Film Articles

The score, which includes some of playwright Sir Noel Coward’s own compositions as well as pieces from the Cole Porter songbook, is a rollicking jazz confection that swings through the film with all the carefree abandon of 1920s glamour. It’s the soundtrack (complete with an orchestra assembled specifically for the film) to the golden age of movie eras, itself an easy subject for the camera to fall in love with.

It must be difficult to be the standard-bearer of animated films that transcend whatever prejudices are associated with mere cartoonery to create, quite simply, good cinema. But not merely good; although many Pixar films deserve to be ranked as classics, last year’s “Wall*E” planted the bright flag of excellence at the pinnacle of Pixar’s accomplishments. After that kind of success, the question of what next (?) ticks away like an unexploded time bomb.

“Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian” may be pure fluffy entertainment, but surprisingly it’s more than that – enough to be simultaneously disposable and memorable.

Unlike it’s predecessor “The DaVinci Code,” “Angels & Demons” doesn’t come burdened with ambition it can’t live up to. Caught in its own structure as a murder-mystery, the first film adapted – faithfully, I assume – from Dan Brown’s inexplicably popular books presented as destination what should have been the journey. “Angels & Demons” involves nothing so grand as the Church-sanctioned cover-up of a history-busting secret; it settles for a murder conspiracy involving the Illuminati and an anti-matter bomb set during the Vatican’s conclave to elect a new Pope.

With the wheezing franchise overloaded by bloated narratives and crippled by a drifting direction, the need for a fresh start was, of course, logical – regardless of how it might offend purists. Enter J.J. Abrams’ simply named “Star Trek,” a resurrection more problematic than promising.

“Earth” is worth seeing on the basis of the photography. These are snapshots of our beautiful blue, ever-vulnerable planet and its amazing diversity of life. If nothing else, the film may remind us of our increasingly tenuous connection to the environment we are an integral part of.

Pulling a con on an audience takes a heavy pair of the proverbial cajones, but also a certain amount of finesse to keep the g-forces of sudden plot twists from inducing nausea. Alas, writer/director Tony Gilroy’s intoxication with rug-pulling means at least one rug too many is pulled from under the film, leaving behind the deadliest of questions: what was the point?

Pulling a con on an audience takes a heavy pair of the proverbial cajones, but also a certain amount of finesse to keep the g-forces of sudden plot twists from inducing nausea. Alas, writer/director Tony Gilroy’s intoxication with rug-pulling means at least one rug too many is pulled from under the film, leaving behind the deadliest of questions: what was the point?

Review: Monsters Vs. Aliens

If it’s not official already, “Monsters vs. Aliens” should leave no doubt that 3D, in all it’s eye-popping, headache-free glory, has come of age. I’m not sure which film, exactly, definitely marked the milestone for me – maybe it was Disney’s “Monster House” – but regardless, the smooth, elegant implementation of the technology has matured into something more than a gimmick. “Monsters vs. Aliens” is the latest of the new generation 3D films that, Ebert’s skepticism notwithstanding, offer a genuinely rich cinematic experience. Naturally, more are on the way.

Out-Lynching David Lynch is always a risky proposition; the Master is a veteran at composing scenes and shooting them so that what we see is textured by layers of emotional and allegorical subtext – almost always to foreboding effect. But, at least there’s something admirable in Jason Noto’s nicely-produced attempt, even if the overall result can’t quite escape the charge of aping.