Back in the late 50s, a film came out called “This is Cinerama”, with an ultra wide screen (using three cameras). This was touted as being the future of film, and a big name blockbuster How the West Was Won” was filmed using this medium (1062).  But it fizzled quickly as audiences all ended up with chiropractors for the muscle strain of moving their heads back and forth like watching Wimbledon.

Similarly, not all critics are enthralled with the new technology of 3-D, and some have opined that the 3-D effects are deluged specifically to titillate the audience rather than enhance the film. Roger Ebert has written in the past that 3-D fails to make a case for the serious film maker specifically because it’s an open ended distraction, necessarily lessening the film’s impact.  Can one imagine “Casablanca” or “A Man For All Seasons” in 3-D?  Probably not.  It isn’t out of the question that film may evolve to continuing iterations of movies created specifically for audiences that like and are willing to pay for 3-D simply to see the effects in films with no plat or characterizations, just non-stop action.

That said, this film seems to me to be a nice balance if you don’t take it too seriously.  Based on Brian Selznick’s New York Times best-seller, “The Invention of Hugo Cabret.” Hugo is a frenetic escapade of a young boy whose journey to unlock a secret left to him by his father leads to an amazing adventure in dazzling high tech 3-D. Directed by the master, Marty Scorsese, starring some unknowns supported by Ben Kingsley, Jude law and Sacha Baron Cohen.

Paramount Pictures has gone for broke promoting this expensive high-tech film to wide audiences hoping the critics bless it and audiences follow. This risk will be well worth the taking because of the director.  The rich detail and meticulous composition seen in this film are only possible when a creative director has a free hand to obsessively fulfill a project’s ambitions. Scorsese has outdone himself with “Hugo”.Scorsese at age 69, has very little left to prove after directing such masterpieces as Gangs of New York, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, the Last Waltz just to name a few.   The production is just magnificent. 3-D has definitely come of age and this film makes intricate use of it to the audience’s obvious delight. The film’s craft and technical accomplishments are spectacular.

Best feature:  The 3-D technology is dazzling.

Worst feature:  The film is a little long and somewhat repetitive, presumably working the 3-D effect to the max.

I give it four of five giant clockworks.

Eagerly awaited:  “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”- expected in Dec.

This is not a truly awful film, but in the end, it doesn’t one through.

Predictably reliable critic site “Rotten Tomatoes” (www.rottentomatoes.com) gave it a 41 on the Tomatometer, which is tantamount to saying it’s pretty bad but not actually stinking up the theater. There aren’t many lower ratings from RT. “Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 1” rated a miserable 10 and this clearly shows that the millions of fans supporting this silly crap don’t read reviews. But RT outdid itself for Adam Sandler’s “Jack and Jill” with a rating of 4. Yes, four (“Impossible to recommend on any level whatsoever”).  The only review I have ever seen worse was back in the 80s “Stayin’ Alive” (Travolta and Stallone), a film so bad it was described as a vision of the end of film as a viable art form.

But I digress.

This film seemed a lead pipe cinch to succeed. The primary character is historically interesting, Leo DiCaprio is an excellent actor and Clint Eastwood’s directing is as good as it gets. But the film just moves from event to event without any real examination of the human aspect or the politics, all of which would have been much more interesting, and for which both DiCaprio and Eastwood are very capable of expertly exploring. The portrayal of Hoover’s sexual ambiguity was portrayed equally ambiguously. The extent of the film is mostly a dry laundry list of Hoover’s triumphs and failures, most of which doesn’t generate much interest from viewers.

This mediocre effort shows that the chemistry of a good film is not dependent entirely on the actors, production or director. It’s chemistry fraught with mystery. Some of the best films contained actors no one ever heard of and a journeyman director.  A similar effort in the past that couldn’t lose was Ishtar (1987). A-list actors Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty.  It’s so synonymous with high profile flops that when “Waterworld” proved disastrous, critics called it “Fishtar”. Roger Ebert gave it half a star. Never released on DVD.

Best feature: The aging process makeup was pretty well done.

Worst feature: The audience never connects with the protagonist.

I give it two of five Awkward smooches on the mouth (Don’t dwell on it) and that’s a gift. Wait for Netflix if you haven’t dumped Netflix already.

In the last decade or so, network television has degenerated dramatically to “reality shows”. It’s a producers dream. Low budget TV entertainment so impeccably lame and insipid they’ve risen to the top of the heap of brain damaged viewers happy to purchase the sponsors product.  The classic examples are, of course, anyone named Kardashian, Nancy Grace warbling tabloid nonsense, House solving the impossible disease of the week and the undisputed end- the creature formerly named Chastity Bono dancing the cha-cha. Any creativity in television sank like a rock on eh networks.

