, but then that bar is Shyamalanningly low.

I enjoyed “Battle for Terra” more than I expected to. It’s a modern day futuristic parable, and it’s worth knowing a little of what to expect before walking in with the kids. It’s also probably not the film to have your kids watch with other parents who don’t share your political ideals, as it has the potential to cause a few sparks to fly.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-02T05:56:25Z

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Directed by Gavin Hood

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

At the end of this movie, one of my reviewer colleagues remarked about superhero back stories and their generally downbeat nature. He was right: After all, one doesn’t get a grudge, a revenge motive, or a haunted, dark personality from a childhood full of happy picnics in the park and adorable puppies. You start to feel bad for anybody who encounters these characters early on. It’s like watching TV’s “Seventh Heaven” and sympathizing with anybody who had the misfortune of encountering the Camden children – only more violent.

However, in all of its dark moodiness, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is a fairly fun ride. After seeing the previews, I was expecting to spend more of my time in that eye-rolling “oh please” mode, watching endlessly ridiculous stunts and fight sequences. But there were only a couple (watch out for the helicopter and fire escape sequences) that really reached that ‘Legolas riding a shield down a Helm’s Deeps staircase’ level – the film equivalent of the ‘Fonz’ jumping the shark on “Happy Days.”

Hugh Jackman continues to play the Wolverine role well. He’s joined here by Liev Schreiber as his even moodier but equally likely to snag a sweater older brother, Sabretooth. They’re both recruited into a secretive military unit headed by William Stryker (played by Danny Huston – previously played by Brian Cox in X2). But when things don’t go quite according to plan, the not-so-happy gang go their not-so-happy ways – until, of course, their not-so-happy paths cross again. Not so happily.

I’m not qualified to judge whether “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is faithful to the comic book origins of the story and characters. But it does a good job of providing a background for our hero while fitting quite nicely into the established sequence of the previous X-Men movies. There’s also a timely lesson in doing the right thing, or at least not doing the worst thing simply because one is told to do so by a superior officer. It should appeal to fans of the genre and subject matter and is fun enough to keep their friends and significant others pleasantly amused at the same time.

Note: Not only is there a scene after the beginning of the credits, but there’s also an extra scene after the end of the credits – so stick around until the very end.

Review: Crossing Over

2009-04-05T00:50:40Z

Crossing Over
Written and directed by Wayne Kramer

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Thirteen years after making a short film of the same name, writer/director Wayne Kramer (“The Cooler,” “Running Scared”) has revisited the topic for a feature that feels like three or four shorts spliced together. Unfortunately the outcome makes me wish they could be separated again and shown one after the other, with their respective overlaps encountered sequentially.

“Crossing Over” is the latest film to tell a story that weaves multiple lives, with a common theme that connects them. It’s successful on some levels, but it also suffers the fate of other similarly-structured films in that some of those connections have a small-worldiness that is almost distracting (I’m reminded of 1998’s “Dog Park,” which connected people in Los Angeles as though they lived in a village of 20).

The theme this time is immigration. “Crossing Over” attempts to be for immigration what “Crash” (2004) was for racism, which is a shame given that “Crash” played like an after-school special (“I’ve been a racist my whole life but my maid helped me when I fell and now I’m cured!”). To some extent it’s actually more successful than “Crash” because it isn’t preaching on content that’s quite so well established. Yet it trips over itself by trying to inject too many angles beyond the fundamental immigrant experience.

It’s often said that certain minority experiences can only be fully understood and appreciated by others with shared backgrounds. Perhaps the most interesting outcome of “Crossing Over” is the suggestion that the illegal alien experience is one of these shared-circumstances. I’ve seen this happen with a roomful of military “brats” watching a documentary about growing up in service families. As an immigrant myself, I can relate to the sense of powerlessness and vulnerability it entails, just as I recognized my Royal Air Force upbringing in the earlier screening.

However, at the narrative level, the twisted stories have been told better, separately, in multiple films over the past year or so: “Under the Same Moon” (a mother and son separated by the Mexican border), the excellent “The Visitor” (the vulnerability of the undocumented and legal callous disregard), “Towelhead” (cultural suspicions and fear), and “Gran Torino” (youth alienation and gang influences). A talented cast (including Harrison Ford, Ray Liotta, Ashley Judd, and Jim Sturgess) make “Crossing Over” pleasantly watchable, but can’t ultimately save it. “Crossing Over” is a much better starting point for a conversation about immigration than it is an inherently worthwhile movie-watching experience. But a trip to the video store with a copy of this paragraph would be far better.

