Birdman

‘Birdman’ is a soaring film with Keaton

Thursday December 18, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/289-'Birdman_is_a_soaring_film_with_Keaton.html

Birdman – movie review by Tony Baksa 11/25/2014

RATING – 4 Suns

Somehow it seems personal for Michael Keaton. His performance in “Birdman” has an uncanny authenticity one rarely sees in mainstream films. I say, just give him the Oscar now. It is difficult to imagine another performance that will best Keaton’s Birdman.

Produced, directed and co-written by the visionary Alejandro González Inarritu, “Birdman” makes a powerful statement. Inarritu uses Show Business as a metaphor for survival. It is a good metaphor. “Birdman” is the story of a fading Hollywood star’s last ditch effort to reclaim his career. He takes on Broadway with his last penny and his last nerve. In the process he is confronted with a regretful life - a failed marriage, a neglected daughter and a lifetime of bad choices. This is a man with loads of talent but none for life outside his art. 

This great movie takes us inside his head and his heart with surreal flourishes and a fluidity of movement that is astonishing. Director Inarritu moves his floating camera in a way that provides us with a rare perspective. We see what Keaton sees. We also feel what he feels. Our sympathies are tied firmly to Keaton as we travel along with him to his decent into madness.

Riggan Thomas (Keaton) has optioned a controversial play for him to star in opposite method actor Mike (Edward Norton) a volatile actor/ star known for his antics on and off the screen. They are quite the pair in their daily altercations. The rehearsals become fodder for the gossip columns and TV entertainment news shows. This, of course, turns the play into a must see even before it has opened. Ticket buyers line the sidewalks around the theater just to catch the previews. As Riggan and Mike rehearse and fight verbally as well as physically, it is apparent that the success of this venture is the only option for Riggan. Will audiences still line up for a badly reviewed play? Can Riggan’s former fame as the Birdman in a screen trilogy much like Batman keep the box office busy?   Adding to the fire is Emma Stone as Keaton’s needy truth telling daughter who loves her father with a scalding passion. Throw in an ex-wife and a bitter theater critic, a nervous manager and fabulous periphery New York theater types and “Birdman” provides a rich tapestry of unrelenting emotion.

“Birdman” is, indeed, a very emotional experience. Baring his soul like never before, Michael Keaton gives the performance of his career.  He will never be better! It his heartbreaking yet thrilling to witness Keaton in a variety of outlandish scenes that are sometimes funny, other times chilling. We are asked to question reality as we witness Keaton and his flights of fancy.  Emma Stone as his willful daughter brings a surprising authority that belies her youth and experience. She is a great actress. Also outstanding is Lindsay Duncan as the number one make or break theater critic. Edward Norton brings balance to the proceedings with humor.

Director Inarritu’s literate script co-written with Nicolás Giacobone provides a classic brilliance that was once the rule rather than the exception in the golden age of film. It is a thing of beauty. We are treated to emotional outbursts and thrilling monologues that are even rare in the current theater. Make no mistake; this is very much a movie – cinematic in all its aspects. Inarritu sees to that. Although the playing field is the theater, “Birdman” is far from stage bound as well as earth bound. It literally takes flight across the emotional terrain of a man’s heart and soul.

“Birdman” is currently in theaters

John Wick

                                                         

John Wick – movie review by Tony Baksa 11/13/2014
Hamburg Sun

Rating – 4 Suns

Take one part Quentin Tarantino, one part Kung Fu and one part Clint Eastwood and you will have “John Wick”.  On their own, each is entertaining to their target audience. Mixed thoroughly and you have a superior entertainment for everyone.

Keanu Reeves stars as a retired high level hit man who encounters a trio of thugs hell bent on stealing his snazzy car. In the process they beat him violently and to top it off kill his adorable dog before they speed off with his Mustang. Their big mistake was not knowing who he is. He’s John Wick famous assassin – formerly known as “The Boogeyman” – an unstoppable force. Their bigger mistake was not knowing that Wick was a “colleague” of the father of the trio’s leader. Their biggest mistake was killing John Wick’s dog. You see, our beloved hit man recently lost his beautiful wife to a terminal illness. The dog was her parting gift to him. We are treated to scenes of Wick lavishing affection on the dog as he grieves.  With brief flashbacks of his deceased wife, there is a sense that he gave up his life of crime for her and the decency she represented. Therefore, this dog is everything to him – EVERYTHING.

Well, that is all you need to know of the movie’s plot. The remainder of the movie is all revenge played out in some of the most exciting action you will encounter. This is not an overstatement. Directed by David Leitch and Chad Stahelski we are treated to wildly enthralling fights and shoot outs that are brilliant in their execution. The directors know their material all too well. They are former stunt doubles for the film’s star, Keanu Reeves. What is even more interesting and, frankly astonishing, is that “John Wick” is the first film directed by Leitch and Stahelski. They must have been paying attention as stunt men on the many movies they worked. I am guessing they have also watched a lot of Kung Fu movies as well. “John Wick” plays like Kung Fu with guns instead of flying feet and fists.

The amazing fight choreography especially the shoot outs are unequalled in recent memory. Inspired by martial arts movies, it is fast and furious like a runaway train. The all-important editing in such a film cannot be denied. I am predicting an Oscar nomination for film editing.

As for the cast, they are fine especially John Leguizamo in a tiny cameo that is, nevertheless memorable. But it is all Reeves. He is so strong in presence. As a loner of few words - relentless for vengeance, he will surely bring to mind the revenge seeking Clint Eastwood in his younger days. Keanu Reeves has had a string of bombs in the last few years. As the title character he states in a confrontational prelude to his rampage, “I’m thinking I’m back!” Yes, Keanu, you are and welcome back.

The look of the film is strangely beautiful for this genre. With New York City as the backdrop, the choreographed violence is mesmerizing and, above all, exciting. It’s not real and we know it. It’s fun. It’s iconic movie making. It’s cowboys and gangsters – good guys and bad guys - Gary Cooper in “High Noon”, Spencer Tracy in “Bad Day at Black Rock”.  It’s classic. It’s movie time – popcorn and candy.  We leave the theater exhilarated and satisfied.

“John Wick” is currently in theaters.                                         

Men, Women & Children

Men, Women & Children - Movie Review by Tony Baksa

10/23/2014

Rating - 4 Suns

The internet, social media and all the modern day devices like Ipads, androids and IPhones provide us with great connectivity - or does it? Yes, we email and prolifically post on Facebook, Instagram, twitter, blogs and YouTube. We may feel involved in each other’s lives and to some degree we are. But to what degree? Have all these platforms for social discourse and self-expression actually made us less connected? That’s the irony presented to us by producer, director and screenwriter Jason Reitman in his cautionary tale, "Men, Women & Children.”

It is a powerfully sad film about private lives and enormous secrets. With a strong ensemble cast, "Men, Women &Children" pulls no punches in its frank story of the harm technology does to society - more accurately, the abuse of technology.

The large cast of characters includes teenagers with their constant texting - often times sending messages to friends who occupy their very same space. It should be funny but it is not. Then there are the adults surfing the web for companionship outside their marriages. With so much available on the internet from an abundance of news, games, gossip to misinformation and the illicit, a sort of worldwide obsession seems to have taken hold. 

A major theme is played out in the story of a suicidal teen believing that nothing matters. The earth viewed from the perspective of the entire universe, he feels, is an insignificant dot.  Ansel Elgort as Tim Mooney has latched on to this theory after reading Carl Sagan’s “Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space”. Tim should be enjoying his high school years. He is the star football player and admired by the student body as well as the faculty. Yet, he has gotten this notion into his head how unimportant football is and therefore winning is especially meaningless. Tim has come to hate football. So, he has decided to quit the team to everyone’s dismay including his father. All he seems to care about anymore is computer games – bloody war games – hours spent on this one lonely endeavor.  His only connection to his absent mother is through Facebook where, unknown to her, he reads her postings.

