REPOST: 'Gravity' Reviews From The Venice Film Festival: 'Nerve-Shredding,' 'Extraordinary'

According to some critics, "Gravity" is technically perfect, from the terrific sound design to the impeccable effects. Read more in this HuffingtonPost.com article. 

Image Source: huffingtonpost.com

Since the first trailer for Alfonso Cuaron's "Gravity" debuted in May, audience anticipation for the space-set two-hander has been tumbling through cyberspace with an untethered excitement. Judging from the early reviews of "Gravity" after its Venice Film Festival bow on Wednesday, interested parties likely won't be disappointed.

"As scripted by Cuaron and his son Jonas, this tale of one woman’s grim expedition into the unknown is a nerve-shredding suspenser, a daring study in extreme isolation, and one of the most sophisticated and enveloping visions of space travel yet realized onscreen," wrote Variety critic Justin Chang in one of the many initial rave reviews. "It falls among that increasingly rare breed of popular entertainments capable of prompting genuine 'How did they do that?' reactions from even the most jaded viewers, even as its central premise is so simple and immediately gripping that one might just as readily ask, 'Why didn’t anyone do it sooner?'"

Sandra Bullock and George Clooney star in "Gravity," which, in keeping with Cuaron's previous film, 2006's "Children of Men," utilizes long-takes and precious few cuts to drive the action. Initial reports suggested that the opening of the film was shot in one, continuous 19-minute take, but the Venice Film Festival reviews suggest that the "Gravity" opener is a mere 13-minutes of unbroken cinema wizardry.

"At once the most realistic and beautifully choreographed film ever set in space, 'Gravity' is a thrillingly realized survival story spiked with interludes of breath-catching tension and startling surprise," wrote Todd McCarthy for The Hollywood Reporter. McCarthy's review, which contains a little too much information about the film's plot, does confirm something Clooney had said in earlier interviews about the film: there are no aliens.

"It is a very odd film, really," Clooney told USA Today in 2011. "Two people in space. No monsters."

Both Clooney and Bullock are being praised in the early reviews for their work, with many critics singling out Bullock for giving one of her best performances yet. That kind of validation is likely music to Cuaron's ears, who had initially cast Angelina Jolie and then Natalie Portman in the role, before landing Bullock.

"Without giving too much of the plot away –- rest assured there are plenty of twists and turns –- this is very much Sandra Bullock’s film," wrote Mark Adams for Screen Daily. "Much has been made of Angelina Jolie turning the role down, and it only coming Bullock's way after Nathalie Portman's pregnancy, but Bullock's combination of intelligence and straight-forward charm works perfectly here, plus she convinces in the physicality of the role, whether it be flying through space or fighting fires inside a space craft."

Warner Bros. is set to bring "Gravity" to the Toronto International Film Festival in early September, and with an October release date, it's clear that the studio has awards season on its mind for the film. Regardless of what happens between now and next year, though, at least Cuaron might want to get his tuxedo dry-cleaned.

"The film’s technically perfect, of course, from the terrific sound design to the impeccable effects (the exact extent of the CGI is difficult to say, because pretty much everything looks photo-realistic, even when things head indoors)," Oliver Lyttelton wrote for The Playlist. "But it's also cleverly written, and more than anything phenomenally directed, from the way that he uses every available surface to tell his story (someone’s going to write a book one day on the use of reflections in this film) to the way he and [cinematographer Emmanuel] Lubezki shift the light to vary the color palette, preventing it from becoming repetitive. Almost every decision is inspired."


Louis A. Habash expresses his love for the cinema by writing film reviews. Take a look into his mind by following this Twitter page.

REPOST: The Strong, Largely Silent Type ‘All Is Lost,’ With Robert Redford at Sea

If you are planning to watch the movie “All Is Lost,” you might want to read this New York Times article to give you an over view of the film.

Image Source: craigskinnerfilm.com

True solitude is a rarity at the movies, for those of us in the audience contending with yakkers and texters, and for the people on screen as well. The lonesome strangers of the old westerns almost always had a town to ride into or out of, a buzz of social life to contrast with their individualistic ways. Even movies that emphasize the isolation of their main characters tend to provide them with companions, human or otherwise. Piscine Patel in “Life of Pi” had his tiger, Richard Parker; Chuck Noland in “Cast Away” had Wilson the volleyball. Those guys did a lot of talking, even when nobody else was around.