Review: Sunshine Cleaning

2009-03-28T19:19:10Z

Sunshine Cleaning
Directed by Christine Jeffs

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

“Sunshine Cleaning” is another intriguing opening this week. When it opened in very limited release a couple of weeks ago, it generated the highest per-screen averages of any movie so far this year. And it’s easy to appreciate why when you see one of the most perfectly assembled film casts.

Rose (Amy Adams) is a single mother struggling to raise her son on her house-cleaning income. Her adulterous detective lover and ex-high school sweetheart Mac (Steve Zahn) happens to mention how lucrative the messy crime scene and death cleanup business seems, and a new startup is born. Rose enlists her less ambitious sister Norah (Emily Blunt) and leaves her son with their cranky father (Alan Arkin) as they head off to mop up blood and assorted other body fluids in a series of pungent venues.

What’s especially neat in all of this for those of us who like comparing faces and appearances, is the remarkable casting of Adams and Blunt as sisters – not just because they are such appealing and talented actresses, but because they look like they could fit into the same genes. And it works beyond just the two of them, as the rest of the family is unveiled. Zahn and Arkin are as appealing as ever. They are complemented by a wonderfully understated and physically impressive performance by Clifton Collins Jr. as Winston, the one-armed proprietor of a janitorial supply company.

Like the recent “Wendy and Lucy,” “Sunshine Cleaning” gains by the timing of its release. There’s something especially poignant in the current economic climate about a young mother juggling bills and trying to start a small business to make ends meet. And while the premise of the movie may seem conveniently contrived at first, it’s also an industry that is depressingly steady in its opportunities, and an equally steady source of both morbid comedy and genuinely touching moments – both of which provide an excellent return on investment.

“Sunshine Cleaning” is produced by the same folks who made Little Miss Sunshine, the delightful and under-appreciated “Everything is Illuminated,” and the upcoming “Is There Anybody There?” (with Michael Caine). They also have projects on the way from Sam Mendes (“American Beauty,” “Revolutionary Road”) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (in his directorial debut). That’s a pretty interesting and impressive list of projects. “Sunshine Cleaning” is a worthy and neat entry into the growing collection.

Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

2009-03-28T19:16:17Z

Monsters vs. Aliens
Directed by Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon

by Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

This is an interesting release for Sacramento, for a couple of reasons. For starters, it’s set in California, with the initial action taking place in the Central Valley and the climax in San Francisco. But it’s also a bit of a departure from the established norm in this market, in that it’s being released in 3D on the giant IMAX screen on the same day as it hits the multiplexes – so you can pick your format without having to wait.

Susan (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) lives in Modesto, where she’s about to marry the local TV weatherman Derek (Paul Rudd). Derek is waiting to expand his horizons with a move to an anchor position in the larger Fresno market, but he isn’t quite ready for Susan’s expansion into giant womanhood, brought on by a direct meteor strike on their wedding day. Naturally, the newly enormous Susan is captured by the military, who house her with an odd assortment of previously found monsters, including a genius man/cockroach, an amorphous blue blob, an evolutionary missing link (Link), and a giant insect larva. The last of these is the least well developed, but also the subject of a cute running joke that has it guided around by a bright light suspended from a helicopter.

The monsters seem destined for a life of containment until a megalomaniacal alien arrives, intent on recovering the powerful substance from the meteor that has given Susan her strength and size. The basic story is very much geared towards children, with an interesting mix of animation that includes realistic objects such as chairs, tables, and machinery, but also very generically cartoony vehicles (unlike the perfect rendition of a VW Beetle in the recent “Coraline”).

Hidden within the kids’ storyline are a few small nuggets of humor for the adults, including stabs at San Francisco’s Tenderloin district and outsourcing to India. At one point, Link ponders whether the earth has become warmer and refers to what he perceives to be a desirable warming trend as a “convenient truth.” The movie also offers some appeal to older siblings by having the President voiced by Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert – who is also in the news this week for winning the popular vote in the bid to name a room on the international space station.

“Monsters vs. Aliens” is a fun ride for younger kids, and is just amusing enough to keep the rest of the family entertained. There are several scenes that are set up to benefit from the 3D effects, but the basic appeal of the movie would be preserved in 2D. That said, some of the multiplexes have a surcharge for 3D screenings that cut the price differential compared to the IMAX – so it’s mostly a matter of taste and magnitude.