Another teen, full of innocence, is pushed into sudden maturity by circumstances she is ill equipped to understand. Rude awakenings and unlikely outcomes abound for all these innocents – young and old alike. All this technology has produced a world of people leading lives of quiet desperation. Misunderstandings and alienation are the order of the day.

Adan Sandler as suburban husband and father Don Truby heads the best ensemble cast of the year. Yes, Adam Sandler! Rarely associated with serious social drama, Sandler has probably the best written and most effective scene in the film that sums up everything Reitman wants to say. It is classic in style and chilling as Don (Sandler) responds to his wife after secrets and lies are confronted. I was shocked by his authority in the scene. I hope to see more of this caliber of work from him in the future.

Also outstanding is Elena Kampouris as a doe eyed waif disillusioned by her big crush. She is heartbreaking. Olivia Crocicchia as an aspiring model/actress and her conspiratorial mother (Judy Greer) bring a new twist to the stage mother myth. Dean Norris as a middle aged man searching for true love is also commanding. I was especially taken with Jennifer Garner as an obsessed helicopter mom tracking her daughter’s every move through a collection of devices. Garner gives an Oscar worthy performance. The fact is, the entire cast is extraordinary.

"Men, Women & Children" is a bold film. It is among the most compelling movies you will see this fall. The narration by Emma Thompson adds an offbeat and eerie quality to the proceedings. With her cool demeanor and British accent, Thompson's off screen commentary adds to the disconnect. It is a brilliant stroke.

With solid and compassionate direction, Reitman delivers the best movie to date on the dark side of computers, cell phones and the internet - truly a cautionary tale.

"Men, Women & Children" is coming soon to an area theater.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/973-Men_Women__Children_is_a_bold_cautionary_tale.html

Gone Girl

‘Gone Girl’ is a riveting ride

Sunday October 12, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

You know summer at the movies is over when films such as “Gone Girl” hit the big screen. All the superheroes and space zombies have been tucked away until next summer, to make room for smart, intelligent and complex fare.

Like the classic movies of directors such as Otto Preminger, Alfred Hitchcock and William Wyler, David Fincher’s “Gone Girl” grabs hold of its viewers and never lets go. Even the surprise ending keeps its tight grip right to the very end.

The screenplay by Gillian Flynn, based on her novel by the same name, is full of twists and turns that are riveting. Director Fincher (“The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and “The Social Network”) handles it all with a momentum that is so thrilling.

Watching this movie is akin to curling up with a great mystery novel on a chilly winter evening and not looking up until the final page is turned.

The unbelievable revelations throughout “Gone Girl” are made palatable by the sincere and committed performances of its superb cast. Headed by Ben Affleck with Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris as you have never seen him, the wonderful Kim Dickens and a host of entertaining cameos by Sela Ward, Tyler Perry and Missi Pyle as a Nancy Grace clone, there is not a boring moment to be had.

The story begins with two very attractive and charming people who “meet cute” at a party. You think you know the rest of this story already.

They fall in love, marry and live an idyllic life – or so it seems. Nick (Affleck) and Amy (Pike) have it all and would be the envy of anyone. After five years of wedded bliss, Amy goes missing. Her disappearance catches the eye of the media and the frenzy begins. Loving and devoted Nick is put front and center in this three-ring circus and eventually falls under suspicion for possibly murdering Amy. She is nowhere to be found and, based on incriminating behavior by Nick, the police and the media – even Amy’s parents – become convinced that this perfect husband isn’t all that he seemed.

This is just the beginning and what ensues is anything but clichéd. Outrageous surprises and plot turns will keep you glued to the screen. Anything more said will serve as a large heap of spoilers.

This is a masterwork by director Fincher and his cast. Affleck is so good in this movie. His naturalistic, low-key style matched with his commanding screen presence is perfect for a character that may or may not be a scoundrel. I am not familiar with Pike. After this film, I believe we will see much more of her in future movies. This is a star -making performance. I’d also like to single out Kim Dickens as the investigating detective. Her breezy, no-nonsense characterization is terrific and adds an amusing note to the serious proceedings.

I believe readers of Flynn’s popular book will not be disappointed. It was a very smart idea to have Flynn write the screenplay. I’m thinking she got it right.

Whether book or movie, “Gone Girl” is to be applauded as an exciting and satisfying entertainment rich in physiological thrills and chills.

“Gone Girl” is currently in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/news/189-'Gone_Girl_is_a__riveting_ride.html

A WALK AMONG THE TOMBSTONES

‘A Walk Among Tombstones’ procedural does not disappoint

Saturday October 4, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

Liam Neeson’s career took a strange turn, a few years back. With a well-deserved rep for classical theater (Hamlet) and films (Excalibur), along with serious dramas (Schindler’s List) and sophisticated comedies (Husbands and Wives), it is interesting to note that this excellent actor has become Mr. Avenger. His “Taken” film series alone should solidify his tough guy hero status. Well, he’s at it again and I’m not complaining. Neeson is such a good actor that his mere presence adds weight to the proceedings.

In “A Walk Among The Tombstones,” Neeson plays a retired cop working as a private investigator. This kind of character is not new to movies. Let’s face it; it’s a well-worn cliché. But give Liam Neeson the part with an above-average script and taut direction, plus a wonderfully quirky supporting cast, and you have the cliché turned inside out. What you get is a very watchable movie filled with suspense, a good amount of fright and a deep-rooted edgy undercurrent.

It begins with a request by a wealthy drug dealer (Dan Stevens) for Matt Scudder (Neeson) to locate the men who kidnapped and murdered his wife. The drug dealer wants revenge because he paid the ransom for his wife but the kidnappers murdered her, anyway. Scudder reluctantly agrees to the job. He soon learns that what he is dealing with is not an isolated case of kidnapping, but a horrible case involving a pair of serial killers who target rich drug kingpins. They get the money from their victims but rather than stick to the usual agreement to return the captive – in most cases a wife or daughter – they gleefully murder them in horrific ways. Police are never called in, due to the nature of the client’s “profession.”

This is a riveting procedural laced with brutality and a film noir-like moodiness. I could easily picture Robert Mitchum as Scudder, back in the day. Throughout the film, we are treated with well-acted turns by a host of dark and brooding characters. Special mention goes to Olafur Darri Olafsson as the graveyard attendant with a thing for pigeons and Boyd Holbrook as a junkie attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The same meetings our hero, Scudder, attends – “8 years sober” he announces. Oh yes, Scudder has a regrettable back story.

One bright, albeit sad light, in this dark tale is the clean, straightforward performance by young Brian Bradley as T.J. a computer savvy vegetarian homeless boy – I did say the characters are quirky. T.J. latches on to Scudder. They are, in many ways, kindred spirits. After so much murkiness, the film’s last shot involving Scudder and T.J. is like a sigh of relief and hopefully a hint at a sequel – wounded souls – man and boy solve another mystery.

The film is set in the 1990’s in New York City. Attention to detail is wonderfully subtle. Y2K was on everyone’s mind. People were running scared. Looking back, we see how ridiculous it all was. My favorite line in this film uttered by the monstrous villain, “People are afraid of all the wrong things,” strikes a truthful chord chilling in its rendering by a psychopath.

Directed and written with great economy by Scott Frank (The Wolverine), “A Walk Among The Tombstones,” based on a novel by Buffalonian Lawrence Block , is a no-nonsense thriller that, unlike many movies in this genre, does not disappoint.

