Tag: review

MOVIE REVIEW: Dallas Buyers Club

Ron Woodroof goes to the the hospital and meets Rayon, who is an HIV-positive transgender woman. Mutual disdain occurs.

Dallas_Buyers_Club_10Here is why Dallas Buyers Club is getting all those awards and nominations: it’s a basically true story of a Texas cowboy and electrician named Ron Woodroof who is a homophobic, womanizing, substance-abusing schmuck who discovers he has AIDS, and apparently, just thirty days to live. The viewer goes from repulsion at his antics to admiration and affection for his intelligence and even compassion.

Ron is portrayed by Matthew McConaughey, an actor I had always associated with romantic comedies I didn’t bother to see, until this decade, when he has been doing more substantial work. I really liked him as the district attorney in Bernie (2011).

Ron goes to the hospital and meets Rayon (played by Jared Leto, also worthily Oscar-nominated) who is an HIV-positive transgender woman. Mutual disdain occurs. When Ron’s health worsens, he drives to Mexico to get more AZT, after a batch he had purloined ran out. He meets Dr. Vass (Griffin Dunne) an American with his medical license revoked, who tells Ron that AZT is “poisonous”, and prescribes proteins and vitamins, which end up improving Ron’s health.

Three months later, Ron finds his health much improved. It occurs to him that he could make money by importing the drugs and selling them to other HIV-positive patients… Meanwhile, Dr. Eve Saks [Jennifer Garner] also begins to notice the negative effects of AZT, but is told by her supervisor Dr. Sevard (Denis O’Hare) that [the medical trial] cannot be discontinued.

And Ron and Rayon become unlikely business partners.

I didn’t even get into the physical transformation of McConaughey, in which he lost 47 pounds in four months. You may enjoy reading a brief story of the real Ron Woodroof (not Woodruff, as written here). And read some stellar reviews of the movie in Rotten Tomatoes, 93% positive as of this writing.

Of course, I saw this at the Spectrum Theatre in Albany, unfortunately alone because we couldn’t get a child sitter.

MOVIE REVIEW: Her

In the movie Her, Theodore seems no more adrift than any number of other people populating the film,

Her.After trying to work out a chance to see a film with The Wife, I end up going alone to see Her, written and directed by Spike Jonze, which is supposed to be a story set in the near future. The annoying thing, not about the movie, but rather what people ASSUME about the movie, is that any guy who falls in love with his computer’s operating system must be a dismal loser. In fact, Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is rather well-respected in his job writing personal letters for people who have difficulties creating messages themselves.

He IS unhappy because he’s on the verge of divorcing his childhood sweetheart Catherine (Rooney Mara), and stalls in signing the papers.
Theodore’s purchase of a talking OS with artificial intelligence ends up fascinating him. The OS names herself “Samantha” (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and she can learn both intellectually and psychologically, as they discuss all elements of life.

Maybe I’m cynical, but Theodore seems no more adrift than any number of other people populating the film, including his coworkers, his old friend Amy (Amy Adams – much less glamorous than in American Hustle), and his fix-up date (Olivia Wilde). Indeed, he seems a little different from many folks I see in real life, more engaged with their electronic devices than the people around them.

In fact, Theodore, in his conversation with Samantha, is quite observant. (Possibly my favorite name of a character, in the end credits, is based on Theodore’s sharp-eyed comment: “New Sweet Boyfriend of Mother Who Dated Pricks.”)

I enjoyed Her quite a bit, as an absurd love story, and I understand its Golden Globe win for Best Screenplay and Oscar nomination for Best Picture. Hmm, I did not actually notice that Shanghai, China was used for a lot of the exterior settings until I read the end credits.

MOVIE REVIEW: Saving Mr. Banks

It was Julie Andrew and her husband Tony Dalton Disney personally toured Disneyland with, not Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers.