The guy in J. C. Chandor’s amazing “All Is Lost” — identified only as “Our Man” in the credits and instantly recognizable as Robert Redford, giving the performance of his life — says almost nothing at all. For the duration of the film, he is the only person in sight. In the opening scene, we hear his voice as he composes a letter of apology and farewell, presumably to unspecified loved ones back home. Later — or rather earlier, since most of the story flashes back from that moment of fatalism, eight days into his ordeal — he tries to send a distress call over the radio and tosses a few epithets at his fate. Otherwise, he is silent. And though this man’s radical aloneness is terrifying, to him and to us, it is also a condition he has chosen, one we might even envy, just as his taciturn competence is something we are inclined to admire.

He finds himself in the Indian Ocean, in the empty waters between Indonesia and Madagascar, on a solo sailing voyage. We infer that he is someone who can afford a comfortable, well-appointed yacht and the leisure to pilot it in exotic places, something he also clearly has the skill to do. He’s rich, American and handsome. (He’s Robert Redford.)

What else do we know about Our Man? He wears a wedding ring and an air of poised, understated confidence. In the midst of a desperate crisis, he takes the time to shave, and we might wonder whether this act of grooming under duress is evidence of self-discipline or vanity. Even when he is absorbed in practical matters that have life-or-death consequences, our ancient mariner maintains a sense of style; there is a subtle self-consciousness in his efforts to embody the old Hemingway-esque ideal of grace under pressure. He is a model of masculine virtue and he knows it. (He’s Robert Redford.)

The ancient Greeks believed that character should be revealed through action. I can’t think of another film that has upheld this notion so thoroughly and thrillingly. There is certainly no other actor who can command our attention — our empathy, our loyalty, our love — with such efficiency. Mr. Redford has always been a magnificent underplayer, a master of small, clear gestures and soft-spoken intensity. This role brings him to the pinnacle of reticence but also allows him to open up in startling ways. Behind the leathery, pragmatic exterior is a reservoir of inexpressible emotion. An opera thunders in the silence.

“All Is Lost,” an action movie in the most profound and exalted sense of the term, has a simple plot that I hesitate to summarize, less for fear of spoiling anything than because a précis would either miss the point or recapitulate the whole film. A lot goes wrong. An errant shipping container punches a hole in the hull. The cabin floods, and the onboard electrical system is ruined. A ferocious storm spins, tosses and smashes the boat. Attempts to communicate are foiled by rotten luck and the metaphysical indifference of the universe.

Through it all, the man perseveres, in his patient, problem-solving way. He patches his beloved boat’s wound with epoxy and cloth, hauls out the storm jib, gathers provisions for the lifeboat and digs up a never-used, old-fashioned mariner’s sextant. Using this, a sheaf of maps and a copy of “Celestial Navigation for Yachtsmen,” he sets a course for commercial shipping lanes, hoping for rescue from the big boats that were, indirectly but with unmistakable metaphorical significance, the cause of his predicament.

Like other tales of survival at sea — a robust literary tradition that includes classic books by Ernest Hemingway, Jack London, Joseph Conrad and Herman Melville — “All Is Lost” manifests a strong allegorical undercurrent. Nothing registers the fragility and contingency of the human presence in the universe quite as starkly as the sight of a small vessel adrift on an endless ocean, and few representations of heroism are as vivid as the spectacle of an individual fighting to master the caprices of wind and water.

But this is not — or not only — a parable of Man against Nature, ready-made for high school term paper analysis. The physical details that carry the story and make it suspenseful and absorbing are also vessels of specific meaning, and together they add up to a fable about the soul of man under global capitalism. Our man is a privileged consumer (just look at all the stuff he has on that boat) whose fate is set in motion by a box full of goods (children’s sneakers, as it happens) accidentally knocked out of circulation.

It is this catastrophe and the man’s desperate efforts to correct it that link “All Is Lost” with “Margin Call,” Mr. Chandor’s excellent first feature. That movie, about an office full of panicky investment bankers dealing with the unfolding financial crisis of 2008, is in many ways the opposite of “All Is Lost.” It takes place almost entirely indoors, and it’s pretty much all talk. But it is also very much concerned with how powerful men react when their sense of control is challenged, and with the vast, invisible system that sustains their illusions.