Review: The Class

2009-03-21T06:42:42Z

The Class ("Entre les murs")
Director: Laurent Cantent

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Set in Paris, "The Class" follows a year in the life of teacher Francois Marin as he tackles assorted challenges with students in his inner city high school. "Entre les murs" which is also the title of the adapted book, translates as "between the walls" and this may have been a better English title for the film also, as it conveys a better sense of the film being about a place and a dynamic as much as people that inhabit it. Much of the film takes place in one classroom. The director has described his approach to the film's style in part like that of a tennis match, with the majority of the perspective being from the side as the volleys of conversation are fired back and forth.

This is a multi-cultural classroom of diverse experiences, where Francois is teacher, referee, diplomat, sparring partner, and occasionally as much of an inadvertent instigator as his students are, as the ambiguity of language is examined. At one point, for example, he is accused by the students of being culturally insensitive by always using "whitey" names in his vocabulary examples. As is often the case, the faculty is significantly less diverse than the student body.

While many stories set in schools initially focus on a new student entering the school and encountering new classmates and situations, "The Class" starts with a scene in which the old and new faculty introduce themselves to each other and compare class assignments. The result is an almost Altman-esque film that has more to do with characters than plot, in a bureaucratic setting where faculty discussions of punishment and perceived impunity devolve into complaints about the price of coffee in the vending machine because the topic is less divisive.

Interestingly, Francois is played by Francois Bégaudeau, a teacher who wrote the book on which the film is based. The characters in the film are almost all played by their real-life counterparts: teachers play teachers, students play students, and film parents are played by the real parents. Much of the dialog was improvised on set to fit the constructed situations. Given this approach, it is especially noteworthy to point out that the film won the best adapted screenplay at the César Awards, along with four other César nominations, a best foreign language Academy Award nomination, and a win in that category at the Independent Spirit Awards.

"The Class" is compelling filmmaking, working as both the story of the classroom experience as well as a microcosm of a diverse society. Although set in Paris, this is a story that could take in any urban center. The themes translate better than the title.

Review: The Great Buck Howard

2009-03-21T06:39:23Z

The Great Buck Howard
Director: Sean McGinley

By Tony Sheppard
Capitol Weekly

Based on the Amazing Kreskin, known for his appearances on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, “The Great Buck Howard” tells the story of a mentalist (not a magician!) with a similar Carson track record (“Johnny Carson, not that nitwit who’s on there now!”). Buck has long since faded from the A-list of talk show talent and now tours the country, performing his never-changing act in never-filled venues.

Soon to be put-upon road manager Troy drops out of law school, which was more his father’s dream than his own, and stumbles into working with Buck Howard as a day job in support of his desire to be a writer. It soon becomes apparent that while Buck has faded in the public eye, his own mind’s eye view of himself seems as clear and star-spangled as ever, and he still exhibits diva-like behavior and expectations. Meanwhile, he continues to consistently entertain, especially with regard to his signature trick.

The most noteworthy aspect of the movie is the cast, including John Malkovich as Buck Howard, Colin Hanks as Troy, Tom Hanks as Troy’s father (type cast!), and Emily Blunt (who may become this year’s most-seen actress, with as many as six movies slated for release) as a PR coordinator retained to publicize Buck’s attempt at a comeback. Malkovich in particular is wonderful in the role of the faded celebrity. Colin Hanks has his father’s talent for the natural “everyman” performance. Additional self-referential cameo appearances include Conan O’Brian, Martha Stewart, Jon Stewart, Tom Arnold, Gary Coleman, and George Takei.

Unfortunately, the story itself is little unfulfilling and bland in its resolution. This despite being amusing and engaging in the first half, with such neat touches as look-alike theater owners and Buck’s propensity to assume somebody is about to walk the other way despite his alleged mentalist abilities. On balance, “The Great Buck Howard” is probably worthwhile for fans of Malkovich or either Hanks, for those who enjoy anything pertaining to magic, and for anybody who appreciates insider jokes about the nature of celebrity and/or the logistics and experiences of touring acts. But even they may feel that it somewhat ironically fades in the third act, failing to maintain its earlier gloss.

Moviebrief: I Love You Man

2009-03-20T06:44:30Z

For a word-of-mouth pre-screening of “I Love You Man,” the studio challenged any guys in the audience to coordinate their clothing and make it a man date to remember, in return for preferential seating. The only two at the Downtown Century tonight who were up for it were Sac State students Ryan Johnson (left) and Alan Badarou (right). (With apologies for the poor quality photograph, courtesy of my cell phone!)