“A Walk Among The Tombstones” is currently in theaters.


http://www.thesunnews.net/news/384-'A_Walk_Among_Tombstones__procedural_does_not_disappoint.html

Boyhood

Boyhood - film review by Tony Baksa

Rating – 2 Suns

Director Richard Linklater has a body of very interesting work that deals most essentially with real time. In real time we are witness to human behavior at its most authentic. His past films such as “Before Sunrise” “Waking Life” and “Before Sunset” are fascinating and entertaining studies of people – mostly young people – who talk and behave in a true to life fashion. What they have to say and how it advances the plot is Linklater’s modus operandi. These films along with his other movies – “Dazed and Confused” and “School of Rock” all share this essential characteristic – more specifically a moment in time.  The moments Linklater seems most interested in exploring are youthful passages – growing up – getting to the brink of adulthood.

“Boyhood” is such a movie. Filmed over twelve years beginning in 2002 using the same actors, we witness through episodes in the life of young Mason his growing years from age five to eighteen in Austin, Texas. It is an intriguing premise. I so love this idea that I wish I could report that it works. Because of the mundane screenplay by Linklater and obvious improvised scenes, “Boyhood” isn’t fully successful.

When an exciting premise such as this is offered, one would think it is because an exceptional story needed to be told. What unfolds is a series of dull scenes in the life of Mason and his family – all cliché moments spread out over three long hours. The usual sibling rivalry, awkwardness at school, peer pressure, first love, first car, graduation and the predictable off to college finale is all there as anyone would expect. If we are being told this well-worn story, shouldn’t there be a fresh spin? The unusual premise that Linklater employs just isn’t enough to elevate “Boyhood”. 

What is especially jarring is the unfortunate fact that little boy Mason played by Ellar Coltrane is a better actor than teenage Coltrane. Apparently, Coltrane’s ability as an actor wans as he ages. Not so with Lorelei Linklater the director’s daughter, as Samantha, Mason’s older sister. She is the most compelling character in the film. Her earlier scenes are so well acted and truthful. It is the film’s major shortcoming that interest in Samantha falls away as she ages. She all but becomes a nodding presence – subjugated to clear the way for the less interesting story line – that of her brother, Mason.

Ethan Hawke as the divorced father and Patricia Arquette as the much married hard working mother of Mason and Samantha turn in very good performances. Strong performances in a weak movie seem like such a waste.

I would like to see Linklater continue this idea by filming his talented daughter, Lorelei Linklater as Samantha, for the next 12 years. Have someone else write the screenplay. Call it “Girlhood”. Avoid the cliché’s and give this interesting actress a through-line she so richly deserves.

“Boyhood” is currently in theaters 

The Hundred-Foot Journey

Thursday September 4, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

Three suns.
HAMBURG — Director Lasse Hallstrom has given us quirky, moody comedies with a gentle storybook touch: “The Cider House Rules,” “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape” and “Chocolat.” He is back to enchant us again with a lovely human comedy, “The Hundred-Foot Journey.”

Based on a novel by Richard C. Morais, “The Hundred-Foot Journey” tells the tale of a family seeking success on their own terms. They come to France, leaving tragedy and loss behind them in Mumbai, full of talent, ambition and love. At the center of this journey is Hassan, a young, gifted cook eager to elevate himself to chef status. With support from his formidable father, there is no question he will succeed. His success is not the story. His journey to culinary stardom is.

Hassan’s father, referred to as “Papa” in the film, is a force of nature. Papa collides with another force of nature, Madame Mallory, who owns a renowned French restaurant across the street from where he plans to open an Indian eatery. What ensues is a battle of cultures. Played by seasoned actors Om Puri as Papa and Helen Mirren as Madame Mallory, their frequent skirmishes are delightfully comic and heartwarming. These two charismatic pros anchor a movie that teaches tolerance and grace without ever getting preachy or maudlin.

Manish Dayal, as Hassan, couldn’t be more perfect as he shares his culinary love with another chef, Marguerite, portrayed by Charlotte Le Bon. Of course they fall in love. And their road to love is as bumpy as their road to fame. This movie isn’t concerned with the bumps. It’s the hundred-foot journey that Hassan, Papa and Madame Mallory take that bring a soulful peace to all, the distance between the establishments run by Papa and Madame Mallory.

This film symbolizes how close we all are to fulfilling our dreams and the obstacles in our way. Hallstrom provides beautiful visuals — a long country road that seems to stretch into infinity divides the two properties — just a hundred feet is the distance to understanding.

Here is another “foodie” movie that will send you out of the theater and into the nearest restaurant. I settled for a hot food and salad bar that fortunately offered both Indian and French cuisine, located five minutes from the theater. With close-ups of samosas, sea urchin and French omelets, you will be salivating too.

Directed with gauzy luster and cozy sentimentality, Lasse Hallstrom sustains the fairytale quality that feels nostalgic.

Produced by Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg, “The Hundred-Foot Journey” is that rare family film that doesn’t pander It is a fine moral and entertaining movie that inspires the very best in human nature.

“The Hundred-Foot Journey” is currently playing in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/579-The_Hundred-Foot_Journey.html

Lucy

‘Lucy’ shows off Scarlet Johansson’s screen skills

Saturday August 9, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

In 1994, at the tender age of 10, Scarlett Johansson appeared in a movie entitled “If Lucy Fell.” She played the tiny role of Emily. Well, you’ve got to start somewhere. Twenty years later, she is Lucy – a different Lucy. I’m so glad she stuck with acting. This 2014 movie puts her in the title role. “Lucy” is a tantalizing sci-fi mystery that is all the more interesting because Johansson is its star. She is a terrific actress that instinctively strikes just the right notes to deliver an original character for us to marvel at and, more importantly, care about.

Scarlett Johansson is the modern-day Barbara Stanwyck – hard edged on the outside and smoldering hot under the cool exterior. This quality couldn’t be more perfect for a movie that wants to make profound statements in an exciting and adventuress way. Her minimalist performance speeds the plot along and never gets in the way of the screenwriter’s very interesting ideas.

Directed and written by Luc Besson, of “The Fifth Element” and the “Taken” movies, he is a master of the fast-moving fish out of water plots. “Lucy” finds our title protagonist in a kind of dark and dangerous Alice in Wonderland nightmare.

Coerced into taking part in what seemed like a simple delivery of a locked briefcase – contents unknown to her, Lucy is captured, tortured and forced to take part in an international drug smuggling scheme. Lucy turns the tables on everyone, in one of the wildest and most original revenge scenarios imaginable. Aided by an expert on the human mind, Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman), “Lucy” takes us into “Twilight Zone” territory.

This concise and compact rollercoaster ride plows through the past, present and future – literally. It begins in the present, zaps back to prehistoric apes and dinosaurs, stops off briefly in Colonial times and then plunges headlong into the future cosmos and mind expanding visuals – straight into infinity. This is accomplished by nearly a hundred special effects and art direction teams that realize Luc Besson’s vision.

Aside from its “Twilight Zone” influences, Besson is surely paying homage to the great director, Stanley Kubrick. The last 10 minutes of the film just may blow your mind as “2001 A Space Odyssey” did, way back when. It doesn’t reach the greatness of that movie, but “Lucy” is thrilling entertainment. It deals with subjects like the power of the mind, unending human potential and spiritual awareness, in a way that only good science fiction can. And it delivers it disguised in an action-packed 90 minutes.

“Lucy” doesn’t overstay her welcome. She gets the job done and then disappears. You’ll see what I mean.

“Lucy” is currently in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/news/810-'Lucy_shows_off_Scarlet_Johanssons_screen_skills.html

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

On the silver screen: ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is the best movie this summer

Thursday July 24, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

It’s all about trust. That’s not a bad value to dramatize. Who would think that a multitude of apes could deliver such a noble message? Well, when handled by a score of super-talented film makers – message received.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” has got to be the best in its current franchise. Acted and directed with skill and unending craft, this movie brings a ridiculous story to believability. What a great adventure and what great lessons to be learned. Along with trust, we are served generous portions of loyalty, family, cooperation and, of course, love.