Our Man is a more complicated hero than he seems, and shades of ambiguity and implication filter in through the sharply defined, crisply composed images of his struggle. I’m reminded again of Conrad, and not only because “All Is Lost” is an appealing and exciting maritime adventure with one eye on the geopolitical state of the world.

Conrad once famously identified his goal as a writer as “to make you hear, to make you feel — it is, before all, to make you see.”

A good filmmaker will not take that for granted, even with the advantage of a visual medium, and Mr. Chandor more than fulfills Conrad’s criterion of artistic achievement: “If I succeed, you shall find there according to your deserts: encouragement, consolation, fear, charm — all you demand — and, perhaps, also that glimpse of truth for which you have forgotten to ask.”

“All Is Lost” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Our Man swears twice.

All Is Lost

Opens on Friday in New York and Los Angeles.

Written and directed by J. C. Chandor; director of photography, Frank G. DeMarco; underwater director of photography, Peter Zuccarini; edited by Pete Beaudreau; music by Alex Ebert; production design by John P. Goldsmith; visual effects supervisor, Robert Munroe; produced by Neal Dodson, Anna Gerb, Justin Nappi and Teddy Schwarzman; released by Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions. Running time: 1 hour 47 minutes.

WITH: Robert Redford (Our Man).

Louis A. Habash obtained his Bachelor of Science degree in film from Full Sail University. Visit this Facebook page to know more about his career.

REPOST: 'Don Jon': Smooth Move There, Mr. Gordon-Levitt

Joseph Gordon-Levitt pushed the envelope by getting into writing and directing his latest project - Don Jon. Details about this movie can be read in this NPR.org article.

***

Once a child actor on TV, then an indie sensation, then an honest-to-God movie star going head-to-head with the likes of Bruce Willis in Looper and Leo DiCaprio in Inception, Joseph Gordon-Levitt hardly needs to burnish his LinkedIn resume at this point. But that's not kept him from adding a couple of skills — writing and directing — with his latest picture.

In the romantic comedy Don Jon, about a modern-day Lothario at large in New Jersey — he plays Jon Martello, a guy who'd be the first to tell you he has life all figured out. Which should probably tell you something else: He's not a deep thinker.

In voice-over at the top of the movie, Jon lists the things he really cares about: his body, his apartment, his Camaro, his family, his church, his pals, his gals, and his porn.

That last, let's note, is not an admission that strikes Jon as particularly odd. His New Jersey buddies have nicknamed him Don Jon, because he's a real Don Juan with the ladies — a fresh conquest every night, lots to confess at confession.

But after sex, he's kinda done with the encounter, while his conquests generally want to cuddle. And though he pays lip service to the notion that he might want that too, should the right girl ever come along, all that pornography offers sex without cuddling. Which truth be told, he prefers.

Image Source: npr.org

Then, the right girl does in fact come along: Barbara (Scarlett Johansson), who's blond, stacked, altogether babealicious — a perfect 10 in the eyes of his buddies, and to Jon's consternation, as adept at playing the seduction game as he is.

Barbara won't go to bed with him after one date, or even after one month. She insists on meeting his parents (Tony Danza and Glenne Headley, both hilarious), and gets him to take night classes so he can better his bartending job. And to his horror, she wants him to do couples stuff, like going to romantic movies (Channing Tatum and Anne Hathaway, riotously coupled in a quick chick-flick parody).

But Jon, of course, likes a different sort of movie, and once he's finally sealed the deal, and he and Barbara are more or less living together, he returns to old habits — whereupon she catches him surfing the Web for porn.

These two are playing at adult relationships, but they're not terribly grown-up, and that, it turns out, is central to what Gordon-Levitt the filmmaker wants to explore here.

And he's clearly been paying attention to more than his own lines as he's transitioned from TV to indie dramas to big-studio blockbusters. Don Jon qualifies as an authoritative writing and directing debut — smooth, funny and with a terrific cast — not just Johansson vamping in that thick New Jersey accent, but Headley and Danza, Brie Larson as a little sister who barely looks up from her cellphone but somehow takes in everything, and Julianne Moore, fragile and slyly funny as the one thoughtful adult among all these cartoonish types.

Gordon-Levitt keeps things riotous for the film's first hour, and if he eases into an ending that's a little Hollywood-standard, after having so much fun tweaking form and content, I'm guessing audiences will cut him some slack. Just as Don Jon is learning the ropes, after all, so is the guy who dreamed him up.