SavingMrBanks The Wife and I saw Saving Mr. Banks a few weeks ago at the Spectrum Theatre in Albany, and it was well-crafted, with Emma Thompson quite good as P. L. Travers, creator of Mary Poppins. Even more impressive was Annie Rose Buckley, in her first film, as the writer as a child. I immediately “recognized” the composing Sherman brothers (played by Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak), and other performers, including Bradley Whitford as a Disney creator and Collin Farrell in the flashbacks as the future writer’s father.

So why has it taken me so long to write about this film? Was it about Meryl Streep lashing out at the memory of the real Walt Disney over his purported sexism, at an event honoring Thompson? Nah, that’s not it.

Was it that Tom Hanks was snubbed for an Oscar? Did not see Saving Captain Phillips (yet), but there were stronger folks in the supporting actor category, where his portrayal of Walt Disney would have been placed.

It’s that, from everything I’ve read, the movie is just too far from the truth for my taste. I expect biopics to combine characters, mess with timelines, and the like. This, though, is what my friend Steve Bissette called “the usual corporate product revamps of reality”, though “far less terrible than projected by many.” Bissette, citing the 1999 book MARY POPPINS, SHE WROTE: THE LIFE OF P.L. TRAVERS by Valerie Lawson:

It was Julie Andrew and her husband Tony Dalton Disney personally toured Disneyland with [not Travers], Disney made no trip to London to seal the deal (contracts were signed before Travers went to L.A. to work with the team, and were revised/renegotiated on fine points afterwards), Julie Andrews kept Travers personally up-to-date on the changes being made and fidelity to her character/books, there were no words between Disney and Travers at the L.A. premiere, the whole relationship with the limo driver is pure confection—and as a Gurdjieff devotee, Travers would have reviled the Freudian conceit of the movie.

Although, he adds:

Much of the film IS reflective of what went down, with far more attention to the actual history than most Hollywood films ever, ever give to their own… It’s clear from Lawson’s bio that Travers profited mightily and knew going in and through the process what was going to be done and was done, and did her utmost to ensure some control. The contract Disney extended and honored was extraordinary in its day and today is even moreso.

But knowing SO much is made up – the driver is the one character who humanized her – made it more disappointing, in retrospect.

Still, it LOOKED right. I bought that this was Disneyland, that these were Walt’s employees who he insisted call him by his first name.

Bottom line: you may very well enjoy Saving Mr. Banks. Indeed, I rather did, in spite of my reservations, though the aforementioned Freudian stuff was a little weird. Just don’t believe everything you see.

MOVIE REVIEW: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2

I enjoyed the music of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, which included Paul McCartney’s new song, “New.”


Sunday morning, my brother-in-law calls; he’s fixing up a house in my area. His wife’s trip back from Ukraine has been delayed a day – he’s planning on picking her up at JFK airport then driving back to Pennsylvania with their daughter. With some extra time on his hands, did we want to go to the movies? He’ll pay. OK! The choice they made was Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2.

My family (wife, daughter, and I) meet them (BIL, daughter) at Colonie Center, and actually don’t enter the theater until the previews were already going for three minutes, then we see 10 MORE minutes of animated coming attractions, most of which convinced me NOT to see them.

By happenstance, my family had seen the first movie in the series and had liked it. This take, even in 2-D, was brighter visually, and better drawn – probably a result of a bigger budget – and I loved it. The recap of the first film was handled quite efficiently before launching into the new adventure.

Inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader), who created the mess in the first film, is invited by his “idol Chester V (Will Forte) to join The Live Corp Company, where the best and brightest inventors in the world create technologies for the betterment of mankind.” Ultimately, Flint is sent on a sensitive mission involving his most infamous creation, which is creating food-animal hybrids; Chester tells him he can save the world. Flint’s supposed to do it alone, but he brings his crew, including girlfriend Sam Sparks (Anna Faris) and his dad (James Caan), with whom he finally connected at the end of film 1.

I liked it for what it was: a lot of funny visual jokes/food puns, and a narrative that suggests that work, in lieu of your friends, isn’t a good choice. It also suggests that hero-worship is highly overrated. The plot was serviceable, not great, but I enjoyed it, and the characters therein; my wife, and my daughter, did not. The story was not compelling enough for the Wife. It is true that the character upon which the resolution of the story fell was clear to me fairly early on. My sensitive daughter was scared by some seemingly hostile foods.