In the wake of a global sweeping virus that decimated most of humanity, a pack of survivors come across a population of apes quickly evolving toward human traits, i.e. speech and motor abilities. In the devastating ruins of San Francisco, this troop of humans, led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke), work tirelessly to restore power to the city and begin the business of rebuilding humankind. The apes, mistrusting humans and their guns, want to destroy them and own the world in peace and harmony. Caesar (Andy Serkis), the appropriately named head ape, has a particular affinity toward human beings which was established in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Here’s where issues of trust and peaceful coexistence butt heads with the killer factions of apes and the humans who want an all-out war that will determine only one victor. They are not eager for compromise. They will never trust one another. The world can only belong to one species – humans or apes. War is inevitable, or is it?

Caesar has a past that includes favorable memories of his life with humans. This is his conflict – how to trust these desperate human survivors and help them rebuild their world. Where, then, does that leave the apes? Will humankind make the same mistakes – destroy the world again and the ape population along with it?

Although this is a sequel, one need not see “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” to thoroughly enjoy this fantastic movie. I did not see it and never felt out of it. I do plan on renting it solely on the merits of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.” It’s that good.

Serkis as Caesar is very good. Considering the realistic makeup, use of puppetry and the process of “motion capture,” he manages to give an unusual and amazingly subtle performance. In fact, all the lead apes are extraordinary, as is the makeup design. You will have no trouble distinguishing one ape from the other. Standouts are Toby Kebbell as Koba, Nick Thurston as Blue Eyes and Karin Konoval as Maurice. On the human side, Jason Clarke as human head honcho has a monopoly on compassion. I haven’t seen such a caring face since Schindler. I’d trust him with my dog – no questions asked. His face would be enough. Equally human, in all the right ways, is Kerri Russell as Ellie, a loving and nurturing soul. The bad humans are well played by Kirk Acevedo, the obligatory hothead, and Gary Oldman – is he ever good?

Matt Reeves directs with a sturdy vision. This is Reeves’ first major film as director. I am happy to report he will direct the next Planet of the Apes movie, as well.

An important element to the success of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is the score. Composed by Michael Giacchino, the music does what a film score should do – compel and supply tension – manipulate the audience into understanding purely through emotion. The fringe benefit of a Giacchino soundtrack, as always, is its sheer beauty. There is also a strange beauty in the visuals. The ruins of the city, the forest and the interiors blend cohesively into a realistic setting. Special effects are phenomenal, especially the use of “motion capture” and seamless CGI.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” now moves to the top of my summer movies list as great entertainment with the added feature of great lessons to be learned. But don’t tell the kids that. You wouldn’t want to discourage them from enjoying this thrilling movie by saying, “It’s good for you.”

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is in theaters

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/527-On_the_silver_screen_'Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_is_the_best_movie_this_summer.html

Jersey Boys

On the silver screen: ‘Jersey Boys:’ Not a musical, but a good time


Wednesday July 9, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa | News



When “Jersey Boys” opened on Broadway eight years ago, it was promoted as a musical. It is not a musical. “Jersey Boys” is still running on the Broadway stage, to great success. It is still being promoted as a musical. The perception by all who intend to see it on the boards, whether on Broadway or its national tour, is that it is a musical. It is not a musical. It is a play with music. Now it is a film with music – lots of music but it is not a musical.


Directed by Clint Eastwood, “Jersey Boys” the movie, is a very effective drama about the rise and fall and rise again of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. Yes, there are plenty of songs to be heard in this entertaining biopic. But there also is plenty of drama. It really gets heavy, in the second half of the film. The sparks fly as the cast delightfully chew the scenery. It is great fun to watch.
“Jersey Boys” is, in many ways, an old-fashioned movie about entertainers. You can see something like this almost every night on television’s TCM channel. It is very much a formula script, with all the cliché’s kept intact. There’s the expected feuding and fighting among the band members, the usual domestic quarrels with the wife and the guilt at neglecting the children, due to career demands. It is all on hand, masterfully acted and directed, resulting in a swell time at the movies.
And then there’s the music — all the hits from “Sherry” to “Big Girls Don’t Cry” to the show-stopping “Can’t Take My Eyes Off You.”


It is performed by the very talented cast - no dubbing or lip-synching to the original group. Repeating his Tony award-winning performance as Frankie Valli, John Lloyd Young is simply wonderful. However, Vincent Piazza as Tommy DeVito, the band member who is most responsible for creating the Four Seasons, almost walks off with the movie. He gives a star-making performance! Also exceptional are the other two band members; Erich Bergen, as composer Bob Gaudio and Nick Massi, as Mike Lomenda, the unhappy bass singer who just wants to live a normal life.
The movie moves along briskly. Despite its show biz cliché’s, “Jersey Boys” has some surprising elements, regarding a very sad chapter in Valli’s life. This sad turn only enriches the drama and adds credence to the story. Adding even more credibility to “Jersey Boys” are Frankie Valli and Bob Gaudio as producers.


Whether or not you are a fan of The Four Seasons, “Jersey Boys” will entertain. With a sharp script by veteran screenwriter Marshall Brickman, amusing supporting performances by Christopher Walken and Mike Doyle, “Jersey Boys” delivers a solid entertainment.
A fun tidbit for baby boomers: Barry Livingston of “My Three Sons” fame appears briefly yet substantially in two highly charged scenes. No longer little Ernie, see if you recognize him.


Jersey Boys” is currently in theaters.



http://www.thesunnews.net/news/917-On_the_silver_screen_'Jersey_Boys_Not_a_musical,_but_a_good_time.html

Chef

On the Silver Screen: ‘Chef’ is delectable

Thursday July 3, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

There is a whole genre of movies known affectionately as “foodie films.” Movies Like “Water for Chocolate,” “Eat Pray Love,” Babette’s Feast” and “Eat Drink Man Woman” use food as a metaphor, yet engage our senses in the most basic and delightful ways. “Chef” joins that pantheon of “foodie films.” Like its predecessors, “Chef” sent me out of the theater craving something to eat. In this particular case, a Cuban sandwich or cubano.

I will add “Chef” to another category known as the “likable” movie. It can be on the same list as “About A Boy,” “ET,” “Driving Miss Daisy,” “On Golden Pond” and the like. These films have an irresistible quality and a certain authenticity of human emotion that compels us to look favorably upon them. I look very favorably upon “Chef.”

This is a smart, sweet and nice film about nice people wanting happiness through honest endeavor and true merit. It is also a very funny movie, written, directed and starring Jon Favreau in the most surprising performance of the year so far.

Favreau plays a chef in an upscale restaurant. As a chef, he has gained a fair amount of fame and praise from Los Angeles’ most renown food critic, played by the always spot-on Oliver Platt. After 5 years of praise, the food critic revisits the restaurant to reassess the chef’s culinary skills, with hopes that his favorite chef is still pushing the envelope.

What stands in the way is the eatery’s owner, marvelously played by Dustin Hoffman in a sensational cameo. Seems he subscribes to the belief “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Chef however wants to “fix it.” What ensues after this set up is unpredictable, funny, surprisingly dramatic and heartwarming.

Yes, it is a feel-good movie, but of the highest caliber. Not corny, not pandering, just a lovely slice of humanity. Thrown in is a healthy dose of commentary on social media that is wisely stated and completely convincing. And there’s the food – ah, the food – mouthwateringly convincing, as well.

“Chef” starts out as a situation comedy, then transitions into being a road movie, then transitions again into a humorous study of familial love and ends with a rather inevitable climax that we the audience see coming but are thankful that we were right.

The cast is pitch perfect. Sofia Vergara shows a soft, lovely side we never get to see on “Modern Family.” John Leguizamo effortlessly portrays Favreau’s sidekick with nary a false note. Emjay Anthony as the chef’s young son is in a word - remarkable. My only quibble is that Robert Downey Jr.’s character is written so out of sync with the rest of this sweet-natured film. Acted out of sync as well, it is a brief vulgar bump in an essentially fine comedy of heart and quiet triumph.