***

Although Louis A. Habash is a writer and film critic himself, he sees to it that he shares good review and write-ups from others such as this one. For more topic related to the entertainment industry, visit his other blog site.

REPOST: 'The World's End' a refreshing late-summer comedy, critics say

After tackling zombies and killer cops, film director Edgar Wright combines British small town pub culture with a large scale alien invasion in the "The World's End." Find out what film critics has to say in this Los Angeles Times article.

Image Source: latimes.com

"The World's End," the latest film from director Edgar Wright and actors Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, marks the third installment in their Cornetto Trilogy, along with the zombie farce "Shaun of the Dead" and the cop comedy "Hot Fuzz." The trilogy takes its name from a British ice cream confection that appears in all three movies, so it's somewhat fitting that critics have found "The World's End" to be a delectable end-of-summer treat.

The Times' Mark Olsen says that after a summer of mindless action movies, and before another solemn awards season, "'The World's End' is the right movie for this moment, a comedy with action and wow-factor effects that's also tinged by regret, a light sadness and a lacerating self-awareness. Even for its flaws, it is hard to ask for more from a late summer movie than 'The World's End.'"

One of the film's major themes is nostalgia — the story involves five adult friends re-attempting a failed pub crawl from their teen years — which might account for why the film "feels at times like a greatest hits compilation" that calls back to the earlier Cornetto films. It also "lags a bit in the middle," Olsen says, but "somehow the sureness of Wright's filmmaking sees it through."

New York magazine's David Edelstein gives a glowing review, calling "The World's End" "arguably the best" of the Cornetto films and "by light-years the most entertaining movie of the year." He also writes, "Wright is an even better director now [compared to 'Shaun' and 'Hot Fuzz'], and the last half-hour of 'The World's End' is one bravura set piece after another. The action is brilliantly staged and shot," and "the all-star cast is perfection."

Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle also commends the cast: Pegg, who co-wrote the film with Wright, "attacks [his role] with intensity and invention." In addition, "Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan are all talented actors, with Frost and Freeman particularly skilled in comedy, and together the five principals create the sense of men who have known each other for many years. The banter is effortless; the comedy flows."

The New York Times' A.O. Scott says the film "blends genre parody, snappy verbal humor and sublimely preposterous action-movie mayhem." In the beginning, however, "it effectively masquerades … as a rueful, fast-moving comedy of middle-aged resignation and rebellion." Eventually an unexpected plot turn "sends 'The World's End' spinning into an absurdity that must be experienced fresh."

But in spite of that narrative twist, Scott says that "Wright also, in some ways, plays it safe, steering clear of anything too ugly or shocking as he keeps all forms of seriousness at bay. His project is childish fun with adult language and grown-up costumes, and he executes it with energy and precision."

Slate's Dana Stevens isn't shy with her praise. She writes, "The five actors constitute a superb ensemble, creating a group dynamic that’s as toxic as it is hilarious. Wright keeps things moving with whiz-bang in-camera tricks, action choreographed by Jackie Chan's longtime stunt coordinator, and pop music from [the main characters'] salad days … I think you can deduce from the foregoing that I pretty much unreservedly loved 'The World’s End,' whose compact dramatic structure and steady flow of good jokes puts most mainstream American comedies … to shame."

The Village Voice's Stephanie Zacharek is more measured, but still positive in her review, writing, "'The World's End' is a big, shaggy dog of a thing, a free-spirited ramble held together by off-kilter asides, clever-dumb puns, and seemingly random bits of dialogue that could almost become catchphrases in spite of themselves."

She continues: "The exuberance of Wright's movies is always their strong suit. But structurally, they're so loose-jointed — held together with rubber bands, pieces of string, and other bits and bobs — that they almost fall apart even as you're watching them .… Wright's movies can be great fun, but they demand that you live in their moment, because once they're over, you're left with little more than a handful of chuckles."

Louis A Habash is a film critic and writer. Follow this  Twitter page for the latest movie updates. 

REPOST: The Movies: A Fading Flame

Warren Adler points out the distinction between the old and new films in this Huffington Post article.

At the outset, let me state unequivocally that I have had a lifetime love affair with the movies. The affair spans the golden age of Hollywood films and as evidence of this heartfelt attachment, I can name most of the actors in black and white films, B movies included.

