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.