But there was an available niche. It all moved to cable. The forerunner was the venerable “Deadwood” (2004-2006).  Deadwood galvanized the channel surfing viewers looking for anything that didn’t numb their senses or provoke violent nausea and vertigo. Director David Milch went on camera to relate the freedom that HBO gave for him to make the best film he was capable of with no restrictions. The result was phenomenal beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Using a cast no one ever heard of, Milch produced simply the best TV drama anyone had seen in recent memory, then cut it off after three years before it got stale.

This raging success spawned multiple Emmy winner “Justified” on another cable channel, then other quality efforts including Weeds, the Sopranos, The Wire, Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Cable is now the place to go for creative writing, directing and producing of quality entertainment.

This year, the latest iteration has come on Starz.  With an impeccably flawless cast including Kelsey Grammer, “Boss” is easily the most flawlessly produced TV drama today. With an unblinking eye, this series portrays politics as it probably really is including all the personal ramifications among all involved. It is absolutely riveting and must see.

Starz is a cable channel available in this area free with cable subscription. The episodes are frequently re-broadcast. Kelsey Grammer is OWNS this series. You can’t take your eyes off him. You also can’t take your eyes off that blond female aid who likes to get some action with the would-be governor at least once per episode, on camera of course. But that’s another story.

It’s simply the best thing I have seen this year. I cannot recommend it too highly.

Easily 5 of 5 pensive respites.

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson’s first novel.  This surrogate film is a pretty good indicator of why no one read it in 1962.  The film is a series of well-produced and expertly photographed vignettes that don’t go anywhere. Johnny Depp usually turns in a yeoman performance but he seems lost in this role, having little more understanding of it than the audience.

Depp, as the protagonist (thinly veiled HST in his first reporting job) builds on all these experiences to find his true ability as a writer, but the experiences themselves are pretty murky.  The socio-political situation in Puerto Rico at the time adds little if anything to the plot. The “Moberg” character has form but no particular substance and never gets interpreted or builds credibility.  The “greedy bastards” plot fizzles over a drunk female at a Carnival debauchery that leads nowhere.  The real story of Dr. Thompson is has much more substance.

The origin of Dr. Thompson’s degree in Letters is obscure; some say purchased from a diploma mill in LA. But its veracity was never in doubt.  Thompson is credited with pioneering New Journalism — or, as he dubbed it, “gonzo journalism” — in which the writer makes himself an essential component of the story. Much of his earliest work appeared in Rolling Stone magazine when it was literally a tabloid.

Thompson was a counterculture icon at the height of the Watergate era, and Richard Nixon once said he represented “that dark, venal, and incurably violent side of the American character.”  Arguably his most important work was “Fear & Loathing on the Campaign trail, 1972”. Other books include “The Great Shark Hunt,” “Hell’s Angels” and “The Proud Highway.”

Most burned out 60s hippies remember him at the National Affairs Desk of Rolling Stone, where he sent in stories from a prototype FAX he dubbed his “mojo wire”. He rarely warmed up for a story for at least 72 hours of continuous drinking and God knows what else.  In his prime he was brilliant and quirky and unpredictable. At his worst, he was a serious reprobate. All the things that make a great writer.  At the end, he simply didn’t want to fade away.

But fade he did. Thompson was found dead of a self inflicted gunshot wound after a long history of medical issues, many poorly resolved.  Hunter was a lot like Papa Hemmingway. Couldn’t take the vicissitudes of old age and a career winding down. Life just wasn’t fun anymore.

Many quotes attributed to HST.  The best is: “I’m loath to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone, but these things have always worked for me.”  And of course in the immortal words of Neil Young…..”It’s better to burn out than fade away”.  There has never been anyone like him and there probably never will be again. He was a unique American Icon.

But the film is pretty mediocre.

High points:  The classic red Austin-Healy 3000 and ’60 Corvette.

Low points:  The rest of the film.

Rotten Tomatoes (reliably accurate ratings) gave it 51% which is low for them. I don’t give it that much.  The film is disjointed and pointlessly meandering.  It gets 2 of 5 smarmy real estate developers polluting the beach.

No gunfights, no car chases, no exploding buildings, no screaming females.  Margin Call is the most uncomfortable, tense and suspenseful film I has seen in recent memory. Unlike “Wall Street” and especially “Wall Street II”, “Margin Call builds mercilessly and consistently, drawing the viewer to a riveting crisis that holds them spellbound.  A cold-blooded cast right out of the headlines exploring the depths of impeccably evil behavior, rendered totally deadpan.

A big financial firm full of Wall Street bankers and traders all stand by analytically while 70% of their employees are unmercifully purged after the fashion  of “Up in the Air”.  Shortly thereafter, they suddenly find out they unexpectedly stand on the brink of financial disaster.  Their  reaction is to do whatever it takes to cut their loss and survive, with the potential of precipitating a massive market collapse in the process.