As for Jon Favreau, he is simply great. As a writer, director and especially actor, I feel Favreau has finally come of age, as an artist. His talent has matured considerably. He may just be on an upward trend of filmmaking, giving us a body of work that could approach the likes of such auteurs as Woody Allen and Mel Brooks. Whatever the case, “Chef” stands on its own as an original work of quality that will delight and amuse all who choose to see it.

Take a break from the summer superheroes and enjoy a fine comedy about a super chef that is superhuman. “Chef” is currently in theaters.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

‘X-Men’ is the perfect summer movie

Thursday June 12, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Of all the super hero franchises, the X-Men series is the most satisfying. This very entertaining series is more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is the sixth film continuing the mutants’ fight for equality in a distrusting world.

As in the five films before it, the mutants, good and some bad, bring their individual powers to bear down once again on a mutant-phobic society. That’s when the fun begins and never lets up. From the great Wolverine to the wildly fascinating Mystique, we are treated to various acts of revenge and justification. Getting even – that’s the ticket.

Wolverine is sent back to 1973, to alter history in an attempt to prevent the implementation of a scheme to wipe out the entire mutant population. It may even bring down all of humanity, if allowed to happen. Giant robots were created to detect and hunt down mutants, including humans who are friendly to the mutants, and render them extinct. These robots, called Sentinels, were built in 1973 but now, decades later pose a threat to all humanity. Professor Xavier, with the help of Kitty Pryde and her special powers, sends Wolverine back in time to change things.

Again, more fun, as we are treated to all things ‘70s such as waterbeds, lava lamps, music of the era and even Richard Nixon. It’s wild but made credible by great plotting, acting, special effects and a darn good script. This is how you do a sci-fi movie. You create an outrageous world and make us believe. And believe, we do.

Hugh Jackman is back as Wolverine. Looking a bit weathered and weary, Jackman is perfect. Also returning in the roles they created are Patrick Stewart, Ian McClellan, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen Page, Anna Paquin, James McAvoy and the great Michael Fassbender, among so many others. The integrity of the X-Men series is gratefully kept intact. Additional casting brings in the wonderful Peter Dinklage in a villainous role. Frankly, the whole cast is wonderful. I especially like Lawrence as Mystique and Evan Peters as Quicksilver.

All of these characters and all of their intriguing powers make “X-Men: Days of Future Past” the perfect summer movie for everyone – children and adults included.

Bryan Singer, as producer on this as well as previous X-Men movies, adds director to his duties. He is a splendid director and word is he will direct the next X-Men, set to hit theaters in 2016. It’s entitled “X-Men: Apocalypse.”

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is available in 3-D. Let me say, not since “Life of Pi” has 3-D been used so well. Remarkable visuals of depth and texture enhance the experience to the highest level.

However you decide to see it, don’t miss this latest episode in the saga of lovable mutants who just want to be allowed the freedom to pursue a happy life. We can all relate to that.

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is currently in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/988-X-Men_is_the_perfect_summer_movie.html 

Godzilla 2014

New ‘Godzilla’ is scary-bad

Monday June 2, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — It’s that time of year when we are inundated with super hero and monster blockbuster movies. Godzilla has arrived – once again. There just may be more Godzilla movies than any other movie remakes and sequels, combined. You’d think with all the attempts they’d finally get it right. I am sad to say this is not the case.

“Godzilla” (2014) has all the hardware, all the special effects, all the required action one should expect with today’s phenomenal movie technology. It’s even in 3-D! What it doesn’t have is a worthwhile story.

A movie like “Godzilla” must provide thrills. That’s why we go to films of this genre. We are not going for a message or a life lesson. We are going to scream, to have a few laughs, to ride the roller coaster, if you will. This latest “Godzilla” is a big bore. Our monster doesn’t make his entrance until an hour into the film and he is upstaged by two other monsters stalking Tokyo, Las Vegas and San Francisco. I’m still shaking my head in disbelief over this geographical plotting. Ah well, it isn’t Shakespeare. It’s Godzilla. OK, but must it be this stupid?

The other monsters wreaking havoc in “Godzilla” are termed “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism” or MUTO, as they are referred to throughout the movie for economy. There are two MUTO. The MUTO eat energy, especially radiation, but they also eat nuclear waste. So, why are they the bad guys? According to the film’s logic, they are. So, Godzilla shows up to battle them and restore nature’s balance. He shows up to save mankind by wiping out the MUTO. And that’s the problem with this film. Godzilla is not scary enough because he’s just so darn good and politically correct. He’s also not very scary looking. He’s just big – very big and featureless.

As for the acting: Bryan Cranston turns in a surprisingly bad scenery chewing performance. Juliette Binoche, a great actress, is wasted. Ken Watanabe seems to possess one expression – pained. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as the lead character in “Godzilla,” is as weak as a wet noodle.

The plot deals with cliché elements such as government secrets, one lone man knowing the truth that no one will believe and the usual destruction of major cities. The outcome is predictable and I, for one, am left with the nagging question: how will they rebuild the destroyed cities?

The film is darkly lit, which adds to the confusion. Godzilla is one of those films where we find ourselves asking “What’s going on?”

What’s going on is a gray muddle of noise, a plodding and ponderous movement of dull visuals and a directorial failure to build suspense and interest. I kept thinking during the first hour of the movie, “Where’s Godzilla? I bet when he finally appears this movie will get better.” Believe me; I wanted it to get better. I wanted to like “Godzilla”.

I still do like Godzilla, the monster. I just don’t like “Godzilla”, the movie.



“Godzilla”(2014) is currently in theaters.


http://www.thesunnews.net/news/957-New_'Godzilla_is_scary-bad.html

The Amazing Spider-man 2

‘Spider-man 2,’Most Thrilling Film This Year

                                               

                                               

 Friday May 23, 2014 | By: Tony Baksa |

Peter Parker/Spiderman is the Marlon Brando of superheroes. Brilliantly acted by Andrew Garfield, Spiderman inhabits a substantial world of angst. Like any well-written character Brando has ever portrayed, Garfield brings an amazing reality to Spiderman. Within this comic book adventure is a touching love story that is the glue that holds this movie together. For those lo...oking for high adventure and sweeping special effects, not to worry. It’s all there to be savored. But what elevates “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is its humanity.

We are given three young characters – all with father issues. They are all so appealing and likeable, even the semi-villain Harry/Green Goblin. Dane Dehaan’s debut as Harry lights up the screen with originality and a compelling pathos. Equally compelling is Emma Stone as Gwen, the object of Spidey’s affection. This trio of young actors interacts with great chemistry. They will make you care, very much so. They feel deeply. They love fully. And they live the adventure.

This film is far superior to its predecessor. The first Spiderman with Garfield was very good. This follow up is great! With kinetic direction by Marc Webb and a smart screenplay by a team of writers led by Alex Kurtzman, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the most thrilling movie of the year.

The film opens with a flashback showing Peter’s parents and their supposed fate. This bit of exposition will figure in to the plot later. We then are brought into the present. Peter is enjoying his alter ego’s crime-fighting but is unhappy, due to his promise to Gwen’s dying father to stay away from her – for her own good, he pleaded. Well, how can one break a promise to a dying man? This is Peter’s main conflict throughout the film. Staying away from Gwen is an impossible feat for Peter. Keeping away from Peter is equally impossible for Gwen.

Along the way, we meet new opponents for our beloved crime-fighter. Jamie Foxx turns in a fine performance as a good man who is transformed into a monster – namely Electro. He becomes a very formidable nemesis to Spiderman. The maniacal Rhino, played by an unrecognizable Paul Giamatti, fills the screen with terror and perhaps a small snicker of delight.