I inherited this addiction from my mother who would take me with her whenever the movies changed their bill, even in the middle of the week when I should have been doing my homework. Her lure was not only the movie itself but the collection of dishes the theaters would give away free to corral their patrons during the dark days of the depression.

The movie bill in those days consisted of a double feature, news of the day, a cartoon or two, and a minute or two of coming attractions -- meaning the pictures that were on deck to be seen in the next few days. There was no popcorn, only a vending machine that would dispense packaged candies for a nickel (about six choices).

Those old birds from the studios who lured you into the movie theaters were the most brashly creative propagandists and advertising geniuses of their day. They built a star system that made gods and goddesses of their actors, slapping their images all over the place, on billboards, fan magazines and gossip columns, and used the mass media with unprecedented skill, verve, and chutzpah.

Indeed, they made you believe that those actors whose love affairs and 'derring-do' actually happened to them in real life and seduced you to glimpse into their lurid personal lives, stunted perhaps by the fact that these actors, mostly uneducated and insecure, began to believe that they were the characters put up on that 35-foot screen. Indeed, those movie promoters invented the modern celebrity machine.

They gave away dishes and other items that lured you into the theaters in the middle of the week. They sponsored contests for kids. They coupled the movies with live entertainment like Sinatra, Milton Berle, Martin and Lewis, and many others.

They built faux palaces that made you feel you deserved the importance of entering a baroque castle with lots of gold paint and chandeliers. Remnants remain, of which Radio City Music Hall was the epitome of the era, a relic that has retained its luster but no longer shows movies.

Their advertising in the newspapers was over the top with exaggeration and drum beating bull which to this day continues its legacy of faux praise, much of it bought and paid for.

The language of the lure is still over the top only more so. Ever really read a movie blurb? They are hilarious, extracted from reviews by anyone with a computer and an opinion, but who looks at the source? Some are from the top tier of reviewers from the New York Times and other big city newspapers; others are from magazines, entertainment trade papers, television "critics", assorted bloggers and movie critic sites where self-proclaimed "reviewers" abound, all with one thing in common: "opinions" hungry to see their critiques quoted and hopeful that their sites attract advertisers.

Here are some samples extracted from newspapers flacking new offerings, which will remain anonymous. I'll dispense with "Best Picture", "Best Actor" -- which are ubiquitous and the absurdist exaggerations -- like the overused "Brilliant", "Ravishing", "Remarkable", "Breathless", "Imaginative" and the all-purpose "Most" to underline the point.

Then there is the blockbuster word "Masterpiece" and, of course "Winner", of the various festivals and resumes of directors for past films all embellished with an avalanche of praise words lifted from Mr. Roget's handy thesaurus. Sometimes the flack writer will get really creative and spew "We're Too Busy Laughing" or "The Level of Craft is Something to Behold" or "An Erotic Mindbender" or "Thrillingly Hypnotic", or "Give Us More Like This One", heaven forbid, and the all-purpose "You Won't Believe Your Eyes" or "So Good You Will Have to See it Twice."

For the "save the world" filmmakers, who offer what they believe is life-changing movies, you will find specific hype headlines like "Uncompromising", "Brave", "Courageous", "Fearless", "Daring", and that all-purpose word of the righteous activist, "expose."

Then there are the groups who treat film as a cultural icon and a matter of scholarly inquiry with another cluster of hype words like "classic", "enduring" and "vintage."

Of course in today's world the lure goes beyond mere words. You have to endure a tsunami of advertising if you enter a movie theater on its advertised time entrapped and forced to endure 15 minutes or more of earsplitting commercials, many designed to get you to buy the obesity-encouraging, overpriced menu of life menacing goodies, served in the lobby concessions.

As if this was not enough brainwashing, you still have to endure endless coming attractions, usually eardrum endangering snippets from the latest movie spinoffs of computer games targeting the pre- and early teen set. By the time one gets around to the start of the movie, a half hour or more beyond the published feature time, you are exhausted by the assault and your potential film enjoyment meter has been compromised.

In the golden age of the black and whites, the coming attractions were five minutes long and your concentration on the story being presented on the screen was still fresh and expectant.

There is a sense, even as I write this rant, that the movie auditorium, meaning where groups sitting together in the dark, munching on unhealthy foods while being attacked with endless hype are the last gasp of a desperate industry running out of ideas as they enter an uncertain future.