The film makes no effort to humanize the players. The plot is a quick and dirty portrait of survival mechanisms at the table of the Gods. Observing the process of robotic hominids dispassionately dissecting complex financial algorithms that can destroy the world is galvanizing. “Number crunching at the Apocalypse”

The cast including Ocsar winners Kevin Spacey, Jeremy Irons are mesmerizing. Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto Spock in the re-make of Star Trek), Simon Baker, Demi Moore and Stanley Tucci. They ALL galvanize the viewer

Best scenes:  Stanly Tucci’s reaction at being let go after nineteen years of service.  Jeremy Irons’ explanation of the aftermath, between mouthfuls of pasta.

Worse scenes:  Demi Moore’s talent is wasted. Anyone could have performed her minimalist role.

It is film perfection. It is Oscar worthy and must-see.

I give it five of five greenback dollars.

In the past there have been some pretty good films exploring political intrigue.  The Manchurian Candidate (the original), The Parallax View, The Candidate, Seven Days in May, Fail Safe and, of course, All the President’s Men. But all are more or less dated. The Ides of March, co-written, produced and directed by George Clooney brings the genre into the new millennium and pulls some world-class actors into the fold.

The story is pretty stock, especially as it obviously relates to politics of the last four or so years. The “good” candidate, the pragmatic campaign brains trust, the evil opposition, and hard lessons about the reality of bottomless pit American politics. Hope only springs from inexperience. The experienced are hopelessly jaded and their only expertise is winning. There are no limits to the art of winning.

However, the plot quickly degenerates to a moderately hokey tale involving dubious and implausible machinations. Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei and Paul Giamatti all shine and that’s part of the problem with this interesting but anemically written film.  Virtuoso actors left to ply their trade in an isolated fashion, not bringing together any thread that the audience believes.

Best scene:  A hulking black van backed into an alley. Inside, and unheard by us, the candidate talks to his head campaign strategist who then climbs out and lights a cigarette. Sometimes what you don’t hear is most powerful.

Worst scene:  The ever-present seduction scene, unchanged from hundreds of other renditions elsewhere. Yawn.

It’s an interesting film if you aren’t too much of a stickler for convincing plot. Excellent acting, most in a vacuum. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti are worth the price of admission.

I give it four of five laconic Ryan Gosling stares.

Film Review:  “50/50”

Otherwise stock story in an ethos of “Terms of Endearment”.  The innocent kid informed that he has cancer by the callous doctor and tries to hold up under the ministrations of his friends and relatives. Been done a hundred times before. But got very good reviews from Rotten Tomatoes (Score of 92, which always means “work a look”).

The actors are excellent. Joseph Gordon-Levitt pulls off the role of the stricken 27 year old nicely without being maudlin. Seth Rogan is, as always, Seth Rogan. The female protagonist played by Anna Kendrick (Up in the air) was the big surprise of the film, brilliantly pulling off the therapist/friend trying to maintain the professional/personal separation. The film is worth seeing for her outstanding performance alone.

Otherwise it is what it is.

Until the end when an absolutely incredible song rolls that I had not heard before.  I stuck around for the credits to find out who it was. Lo and behold:  the song is “Yellow Ledbetter” by (Eddie Vetter) Pearl Jam, with Mike McCready on intricate lead guitar.

An extremely interesting song:

Check it out here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLRZzcf3O3k

It’s based on an unusual I-V-IV chord progression in the key of E major. McCready masterfully plays a Stratocaster incorporating string hammer-ons and pull-offs into the subtle chord work very much like Hendrix. He makes expressive use of the guitar’s whammy bar during the solo, bending notes to create an ethereal tone.  Nothing sounds like this but a Strat. The words are Unintelligible. All you hear is the emotion, for which Eddie Vetter is a past master.

(Some portions consulted from Wikipedia). The song is said to be written during the first gulf war, when Bush 41 was President. The story is about a young Grunger kid, all dressed up in his flannels with the long greasy hair. His brother goes off to fight in the war and gets killed. He gets a letter that comes in one of those yellow army envelopes and learns of his brother’s death. So, all upset, he decides to go out and walk it off. On his walk he passes by a neat, middle-aged or elderly couple sitting on their front porch having some tea, and he sees that they have an American flag out.

He gives a wave, because he feels like he relates: “The flag, my brother, you know…” But they don’t know, of course. They don’t know what’s underneath the grunge and the long hair. All they see are the outward appearances, and they don’t wave back. The song has changed its meaning over time and Eddie changes the words to suit whatever is on his mind.  Pearl Jam often uses this to close their concerts. The houselights come on and the audience sings along.

It’s brilliant.