Yet, with all the battles and fireworks, at the very heart of this movie is the towering love story – beautiful and sad. For fans of the Spiderman saga, there is a shocking development to grapple with. I am still grappling with it. Frankly, I was stunned.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a uniquely balanced film – love, betrayal, adventure, comedy and thrills – thrills and chills galore. Perhaps the movie should have been called “The Thrilling Spiderman 2.” Peter Parker inhabits a world we care about. For all the superhero trappings, this movie is not flighty – pardon the pun. It is a rich narrative – fully satisfying especially because Peter Parker has promises to keep.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is in theaters.

‘Spider-man 2,’ most thrilling film this year | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

Bears

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears'

Thursday May 1, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |
I am so glad that I am not a salmon living in Alaska. A salmon must swim up stream, but once its journey is successful, along comes a brown bear....

Our stars of Disney’s newest nature film “Bears” are bears, of course – brown bears. Salmon is apparently an essential sustenance for their survival. But what about the poor fish? I guess that’s another movie.

In “Bears,” we are witness to one year in the life of a family of Alaskan brown bears, mother Sky and her cubs Amber and Scout. We know their names, because John C. Reilly, our cheesy narrator, tells us so. He also occasionally speaks “bear.” It is unfortunate that this movie is saddled with such a bothersome narration.

Although the story of our charming family isn’t ground-breakingly new, the visuals are appealing. Alaska is beautiful and so are the bears, the wolves and the other featured wildlife.

This is a short movie, but because of Reilly, it felt rather long. I think the idea was to have this tale appeal to children. But why dumb down the film? It is not necessary, when you have this kind of footage.

The story is a simple one: survival. We are taken along the Alaskan terrain, witnessing our bear family members hold on to their lives, avoiding predator wolves and other bears. Most importantly, they are searching for food to provide them with protein, which will allow a healthy hibernation. Here is where the poor salmon come in. It seems that they are essential to the bears’ survival.

Unfortunately, “Bears” is disappointing. It is bland and mild. It tries to be exciting and cute, but it fails. All of the bears are brown, therefore confusing the viewer. Lacking distinct traits, the “characters” are difficult to discern.

The “plot” is repetitive. The 77 minutes is a series of episodes in which the bears are doing the same thing: searching for food or battling predators. But a sense of danger and adventure is missing.

I seriously think children, this film’s obvious target audience, will not care for “Bears.” But the movie could be saved with reediting, dropping the smarmy narration, dumping George Fenton’s pompous score and giving the salmon more screen time. I perked up in the middle of the film, when a short segment was devoted to the plight of these fish.

The end credits were the most interesting; they show the film crew’s capturing the animals’ actions and, in some instances, provoking the creatures.

This closing segment spoke volumes. What particular scenes did the filmmakers create? How real was the menace? There was closing footage of a wolf standing approximately 5 feet from a camera, slowly advancing toward the crew. I am certain this footage was edited into the sequence, when the wolf was threatening to attack the cubs.

Did the filmmakers manipulate nature? Perhaps they should have let nature take its own course.

I left the theater unmoved. The movie was just OK. I don’t think we go to the movies to leave at its conclusion with that feeling.

Most especially, a film about such magnificent creatures should enthrall, excite and entertain. “Bears” is just OK.

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears' | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

"Captain America"

The Sun movie review: 'Captain America'

Saturday April 19, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Captain America has got to be the oddest superhero. Unlike Superman, Batman and Spiderman, Captain America has no innate superhuman powers. His abilities are the result of a lab experiment in which he was injected with a serum that resulted in transforming him into the perfect human specimen.

His strength, endurance and reflexes are at a maximum. He never tires. His body renews the serum, so it never wears off. Pretty neat; where can I acquire this terrific substance?

In “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” Steve Rogers returns as his alter ego, Captain America, wearing his patriotic costume and brandishing his indestructible shield, to once again save the world.

Isn’t this basically the plot of most superhero movies? But Captain America is different in so many ways. He is more human. He is simple, direct and uncomplicated. I like him and I liked this movie.

I will admit that there was much I did not understand, but I knew I had just seen a good movie.

Let me explain. This may be helpful to anyone else who is planning to see this film. At the conclusion of the movie, I saw an usher reading the credits, as they rolled by. Something told me he was a fan, so I asked him what he thought of this movie. We got into a discussion in which I learned about what I should do to fill in the blanks and help me understand what I just saw.

It apparently helps comprehension if you have seen “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “The Avengers,” in that order.

That very evening, I went to my nearby Redbox©, rented “Captain America: The First Avenger,” watched it, and loved it. The next day, I watched “The Avengers” on Netflix© and found that to my liking, as well.

The result of these viewings led me to a clearer understanding of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” and a new appreciation for this film. I am not sure I like this practice of movie serials, where knowledge of the previous films is necessary, but that is the deal and I am powerless to change it. That said, I can recommend this movie to especially fans of the other two.

Chris Evans as our superhero is perfect. Unassuming and likeable, he gets the job done. The ubiquitous Scarlett Johansson returns as the Black Widow, with special powers of her own.

Introduced in this film is a sort of sidekick for Captain America, The Falcon, played by Anthony Mackie. Our team of heroes is embroiled in an unusual plot.

Captain America becomes the hunted, rather than the hunter. His enemies are many, but one surprisingly shocking enemy surfaces: the Winter Soldier. This throws Captain America into a tailspin of incredulous conflict, especially because of the Winter Soldier’s true identity. I won’t reveal any more, except to say that this revelation is all the more powerful, if you have seen the first Captain America movie.

Samuel Jackson returned as Nick Fury. Robert Redford appeared as a pretty lame villain in a pretty lame performance. Fortunately, Redford does not spoil the movie. What with the personal dramas and the extraordinary action throughout, Redford is a minor quibble.

Brilliantly edited and boldly directed, this film is another hit for Marvel Studios©.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is currently playing in theaters.

OFF OFF BEAT!

The Sun movie review: ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’

Friday April 4, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Some comedies make you laugh out loud. I’m thinking movies like “Young Frankenstein” and “Blazing Saddles.” Those great Mel Brooks films are always good for a laugh; lots of them, guaranteed.

There are other comedies that make you smile. Woody Allen’s movies come to mind. Pleasantly wise and insightful, these movies guarantee a good time and a broad smile.

Then there are comedies that try so hard to be funny. The effort is great, but the result is not funny. Wes Anderson comes to mind. His movies are generally offbeat, which he seems to equate with comedy. This equation is sometimes correct (“The Royal Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore”). Other times, not. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is such a film.

This, Anderson’s latest romp, should have been funny. With a star-studded cast and the silliest of situations, this farce would have been funny had it been directed by someone else – how about Brooks? What a missed opportunity that was.

The acting style by the entire cast is wide-eyed absurdist. It never varies. The actors come off like puppets being manipulated by Anderson. You never see one iota of real, flesh-and-blood, breathing human beings.

Here lies the problem. The situations are fraught with danger, yet we never fear for the characters, because they are not real enough to care about. Perhaps Anderson should have animated this movie like his last film “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which was funny, charming and, yes, offbeat; very offbeat. I truly feel “The Grand Budapest Hotel” would have worked very well as a cartoon.

Frankly, the script isn’t very funny. It is painful to watch good actors mug their way through this badly written comedic adventure.

And I didn’t even like the characters. Ralph Fiennes in the lead is especially cloying and annoying. He plays Gustave, a supposedly world-famous concierge at the Grand Budapest Hotel, who caters to rich old women. Set some time between the two great wars of the 20th century, Gustave takes young Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), the hotel lobby boy, under his wing.

Together, these two unlikely characters are off on a Tom and Jerry adventure involving a chase all over Europe. They are being pursued by the family of a deceased rich dowager (Tilda Swinton) who leaves her fortune, including a very valuable painting, to Gustave.

His pursuers, led by the dowager’s evil son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) and a huge cast of villains, most prominently Willem Dafoe, behave like characters in a Road Runner cartoon.