As I said at the onset, I loved the movies, even the very few being offered today for those of even average intelligence, but I fear a total disenchantment is on its way, unless the moguls come up with a more engaging product for people of all ages and stop trying to overstuff us with all the hype and brainless baloney.

As a film historian, Louis A. Habash watch films for a living. Get to know him more by following this Twitter page. 

What terrors lurk Under the Dome?

Hey there! Louis A. Habash here, your guy when it comes to film reviews. This time, however, I’ll be taking a break from talking about movies as I will be discussing an upcoming TV series from the mind of Stephen King, the master of horror.

Image Source: fanpop.com

The King strikes again.

Another novel written by master of horror Stephen King is adapted for TV. This time, it’s his 2009 science-fiction horror book Under the Dome. It is scheduled to air on CBS on June 24 as a mini-series. 

The Simpsons jokes aside, Under the Dome is about a small town that was cut away from the rest of the world due to the appearance of an invisible force field. Crashed vehicles, destroyed properties, deaths—without the tiniest hint or warning, terrible things started to happen simultaneously, forcing the town’s residents to live a life of terror and confusion.

Image Source: /firewireblog.com

Under the Dome mainly targets audience’s fear of the unknown. The novel showed that uncertainties, while a basic part of life itself, can be frightening when brought to extreme conditions. The appearance of this impenetrable and potentially dangerous dome is a foreign and bizarre phenomenon that, if it occurred in the real world, will ignite feelings of distress and paranoia.

There’s also the fear of isolation. Being social beings, humans feel the need to connect with each other. When this becomes impossible, panic may begin to arise.

For now, viewers can only wait to see how this mini-series will address and portray these terrors. Perhaps they can grab the novel first while anticipating the pilot episode.

Image Source: screencrush.com

For more updates on the field of entertainment and movies, follow me on Twitter.

REPOST: The Hangover Part III: The third time’s the harm

Time Entertainement says that 'The Hangover Part III' is so aggressively nasty and barely funny that only the movie's most hardcore fans will enjoy.  Hmmm ... Let's find out and see.  Read the details below:  

Todd Phillips’ deliberately offensive films have always courted controversy but The Hangover Part III marks a tonal shift for his successful franchise. The movie is so aggressively nasty and barely funny that it feels as though Phillips is trying to cull his own wolfpack down to only the most hardcore fans. The tagline on The Hangover Part III’sposters is “THE END” and there may be some wish fulfillment implied. The Hangover Part III gives off such a stench of creative decay that it hardly seems possible that even Phillips or his co-writers have any use for the movie themselves. If a movie can be self-loathing and self-destructive, it’s this one.

Image source: Entertainment.time.com

Even the impetus behind the journey, which does include a trip back to Las Vegas, the scene of the wickedly fun original, is bleak. Instead of a rollicking bachelor party enhanced by drugs, there’s a funeral, followed by an intervention. Alan (Zack Galifiankis) has been off his meds for six months when the movie begins. He is enticed to enter a treatment facility in Arizona by a promise that as Phil (Bradley Cooper) and the rest of the Wolfpack, Stu (Ed Helms) and the guy who always gets left behind, Alan’s brother-in-law Doug (Justin Bartha), will drive him there. Of course, the trip to Arizona is derailed—and the purpose of it completely forgotten—by an encounter with a drug lord-type named Marshall (John Goodman) and his henchmen, including “Black Doug” from the first film. Marshall demands the guys find and bring him Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), who double-crossed him around the time of the first Hangover.




Alan’s specific mental-health issue has remained vague throughout the series but whatever it is, it leads to some spectacularly dunderheaded and mean behavior. In his first scene in The Hangover Part III, Alan drives down the freeway pulling a wagon with a giraffe upright in it. It’s his new pet. The giraffe is obviously almost entirely computer-generated but still looks smart, soulful, friendly. It is decapitated by an overpass and the severed head plunges nose first into the windshield of an approaching car. The preview audience I was with seemed stunned into silence. Not by what had happened—the outcome is telegraphed from the beginning of the scene—but by a sort of largerwhy? Hardly anyone laughed.