5 of 5 road worn Strats for the song.

3 of 5 bald pates for the film.

The driver is a one trick pony. He drives for whatever the demand of the moment is. Racing stock cars, Hollywood stunts, getaway cars for robbery.  One gig to the next. His expertise and commitment to the task at hand is singular, and he’s a master of his trade. Otherwise, his life is empty.  Enter an accidental love interest, and a first time extension of his trade to help others with a predictable expansion of the complications thereof.

An interesting study.  Some criticisms:

The driver is just a little too laconic to justify his unpredicted foray into gratuitous violence. His inner disquiet comes off more like disinterest.  One would think that his quiet reservation would point toward commitment to either good or evil, not ambiguity. He doesn’t seem to know what his commitment is and searches for it throughout the film. But even in the climax, it’s unclear what it all meant.

Ryan Gosling does the laconic loner reasonably well but not as good as Clint Eastwood in the Spaghetti Westerns, George Clooney in “The American” or especially Steve McQueen, exponentially more convincing in “Bullitt”. Carey Mulligan’s role could have been played with equal facility by Paris Hilton. But wow….Albert Brooks is iso impeccably and convincingly evil he glows in the dark. The viewer truly fears this man and with good reason.  Director Nicolas Winding Refn has done a better job I think than his previous efforts but he has a lot to learn.

Best scene: The driver calmly finessing cops searching for his getaway car following an armed robbery.

Worst scene: Very graphically kicking a villain to death in an elevator.

The film has episodic extreme violence and bad vibes that don’t necessarily enhance the story. Not for any variety of children, even teens.

I stretch to give it three of five taciturn glares.

There have been several “microbes take over the world” films in the past, but this one is a little unique as it examines a much wider spectrum of potential events surrounding such an event. The route of infection is spread is probably technically correct.  In the age of unrestricted air travel, virtually any kind of contagious infection can literally hop on a plane and be out of control before anyone knows about it.

Previously, “Outbreak” (1995), was typical of the genre, basically “how it happened’, “how we figured it out” and ‘how we managed it”.  “Contagion” departs from that formula in that it goes further down the road, portraying rather visually the histrionic reactions of the population to a disease with a 20% mortality progressing exponentially. Much of it not very pleasant but probably predictable. The scary part is that it could happen, probably will in the future and when it does, much of the disturbing social and political aspects of this film probably will too.

The film is well directed, well cinemagraphed, moves at a steady pace, maintains the viewer’s interest and the actors did a good job.  Two particularly interesting scenes were Matt Damon hearing bad news from an emergency physician and not absorbing any of it. Then the final scene where it’s explained how the infection started explains the entire film, not revealed until the end.

That said, I have some criticisms.

The two roles that worked in this film were Lawrence Fishburne and Kate Winslet, but some really big names were wasted. Anyone could have played Gwyneth Paltrow’s role.  Matt Damon cruised through his role anyone could have played. The entire concept of Jude Law’s role just didn’t jive with the plot.

This film could have been made better not so much be changing the cinematic progression but by using actors no one ever heard of.  Watching A-list actors sleepwalk through roles did nothing for the film and I think took something away from it.

I think the film is definitely worth seeing if you aren’t doing anything else on an idle weekend, but it isn’t going to be something you’ll rave about. Waiting for it to come on Netflix is a perfectly acceptable option.

I give it two and a half Encephalopathic seizures.

A genuine jewel of a film examining the consequences of decisions made in youth that require persistent lying to sustain, then come to an inevitably sad culmination many years later. Very reminiscent of John LeCarre’s work.

Based on the 2007 Israeli film Ha-Hov ( Polish language with English sub-titles).  It is the story of former Mossad agent Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), involved in a botched plot to capture a notorious Nazi war criminal in 1965. The path of least resistance is taken by Rachel and her colleagues to save face for their country and themselves. The truth as a malleable component of “the right thing to do for the most concerned”.

The story is initially told from the vantage of a lie. Inevitably, the lie starts to unravel as all lies do. Now, many years later, Rachel must go back 30 years to find how to fit the truth into current reality. The dilemma is whether to liberate the truth, or further and more effectively conceal it. The truth as catharsis.

The segments filmed in austere, Cold War East Berlin are filled with unrelenting tension.  The characters are superbly portrayed by young, ascending actors including Jessica Chastain (the Help) and Sam Worthington (Avatar).  Their “future selves” – Tom Wilkinson, Irish actor Ciaran Hinds and the incomparable Helen Mirren bring the vicissitudes of youth into contemporary perspective.

“The Debt” moves along plausibly, maintains the viewer’s attention and at times is a real nail biter without trivializing the moral dilemmas that set it in motion. It’s an excellent film; a must see for the fall season.

I give it four and a half of five blood stained scissors.