With such a large cast of characters portrayed by so many major actors such as F. Murray Abraham, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tom Wilkinson, Owen Wilson, Bob Balaban, Fisher Stevens and many more, the budget for this flick must have been enormous and must have all gone to the cast. The rest of the movie gets short-changed.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” does not look very grand. With all of the running around and traipsing all over Europe, you would think the scenery would enthrall. The palate is bright and colorful, but not pretty. And it should be pretty. And it should be exciting. And it should be funny. And it is not – down on all three counts.

Winter's Tale

The Sun movie review: ‘Winter’s Tale’
Thursday March 13, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa | News

Romantic fantasies are scarce these days. I am thinking of movies like “The Notebook” and especially “Some...where in Time.” These films have become modern classics watched over and over again through the magic of DVDs by staunch fans of the genre.

“Winter’s Tale” starring heartthrob Colin Farrell seems to want to join the ranks of these veteran tearjerkers. After a short while it was evident this would not be the movie’s fate.

“Winter’s Tale” has all the elements of a gothic romance plus an old-movie costume drama. It has the renegade hunk, the consumptive wispy beauty (à la Camille), the forbidding father, a flying white horse and time travel – or is it reincarnation? That is never made clear.

As if that wasn’t enough, we also get Lucifer (Will Smith) and Hollywood’s latest go-to villain, Russell Crowe, as Satan’s emissary of sorts. Kind of sounds like a whole shelf of romance novels mixed in with those satanic thrillers that were once so popular decades ago.

In fact “Winter’s Tale” is based on a bestselling novel from 1983 by Mark Helprin. I learned from my research that Helprin’s book was very well received by critics who called it powerful and magical. Would that this were true of the film version! The problem with this ridiculous movie is that it tries too hard and it fails as hard as it tries.

I won’t mince words. “Winter’s Tale” is preposterous.

Farrell plays a charming thief, Peter Lake - only in movies are thieves charming. He is caught robbing the mansion of a dying beauty (Jessica Brown Findlay). Of course, they fall in love. Even the father (William Hurt) approves. Hot on his heels is Crowe as Pearly Soames, the devil’s main man. Pearly? Don’t ask. I couldn’t tell you. I also can’t explain why he is after Peter.

This problem exists throughout the entire movie: all the whys and wherefores.

Then we have a flying white horse. Why? It has nothing to do with Pegasus. And the “special” effects for the flying horse aren’t so special. In fact, they are downright laughable. There are many moments of unintended hilarity in this overly earnest endeavor involving the horse and Dunkin’ Donuts. I’m not kidding. Dunkin’ Donuts! Unabashed product placement? You bet your horse!

This tale takes us through the end of the 19th century into the early part of the 20th century and winds up in the 21st century.

In the muddy telling, there is something about how every person has a miracle in them and that they spend their lives looking for the opportunity to exercise that miracle. This miracle we all possess is one that will benefit others.

Gee, I wonder what my miracle is. Perhaps mine is to warn you to steer clear of this time-wasting tale this winter.

Instead, stay home and warm yourself with a good time travel book like “The Time Machine” by Jules Verne. The movie version is pretty good, too.

With spring around the corner, you might want to avoid anything to do with winter anyway. In this case, it would definitely be wise.

“Winter’s Tale” is currently playing in theaters.

My Oscar Predictions

http://www.thesunnews.net/around_town/583-The_Suns_predictions_for_the_Academy_Awards.html

The Sun's predictions for the Academy Awards

Thursday February 27, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — I believe we are in another golden age of movies. I have written close to a dozen reviews for The Sun; most were favorable. That’s a pretty good record.

I look at this year’s Oscar® nominees and feel that all nine contenders deserve the recognition. So many good movies have been passed over, but the academy can’t sight them all. I’m sure it was a difficult decision, choosing the nominees.

Expanding to nine choices for the coveted Academy Award seems fairer to me than picking only five movies, as was done in the past. However, the question arises: Why nine? Why not 10?

Then we have the acting competition. There have been some powerful performances in 2013. Here, the academy sticks to the traditional five choices per category. I feel that, if they are going to nominate nine movies, why not work with the number nine all the way through, especially in the acting race? Then there wouldn’t be such omissions as Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson and Chris Cooper, to name a few. But, then, as the saying goes, you can’t nominate everyone.

Here, then, are my predictions for this year’s Academy Awards. I will name those who I believe should win and who I feel will win, in six major categories.

Best Picture: “12 Years a Slave” should win. I also believe it will win. This extraordinary film will not be forgotten for quite a long while.

Actor In a Leading Role: All contenders are worthy and I would not be unhappy with whoever wins from these stellar performances but I am here to choose. Matthew McConaughey will win for “Dallas Buyers Club.” Chiwetel Ejiofor should win for his harrowing turn in “12 Years a Slave.” I also predict that Ejiofor will become a major star whether he wins the Oscar or not.

Actress In a Leading Role: Again, all are worthy, yet one performance must be recognized for its supreme artistry. Cate Blanchett’s rendering of a modern-day Blanche DuBois in “Blue Jasmine” is astonishing. Her nervous, ticky and tragic character is as memorable as Tennessee Williams’ ill-fated southern belle in “Streetcar Named Desire.” As this was written and directed by the great Woody Allen, one can surmise only that Woody is riffing on Williams with great respect. Blanchett will win.

Actor In a Supporting Role: Jared Leto (“Dallas Buyers Club”) will win. Michael Fassbender (“12 Years a Slave”) should win for his portrait of an unrelentingly brutal slave owner obsessed with a beautiful young slave.

Actress In a Supporting Role: I am seriously conflicted here. Jennifer Lawrence turns in a funny, goofy and oddly moving performance in “American Hustle.” I was reminded of Judy Holiday’s classic Academy Award-winning act in “Born Yesterday.” Lawrence is that good. Then newcomer Lupita Nyong shows up in a stunning performance as a young slave in “12 Years a Slave.” It should make her a star. I hope it does and I hope she wins the Oscar. In fact, I predict that she will indeed win.

Directing: This is always a hard one. I mean, after all, to direct a movie of such high caliber as these five men have done is an awesome achievement. I favor Steve McQueen for his classical touch in “12 Years a Slave” but Alfonso Cuarón’s artful and high tech direction of “Gravity” will get him the gold statuette. He will deserve it but my heart picks McQueen.

In fact, it is my heart, not my brain, that creates my winner wish list. Isn’t that what happens to us all? We love a movie for how it makes us feel. A movie’s positive impact on us individually is its own reward. In a way, it is silly to treat art like a horse race.

To be fair, the Academy Awards give due respect to the cream of the movie industry crop. It points us, the movie-going audience, toward the best. The best is what we deserve, and it really is all very subjective.

Yet, isn’t it fun to watch the Academy Awards? This overblown tribute – the fuss, the lame patter, the cupcake gowns and wonderfully dreadful musical numbers – the vulnerable actors and their acceptance speeches; the good, the bad and the ridiculous, all in one long celebratory evening. An evening where we get to cheer and jeer our plaster saints. I wouldn’t miss it for the world.

The Academy Awards telecast will be held on Sunday, March 2.

For a complete list of nominees, visit oscar.go.com/nominees.

Wolf Bites

On The Silver Screen: The Wolf of Wall Street

BY: Tony Baksa | February 11, 2014

It’s like falling out of love. You think you know someone and then they do something that bewilders and disappoints you, big time. You search your mind for clues. Where did this come from?

That is how I feel about film director Martin Scorsese and his latest venture “The Wolf of Wall Street.” I was so prepared to love this movie as I have most of his other films. Scorsese, after all, is one of the great American film-makers of all time and a personal favorite of mine. He is a director of great human understanding.

His subject matter usually deals with the darker side of society but he has always managed to show the humanity – the hidden light, if you will, that emerges from the dark side – until now. “The Wolf of Wall Street” is not a dark film, visually; it is bright and energetic, but very dark in nature.

The film is about wheeler-dealers with no redeeming value. I just don’t know what to make of it. What are we asked to feel? For three hours, we are given countless scenes of debauchery that includes heavy drug-taking, lots of nudity and profanity, misogyny, homophobia and not one character to care about. This is all done in a supposedly hip, comic style that left me mirthless. Is it a satire? Is it a morality tale? What, Scorsese, is it?

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is the true story of Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio), an ambitious superman stockbroker who rises to the top in the volatile world of finance. How he rapidly climbs the ladder to fame and fortune is what is dramatized.

Fueled by greed and self-gratification, Belfort earns his fortune by way of fraud. He is a corrupt man working in a corrupt environment -  one of his own making, I hasten to add. He is aided and abetted by a clump of chums who follow him like the apostles. They are not very bright but they manage to score big money deals.

The interactions and the over-the-top wild parties that litter this film are apparently the stuff of comedy in Scorsese’s view.

I could accept much of this story if Scorsese led me to some understanding of why we should care for Belfort, a man who cheated and hurt many people so he could live high on the hog. What galls me most is that the film is based on Belfort’s book. Not only does this criminal, who served very little time for his crimes, get a bundle for his story, he gets it told by a great director, Scorsese. Some people have all the luck.

Despite my displeasure, “The Wolf of Wall Street” has some very good performances, albeit one-note efforts. This is due to the director’s vision.

DiCaprio is non-stop frenetic. Jonah Hill as his sidekick is remarkable. A cameo by Matthew McConaughey is masterful. The rest of the cast  plays out like The Three Stooges – literally. There is never a moment in this movie where a character comes down to reality; never a glimpse of believability.

Halfway through the film, the dirty hijinks begin to pale. Then, something very ugly happens: A mean and violent episode that seemed so unnecessary to the plot and sensibility assaults us. This gratuitous scene was the turning point for me. This is where I changed from disappointment and dislike to a deep loathing for “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

“The Wolf of Wall Street” is currently playing in theaters.

American Hustle’

The Sun movie review: ‘American Hustle’

Thursday January 30, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa | News

HAMBURG — Director David O. Russell is becoming the new Martin Scorsese. Like the great Scorsese, Russell’s films are intelligent, complicated and funny narratives that exist somewhere between the underbelly of society and the seemingly respectable lifestyles of any given time.

Add in a good measure of desperate characters seeking the big score and we are off and running on a whirlwind of schemes and maneuvers that will make your head spin.

The intoxicating energy of “American Hustle” is achieved by Russell’s pacing, brilliant editing and, most importantly, the casting of one of the best acting ensembles of the year.

Christian Bale stars in a bravura performance that is – how can I put it? – dramatically funny? Yes, that’s it. He is well matched with turns by Bradley Cooper, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner and my personal favorite, Jennifer Lawrence as you have never seen her before.

Forget “The Hunger Games.” Lawrence once again reminds us why she won the Academy Award© last year. She may just collect another, during this March’s ceremony.

In “American Hustle,” Lawrence delivers a bold and original portrait. She is funny and touching; a masterful performance.

Bale and Adams play 1970s con artists who get entrapped by FBI Agent Cooper, as they attempt to pull off one of their more brazen schemes.

Rather than arrest them, Cooper, appreciating their extraordinary criminal skills, enlists them to help him bring down a slew of corrupt public figures, mayors and congressman. This is a world of power brokers, criminals and frauds. What follows is wild, unpredictable and funny.

“American Hustle” gathers many of the cast members who appeared in Russell’s previous films, especially “The Fighter” and “Silver Linings Playbook,” which explains the great chemistry among this stellar troop.

Even Robert De Niro briefly appears in an uncredited role as a mafia boss, in a very effective scene. There is also a terrific cameo performance by comic Louis C. K.

This movie is full of surprises. Adams brings to the screen a character you would not initially associate her with. Cooper may even surprise you with his portrayal of a desperate overachiever that borders on madness.

I have read that “American Hustle” is a fictionalized and loosely based story of the FBI ABSCAM operation of the late ‘70s. It is full of dark humor and brings to mind “Prizzi’s Honor” and “Goodfellas.”

Although funny and compelling, this is not an easy film to watch. It took a little time to understand what was going on.

It is not that it is muddled. It’s just that “American Hustle” is a complicated story and the challenge is keeping up with its speed of light rhythm.

You are forced to be super attentive, or you may miss a detail or a plot point. This is not a criticism. This element is what elevates “American Hustle” to one of the best movies of 2013.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

BY: Tony Baksa | December 30, 2013

HAMBURG — Peter Jackson is a genius. How he manages to accomplish such magnificent films based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s rich detailed and complicated books simply amazes me.

His second movie continuing the epic tale of hobbit Bilbo Baggins is truly awesome.

It is not that it is better than the first hobbit movie, “An Incredible Journey,” but, with this sequel, the story gets better, thereby affording Jackson many opportunities to shine.

And what a story it is!

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is an exciting roller-coaster ride full of danger, menace, glory, drama and humor. Battles aplenty, magic and even romance – interspecies yet, between an elf and a dwarf – are just some of the thrills delivered with great gusto.

Innocent, brave Bilbo Baggins provides extra charm and delight, as he fusses with that magic gold ring and saves the day more than once.

This second installment of the Hobbit trilogy is deliciously scary. It picks up where the first movie in this series ended.

There are gigantic spiders – hundreds of them. The repulsive and frightening orcs return on those awful animals they ride (What are they?).

Then there is the fabulous monster dragon, Smaug. Wow, what a creature! I loved the confrontation between Bilbo and Smaug – a battle of wits – which was funny and intense.

The wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is once again on hand, to guide the adventure.

The dwarves, led by Thorin (Richard Armitage), are still on their quest to regain the mountain, defeat the dragon and reclaim their homeland, Erebor.

They seek the secret door and the key that will unlock the precious, stolen treasures the fierce dragon Smaug hoards.

On their journey, along with the many battles, the spiders and other assorted creatures, they encounter the eerie elves and, for the first time, humans. Viewers experience edge-of-the-seat excitement, at every twist and turn.

“The Desolation of Smaug,” with all of its high energy and commotion, is strangely infused with lots of heart. There are also moments when the story reaches Shakespearian heights.

The screenplay, co-written by Jackson, is literate and acted with classical aplomb by the incomparable McKellen and a very diverse cast of extremely interesting actors.

I especially liked Martin Freeman as the lovable hobbit Baggins, Luke Evans as the human Bard and Evangeline Lilly as Tuariel, the lovely warrior wood elf. who is smitten with the handsome dwarf Kili (Aiden Turner). When mocked for her attraction to the diminutive Kili, Tuariel defensively counters, “He’s tall, for a dwarf.”

The heart, soul and breath of all the hobbit films is the great McKellen. As the wizard Gandalf, McKellen supplies warmth, humor and storybook wonder that stirs this rapid boiling pot of a movie.

The look of the film is beautifully organic.

Mountains and caves, castles and oceans are displayed, not for picturesque beauty, but evocative horror and fantasy. It isn’t pretty, but it is spectacular.

I saw the movie in 3D. It is also being shown in regular 2D, IMAX and HFR 3D. Avoid HFR for now.

This high resolution process works well with large-scale scenes and vistas, but gives the appearance of video taping, in the smaller, intimate scenes and settings.

This process is promising, but needs improvement and is not worth the extra money; stick with the regular 3D, 2D and IMAX.

Three-time Academy Award® winner Howard Shores’ score and expert film editing by Jabez Olssen, with a huge production crew of special effects, animators and set designers, have brought Middle Earth strikingly to life.

In short, I love this movie!

“The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug” adds a great big notch to Jackson’s director belt.

Thanks to its cliff-hanger ending, I truly look forward to the final installment of “The Hobbit.”

If Jackson remains consistent, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” coming next year, just might be a great and wonderful finale to this Tolkien tale.

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” is currently playing in theaters.