What a contrast to the hilarity of the sight gag of that tiger in the bathroom of the Vegas hotel in the original movie. Even the abused, penis-nibbling monkey in The Hangover Part II seems slightly amusing in comparison. The dead giraffe served no purpose except to be grossly provocative. As oily pretty-boy Phil, Bradley Cooper demonstrated in the two earlier movies an uncanny ability to make almost any line funny, but here he’s reached his limits. It’s not the game Cooper’s fault, but the screenwriters. No one, not Ernie Kovacs or Johnny Carson or Mel Brooks or even Chris Rock could make Phil’s line “Oh come on, he killed a giraffe, who gives an [expletive]?” funny. Other jokes that fail involve the cruel ends of a pair of guard dogs and some chickens trained for cockfighting and fueled on a diet of cocaine. They are variously shot, smothered, drugged, etc…


The threat to the dogs even causes the cynical Phil to protest. “I didn’t know you worked for PETA,” says Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong, reprising his role from the earlier films). “What a [expletive].” Maybe that line is supposed to make the audience feel chagrined about being such softies as well, but it isn’t witty enough to work. I suppose the dumb beasts give the steadily ridiculed character of Mr. Chow someone to look down on. Homophobia and underlying racism directed at Asians permeate this movie just as they did the others, with the ambiguously sexed Mr. Chow—he had or has a wife but, like Alan, can’t stop drooling over handsome Phil—subject to considerable verbal abuse.


Despite everything, Jeong has turned playing Mr. Chow into some strange art form. He gives the character radical style and confidence; no wonder Mr. Chow has become the central figure in The Hangover Part III. Phillips arguably couldn’t make another movie without him (although blessedly, that promise that this is “The End” does seem serious). The impish, outrageous mischief maker is the only force propelling the movie forward, unless you count the romantic subplot involving Galifiankis’s Alan and Melissa McCarthy’s pawn shop proprietor, which is of a piece with the usual insulting mainstream grotesquerie involving the sexuality of the overweight. The Hangover Part III is such a misery that when Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) directs the Wolfpack to “stay low, like dog” it might as well be the film’s motto.

Hi.  I'm Louis A. Habash, a  writer of movie reviews.  Access my Facebook page to know more about Hollywood films.

Jurassic Park 3D: Worth watching a second time?

Image Source: newspaper.li

I haven’t met a person who was not able to watch the spectacle that is Jurassic Park (1993). The movie, which was released 20 years ago, was a critical success and was hailed as the landmark in the use of computer-generated imagery or CGI. It was so successful that today it still ranks as the fourth highest-grossing film of the 20th century.

Image Source: festival-cannes.com

On April 5, 2013, the movie was re-released in 3D, which prompted this question among its loyal fans: Can this cinematic masterpiece hold its own, especially when compared to other movies released today?

I wanted to find out. So the following night, I went to the nearest theater and watched it. Please remember that when I saw this film on its first release, I memorized every line and believed in my heart, hook, line, and sinker that dinosaurs really existed somewhere in the jungles of Costa Rica. Well to start, the movie was exactly the same as the original, albeit in 3D. While some people might think that the addition of 3D images does not justify watching the movie a second time, I believe that it does, as the dinosaurs became more … alive, to say the least. In fact, members of the Australian Classification Board who saw the 3D version of the movie changed its rating from the original PG to M, which is the equivalent of PG-13 here in the US, deeming that the movie was too scary and inappropriate for children younger than 13 years.

Image Source: jurassicpark.wikia.com

The 3D conversion of the movie added more depth and dimension, and the kids back then who are now grownups would want their children to experience this masterpiece, too.

Louis A. Habash loves watching and reviewing movies. This Facebook page contains more about his thoughts on other films, new or old.

Schindler’s List revisited

It has been 20 years since Schindler’s List was shown in movie theaters. At that time, many approached the movie with some apprehension, given that its director, Steven Spielberg, was known mostly for his works on fairy tales and adventure stories. Still, he surprised some critics by showing a firm grasp of the material, and many consider the movie as an outstanding achievement in his filmmaking career.

Image Source: americanprofile.com

Recently, the epic drama film has been granted new life as Universal Studios made a full-blown restoration of the movie, and has released it on Blu-ray just in time for the film’s 20th anniversary. It took a time- and labor-intensive process for the movie to be enhanced and preserved for future generations.


 
Video Source: entertainment.time.com



With this development, it is gratifying to see how advancements in technology have helped the film industry preserve the greatest movies to ever be made. Schindler’s List, undoubtedly, is one movie that deserves such treatment. It deserves a spot in the collection of just about anyone who loves movies, and it’s a story that deserves to be told to the young people of tomorrow.

Image Source: corndogchats.blogspot.com

Today, the stories related to the Holocaust and its survivors continue to be gathered and told. These stories of a dark time should be remembered because they are something that should not be allowed to happen again.

Louis A. Habash is a film historian based in San Francisco. Find more links to his write-ups on films on Twitter.

“And the Oscar goes to”…Some of Hollywood’s best actresses from 1940s-70s

Way before the likes of Angelina Jolie became famous there were artists who have set the yardstick for every upcoming performer and aspiring Academy awardee. With innate talent for acting, and still honed by experience throughout the years, these artists have become true epitomes of the “Best Actress” image.

1. Vivien Leigh (Gone With the Wind, 1940)

A homemaker who did not put her acting dreams to rest was named Hollywood’s best actress in her performance in one of the most celebrated films of all time: Gone with the Wind. This famed movie was Vivien’s first entry to Hollywood stardom, causing much controversy over her being cast as Scarlett O’Hara. Compounding this was her difficult working relationship with co-star Clark Gable. But the rest, as they say, is history. From then on, she had become a household name and a celebrated actress.

Image Source: cafleurebon.com

2. Olivia de Havilland (The Heiress, 1950)

Olivia’s talent for acting was first recognized by the Academy Awards in her performance as Melanie Milton in Gone with the Wind. She was again nominated for her Hold Back the Down performance, but in a cruel twist of fate, lost to her sister Joan Fontaine. After having been eluded by an Oscar nod, she bagged the trophy in 1946 for To Each His Own and in 1949 for The Heiress.

Image Source: andthenomineesare.blogspot.com

3. Simone Signoret (Room at the Top, 1960)

Simone was the first French to win the Oscars for her role in the Room at the Top. Prior to her winning the Academy Award, she had been often reduced to taking on prostitute roles. Following her recognition, she was offered films in Hollywood which she often turned down.

Image Source: moviemoviesite.com

4. Maggie Smith (The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, 1970)

Maggie Smith began her career in tinsel-town in the 1950s. She has since starred in over 60 films and has been nominated for an Oscar six times. Of the six nominations, she won two trophies; one for her performance in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie in 1970 and California Suite in 1978.

Image Source: admmfics.proboards.com

Louis A. Habash is a film archivist at the San Francisco Art Institute. He edits films, explores their significance, and catalogues chips for the public to access these films easily. For more related information, visit his page.

Must see classic films for children

In an age where sci-fi and 3D films are dominating the box office, it is hard to convince children to lend an eye to the classics, which fathered the movies today. But by introducing children to these films, they would come to a better perspective of the world of cinema and the whole world as well. Here are some notable classical films for the young ones:

1. The Red Balloon (1956)

This Alfred Lamorisse’s fantasy featurette won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay in 1956. The story revolves around a boy and a red balloon that has a mind of its own. This unlikely friendship between them has initiated envy from other children, prompting them to destroy his balloon.

Image Source: en.wikipedia.org

2. The Wizard of Oz (1939)

This much-loved children’s movie tells the tale of Dorothy Gale and her dog Toto in the magical Land of Oz Here she meets friends and foes in her journey to meet the Wizard of Oz, who as everyone says can help her find her way back home and can give her new friends Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion the brain, heart, and courage they respectively wish for.

Image Source: blog.bryantpark.org

3. The Kid (1921)

Written and directed by Charlie Chaplin, The Kid is a heartwarming tale of an adoptive father (Charlie Chaplin) and an abandoned child (Jackie Coogan). The story unfolds with a mother leaving her baby with a pleading note in a limousine. In an unfortunate event, the car gets stolen by thieves who then leave the baby in a garbage can. Charlie’s character finds the child and raises him as his own son. This father-son relationship is challenged by questions to his fatherhood and the claims of the mother over the child. In the end, the kid reunitew with his biological mother and with his adoptive father.

Image Source: silentfilmlivemusic.blogspot.com

Colors and other elements that are deemed to define children’s movies may elude these films, but they are good films that impart good lessons . More importantly, they are devoid of violence.

Louis A. Habash is a film archivist at the San Francisco Art Institute and he sidelines as a film critic when he is not busy restoring and editing clips. Find out more about him and his passion for classical films from this page.