The film itself is a true bromantic comedy, taking all the cues of the typical rom-com and translating them into a platonic, man-man bromance. The outcome is remarkably funny and endearing, largely as a result of the performances of leading men Paul Rudd and Jason Segal. Rudd in particular is almost pitch perfect throughout as a guy who has never really had any male friends and who is trying just a little too hard to fit in and be cool. OK, a lot too hard.

But it also works as a result of a neat cast of secondary characters, all of whom fit and play well against each other. It’s hard to fault a project that finds a reason to put J.K. Simmons, Jane Curtin, Jon Favreau, and Lou Ferrigno together on screen.

"Sunshine Cleaning," which I haven’t seen yet and which opens in Sacramento next week, has had an exceptionally strong opening in other cities (the best per-theater averages of the year so far) – but for now at least, the funniest movie I’ve seen so far this year is “I Love You Man.”

Review: Race to Witch Mountain

2009-03-19T05:57:31Z

Race to Witch Mountain
Directed by Andy Fickman

“Race to Witch Mountain” is an interesting and ultimately successful retread of a franchise that goes back over 30 years to 1975’s “Escape to Witch Mountain” (and assorted theatrical and TV sequels and remakes). It’s very much a movie for kids, tweens, and the less cynical or gore-hungry teens, but it has themes and details that are designed to be appreciated by the adults in the audience, albeit probably the more left-leaning adults.

While many family movies pander to adults with mild (or worse) sexual innuendos or raunchy sight gags, “Race to Witch Mountain” is refreshingly free of any content that requires awkward explanations in the car on the way home. Instead, adults get lightweight cameos from the likes of Cheech Marin and Garry Marshall, neither of which is likely to be recognized by the movie’s primary target demographic. Additionally, the story is geared towards our current times and political climate and is notably different than the originals.

To the best of my recollection, in the original movies, the villains were scheming megalomaniacs of that generic kids’ movie bad guy type. It’s a product of our time that a movie like this gets remade with a mysterious government agency, armed with black helicopters and the Patriot Act, as the villain. Even the alien homeworld is depicted as having a short-sighted government and military, and the problem that has caused the visit to earth is related to rampant climate change. This probably isn’t a movie outing of choice for the local chapter of the young Republicans.

At its core, it’s still about a couple of aliens who look like human teenagers and who have powers that include telekinesis, telepathy, and the ability to pass through solid objects. After crashing near Las Vegas, the Disney-perfect duo, played by AnnaSophia Robb ("Bridge to Terabithia") and Alexander Ludwig ("The Seeker: The Dark is Rising"), pick the cab of Jack Bruno (Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson). Bruno is skeptical about these unsupervised kids carrying large sums of money, but he’s the ex-con cabbie with a heart of gold, and he gets dragged into their circumstances largely because he’s a nice guy.

The story is surprisingly well set up, with Bruno’s own backstory involving a group of generic thugs who, from a distance, are conveniently confused with the government agents who are tracking the kids, so Bruno initially thinks it’s him that’s being followed and not them. Las Vegas is also the coincidental venue for a marvelously geeky sci-fi convention (there’s some redundancy there) that acts as a neat background and plot point for a story about actual alien visitors. (Apparently the sci-fi crowd hasn’t received a government financial bailout and then been spanked for running off to Vegas for a meeting!)

“Race to Witch Mountain” is a perfect vehicle for Dwayne Johnson, who has been at his best so far with light and fun material that benefits from his apparent easy-going nature. He’s an actor who recognizes the source of his fame (as a professional wrestler) and doesn’t seem to have image hang-ups – as evidenced by his very loose appearances on “Saturday Night Live.” The two young actors in the movie are better than they might appear at first sight, required to play very awkward roles as characters who are not familiar with local language and customs, with the resultant stiffness being part of the act. Robb, in particular, already has an impressive resume and is a noteworthy actor in her age range.

Add an appealing dog, a Terminator/Predator-lite-like assassin, amusing tertiary characters, fun chases and loud but gore-free action, in addition to a storyline that already has appeal for kids of both genders, and you have a solid entry in the pantheon of family entertainment. This isn’t high-brow or an action film for fans more likely to enjoy the current “Watchmen” release, but it isn’t intended to be either and it works extremely well in the context of what it’s attempting to be.