Subsequently, I listened to the Bat Segundo Show when Ed Champion interviewed writer Kathryn Davis, and about halfway through, they had a riff on the misunderstood monster. II then realized that perhaps there was more to the narrative of the film than I had originally realized.

The voice actors, which also included Andy Samberg, Benjamin Bratt, Neil Patrick Harris, Terry Crews, and Kristen Schaal, are all quite good. I enjoyed the music, which included Paul McCartney’s new song, “New,” some Mark Mothersbaugh, and Yummy Yummy” by the 1910 Fruitgum Company.

On a scale of 1 to 4, I’d give it 3 stars. Looks great, seemingly less filling (despite the food theme). The mixed positive reviews I’ve seen are mostly accurate. I do love how the storyline continues through the early part of the credits – WHY do people leave during them?

Book review: Peter Jennings – A Reporter’s Life

Peter Jennings was a sometimes a harsh taskmaster, but it was never about personal ego, it was about making the broadcast better, and it showed.

I used to watch ABC World News almost religiously and it was because of Peter Jennings. Now I find the program almost unwatchable, and I have to think that the late anchorman would probably feel the same way.

Of course, I was watching when he told us, on-air on April 5, 2005, that he had lung cancer. And I was a viewer when Charles Gibson announced he had died on August 7, and I felt a profound sense of sadness, grief that continues as the broadcast he put forth has turned, in large measure, into the infotainment that he could not stand.

Lynn Scher. ABC reporter contacted Peter’s widow, Kayce Freed Jennings, and suggested that the interviews conducted for the ABC News special, “Peter Jennings: Reporter” in August 2005 would make a good book. Kayce initially said no, so Lynn Scher did it anyway, just for the family and close colleagues, presented a year later. This convinced Kayce that a book WAS viable, not just to honor Peter, but to discuss journalistic values. The book, edited by Kate Darton, Kayce Jennings, and Scher, is a story told by some seven dozen colleagues, competitors, family members, friends, and newsmakers.

It relates his life, born in Toronto in 1938, the son of Canada’s Edward R. Murrow, Charles Jennings. Peter was smart, but a lazy student, dropping out of high school. But, because of his charisma and good looks, he finds himself in the family business in Canada. He joins ABC News in 1964, and in 1965, at the age of 26, becomes the anchor of the evening news, a job for which he was indisputably unqualified, especially against competition such as Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC, and Walter Cronkite on CBS.

He becomes a field reporter, first in Rome, then Beirut. It was he who reported live from the Olympics in Munich about the kidnapping and killing of Israeli athletes.

In 1978, ABC News created this troika anchor chair with Frank Reynolds in Washington covering the government/politics segments, Max Robinson in Chicago on domestic news, and Jennings, now the chief foreign correspondent, dealing with international news from London. By 1983, he was the sole anchor, working out of New York City.

It is at this point that the broadcast started to get good. His exacting standards, his antipathy for the soft stories, made ABC News #1. He even eschewed the O.J. Simpson trial story until he became convinced it said something about the racial divide in the United States.

Jennings often fought for extended coverage of topics that, perhaps, people didn’t know they needed to know, about AIDS, Guantanamo, religion, racism, the Arab world, and much more. He had an insatiable curiosity, and seem to act as though everyone else did, or should.

He spent 24 hours ringing in the millennium, then was on air for over 60 hours after 9/11, including a wonderful program the Saturday after, trying to explain the event to children, which I watched too because I needed someone to explain it to me. Peter had a knack, a need to make sure the story was told well, including the context in which the events took place. He was sometimes a harsh taskmaster in this regard, virtually EVERYONE said, but it was never about personal ego, it was about making the broadcast better, and it showed.

I enjoyed the narrative, and the various remembrances, interspersed with words from Peter Jennings, made it a surprisingly interesting book to read.

Ramblin' with Roger
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial