The Social Net

It's been awhile since I've posted movie reviews, so here's a quick look at what's playing.

City of Ember--If you're stuck with kids between the ages of 8-14 some weekend, there are worse ways to spend your time. It's a safe, cliche-filled movie where the kids get to save the day. It's nothing to rave about, but doesn't suck, and unfortunately, that's usually about as good as it gets for 'family-oriented' movies.

Bill Murray plays the mayor of Ember, an underground city powered by a generator that was built to last 200 years and...you guessed it...it's been more than 200 years since they've been underground. Two plucky kids (Saoirse Ronan, the Oscar-nominated teen from "Atonement" and Harry Treadaway) refuse to accept the status quo and wind up literally leading their city from darkness into the light.

It's an apt metaphor for our current political situation where we've been in the darkness for far too long, and the young folks need to lead us into zero carbon emission light.

The real star of the show is the set, if that gives you any indication as to whether you rush to go see this film or not. City of Ember is a pleasant diversion, and probably the only movie currently playing in its genre that you can take the kids too that doesn't have any significant sex OR violence.

After you see the movie, you might want to read the book.

Grade: B-

Quarantine--Do not waste your money on this movie under any circumstance. Not in the theater, not as a matinee and don't even bother when it comes out on netflix. It's not worth a viewing.

Filmed in the same faux-reality style of Blair Witch and Cloverfield Park, the movie is shot entirely with a jittery hand-held camera that WILL make you nauseous sometime during the first 30 minutes of the movie--and that's BEFORE the action starts and the technique makes matters even worse.

If the producers and director's intent was to make a movie so bad that it makes you feel like throwing up, they've succeeded.

Note to aspiring filmmakers: hand held shots are overdone, and reflect poorly on your ability to craft a shot. There are *rare* situations when hand-held shots create a feeling of being in the action for the audience, but MOST of the time, it disassociates the audience from the action because the movement of the camera distracts, rather than engages.

If you're a film maker and can't afford a dolly set up--fake it. Strap your camera to a bicycle, a shopping cart or anything with wheels that will give a *smooth* flow to the action.

And plan your shots--it's just lazy storytelling to stick a camera behind your main character and only tell the story from that POV. You can create a might tighter story and dramatic tension by giving the audience reaction shots from multiple points of view.

Enuf on that. Don't waste your money on Quarantine. Go eat a couple of hot dogs at Costco and stick your finger down your throat to get the same effect.

Grade: F

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist: I was talking about this movie in the office the other day, and one of my co-workers asked "isn't that a movie for teenagers?"

Alright, I suppose it is...but I still give this an enthusiastic THUMBS UP as a great date movie. Sure, the topic matter is mostly young love, but doesn't everyone feel young at heart and like to remember what it's like the first time you find someone who just seems so *right* for you?

Nick and Norah is full of snappy lines, great music, funny scenarios, one hilarious movie-stealing performance by Ari Graynor who simply chews up every scene she is in. And a recurring bit with a piece of gum that was soooooo funny, it had the audience literally talking to the movie characters out loud in response to the 'bit'.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist brings you back to the time when music was everything, you found meaning in every song and staying up all night led you to the most amazing revelations of your life...and to that person you were meant to be with.

Starring the infinitely charming Michael Cera (the boyfriend in Juno) and Kate Dennings (the daughter in The 40 Year Old Virgin), Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is the kind of smart movie for teens...and the teenager inside you...that reminds you of what is GOOD about being young.

There are a few inconsistencies in the movie that are entirely too minute for most audiences to notice or care about, and those are the only reason this film doesn't get an A+.

Grade: A

Religulous: Bill Maher travels the world asking Christians "do you REALLY believe in all these wacky stories in the Bible?"

If you're familiar with Bill Maher, you know his left-leaning, anti-religion spiel and will be highly amused and entertained. If you're a hard-core fundamentalist, this definitely isn't your type of movie. If you're somewhere in between....you'll probably get quite a few laughs from the movie, and then alternate between thinking that Maher is a real butthead for the way he questions people's faith, and then admiring him for walking into a lions den with a steak tied around his neck.

There is one absolutely BRILLIANT moment in the film where a US Senator from Arkansas defends his beliefs by responding to a Maher question with a condescending reply "well, Bill, you don't exactly have to pass an IQ test in order to become a US Senator."

The look on the senators face as he *immediately* recognizes that he probably shouldn't have said that on camera is worth the price of the movie ticket alone.

The last 5 minutes of the movie provide the greatest irony you will ever see on film--Bill Maher preaching about the ridiculousness of a literal interpretation of the Bible and its perceived ill effects on society.

Uh, Bill...I don't think you make your point about how stupid it is to believe what the preachers say by....preaching.

If you're a left-wing pinko tree hugging liberal, go see this movie. If you're from a red state, stay home. If you're somewhere in the middle, check out Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, and if you think that's funny, then go ahead and see this movie too. It's good, but won't change your mind or really engage you to have a deeper discussion about religion in America beyond what you already believe.

Grade: B

On my list of flicks to see this week: W. and Apaloosa.

What have YOU seen at the movies lately, and what did you think of it?

I got reminded of a lesson tonight in rehearsal--not every actor likes chaos.

Let me explain--every actor has his or her own process for how they develop their character. While there are many different 'methods' for an actor to take, there are two essential paths. An actor either carefully discovers and plans each move, emotion and reaction based on a detailed study of the script and delivers a consistent performance nightly; or they play more 'in the moment' where they have an outline of what the character will do, but react slightly differently to impulses and the genuine reactions they get from their scene partners every time they play.

I'm the second type--I like a little chaos and unpredictability on stage. It forces one to stay alert and on your toes and adds to the already heightened awareness one has on stage. Being on stage under white hot lights is kind of like walking on a high wire--and I like to up the stakes by being on the high wire, not only without a net, but also with a vat of boiling oil under the wire for good measure.

I discovered tonight, somewhat awkwardly, that my wife in the play is the first type, and it was a good reminder that rehearsals are a great place to get that kind of information, so you understand how to play with each other.

(which makes theater rehearsals akin to going to kindergarten, doesn't it? learning how to play with others?)

The moment itself was pretty funny at first and had everyone laughing...except my scene partner. There's a moment where she thinks she's pregnant but won't 'fess up to it, and I'm trying to get the information out of her, to no avail.

I try different tactics during the scene and since it's a comedy, the situation calls for me to try something a little more ridiculous (or desperate) with each successive attempt. So tonight, as a complete impulse, my last-ditch attempt to ascertain whether she is pregnant was to tap on her belly like I was checking a watermelon for ripeness. Totally impulsive in a little moment of madness.

The cast cracked up. The director cracked up. My scene partner swatted my hand away and pulled away in a huff, HIGHLY OFFENDED that I would so such a thing. A *perfect* in-character reaction, and the scene really came alive at that moment and gave me an entirely new path to take to try and get her to tell me if she was pregnant or not.

It was much fun, the kind of theater play that I really enjoy as an actor, and love to see as an audience.

After we finished the scene tho, my partner said very coldly, "please let me know next time you're going to do something like that." Very direct and no nonsense. I really HAD offended her.

It was a good reminder--in everything we do, we're in a constant negotiation on the rules of conduct, and that what works for me, might not work for you and if we are going to work (or play) with each other *successfully*, we need to communicate how we work, honor each other's process and come to some type of agreement.

There's no room for prima donnas. We're in this together, so I can't just keep pushing her buttons and doing crazy stuff in rehearsal all the time. I mean, I've got to work and play with this woman for the next 6 weeks, you know what I mean?

My scene partner was in no way 'wrong' or putting any kind of damper on my process--she was simply letting me know how she works and what she needs to be successful. It's not a matter of "my way is better than yours" or even "this is how I have to do my work."

It's all about how *we* work together. And not everyone likes chaos. The simple question "hey, can I try something new tonight and see how it goes?" on my part would have made the process a lot better for both of us.

The next time we ran the scene, I managed to find the impulse again, she knew it was coming and could instantly map her initial reaction and recreate it. And it was just as funny the second time.

The lesson, of course, is that sometimes, you just have to give up a little bit of yourself in order to find a greater success. And communication really doesn't have to be all that difficult with some simple politeness and good manners.

Well...that and... a little chaos can be inspirational even for those who don't like it.

We're into our third week of rehearsals and tonight was the first night where I started to feel comfortable and a little freer to play. It was a good night.

Rehearsals are usually *energizing*--I get an adrenaline rush from working/playing/creating for three hours, but until tonight, I've been mostly coming home from rehearsals tired. It's been awhile since I've had to work an 8-10 hour day and then turn around and have the energy to give to a 3-4 hour rehearsal. But I've been getting on the elliptical in the mornings for the past 2 weeks, and gaining some stamina.

We've now blocked the entire play and run thru it enough times so I don't have to think as much about where I'm supposed to be at any given time on stage. I've been doing some homework on the script and the character is coming into better focus. Still very fuzzy, but clearer.

I picked this show to audition for as my first play in San Jose for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it's a comedy. In my mind, a comedy is in some ways easier for me to perform in than a drama, although the risks are higher.

If you're in a drama and you don't move people, well, people generally get the point of the play and the story can help carry the day.

If you're in a comedy though, and you're not very funny...well...that's just painful for actor and audience alike. Comedy requires a very delicate sense of timing, pitch and rhythm to work, AND...

...as an actor you can also get by more on 'technique' in a comedy than in a drama. You don't have to 'feel' a double-take or a physical bit like a spit take. You just need to know how to set a joke up, maintain energy and tension and then have a sense of timing to deliver.

Don't get me wrong--comedy is difficult to master. There is a reason why you generally see great comedic actors or great dramatic actors, but rarely find actors who can do both. An actor like Jim Carrey is a very rare breed--someone who can do outrageous slapstick comedy well AND handle dramatic roles with sensitivity and get you to feel great empathy for him.

Meryl Streep is another, of course. She's just brilliant in whatever she does.

This is a challenging play for me because my character is generally the 'straight' man--he doesn't have a lot of funny stuff given to him in the script--he's the one who sets up jokes for others or helps the plot along. So it's up to the actor playing the role (me) to fill in things that may or may not be in the script to create an interesting, three-dimensional character on stage.

Jerry is also described as a nice, affable sort of fellow--and I tend to play more intense, darker roles and have always struggled some with 'nice guy' roles. So this role asks me to stretch some in the type of role that I normally play, but at the same time, gives me something familiar to fall back on by playing a comedy.

I still have lots of drudge work to do---I need to give the character a real personal history and make choices about things like his relationship to space, time and movement. And I have to learn to play piano well enough to sound like a professional jingle writer. (my profession in the play)...and I need to learn lines.

I really can't do anything physical though until I've learned my lines and I don't have to carry my script around. But all this is feeling less like work and more like play.

You've got to do the work to *earn* the right to play. But once you've done the work...you get to pay hard. And for me...THAT'S the fun part. I've been starting slow with this play--slower than what I usually do--but I can feel myself getting back into the groove. I'm starting to feel like I'm visiting with an old friend that I haven't seen in awhile.

Okay...off to learn lines now.

I was all set to write in my blog about a couple of bad movies that I saw last week when I heard the strangest, full blast whiny 'meow' from my cat Sam. He meowed and growled several times, the kind of sounds that he gives when he's really annoyed when I pick him up to pet him. Sam likes to be petted on HIS terms and if I pick him up when he doesn't want to be held, he lets me know by growling, meowing and occasionally hissing at me.

The thing is...he was *sleeping* at the time. And I was on the other side of the room, so it wasn't me he was reacting to.

Now, I've seen dogs have dreams before, but I've never seen a cat dream, have you? I don't know what was going on in his dream, but Sam's tail was bouncing around and beating on the table like he was REALLY annoyed at something, but dead asleep.

After a couple of minutes, his tail stopped swishing and he stopped meowing/growling in his sleep. I hope he got whatever it was that was bothering him or he chased it away.

Anyway...that's not what I wanted to write about tonight. Just a strange tangent.

DO NOT GO SEE THESE MOVIES:

Eagle Eye
Lakeview Terrace

If you've seen the previews for either of these movies, you probably thought "hey, that looks good, I can't wait to see that when it comes out." and maybe you missed the opening weekend and are thinking of seeing either (or both) of these movies this weekend.

Don't do it. Seriously. Save your money and spend it somewhere else.

I love a good preview trailer and can usually pick a good movie based on its trailer. A good rule of thumb is that the longer a trailer runs, the worse the movie is. A good preview should last 30-45 seconds and tease you to want to see more. If you see too many action sequences or get too many good lines so that the trailer entertains you, then the movie sucks. They are showing you all the good stuff and the actual movie isn't going to get any better. If a preview lasts more than a minute, the move REALLY sucks.

It's as simple as that.

Now, just because a movie has a good trailer doesn't mean it's a good movie. But a bad preview ALWAYS means a bad movie. Remember that--if the preview trailer lasts more than 45 seconds, the movie sucks.

In this case, though, they tricked us. The previews for Lakeview Terrace and Eagle Eye are both really good, and they offer a good premise for each movie that is enticing.

The problem is, neither movie delivers on the the promise of the premise.

Eagle Eye:

This film starts with a really cool premise--what if some unknown person contacted you, an ordinary person, via your cell phone and gave you instructions to follow and you would be in really, really big trouble if you didn't follow the instructions?

The idea of a random, unknown force controlling your life and forcing you to do action/adventure/illegal things holds a lot of sway with many audiences, since many of us feel sort of powerless over grand events going around us anyway.

I mean, how many of us REALLY have had any personal contact with a terrorist or an act of terror? If someone kidnapped your child, what types of things would you do to ensure their safety? What if someone you didn't know called you on your cell phone and told you to duck because a construction crane was going to crash thru the window in 10 seconds?

Would you duck? And when it DID come crashing thru the window, and the same voice on your cell phone told you that people were going to start shooting at you in 15 seconds and you had to jump out of a 10 story window to get away from them, when people started shooting at you...would you jump and start to follow the instructions?

The rest of the movie should be about finding out WHO is the voice on the other end of the line, right? As you get manipulated by the master puppeteer, the dramatic tension exists in finding out who is pulling the strings and why...and what can you do to cut the strings.

Well....SPOILER ALERT. I don't normally give too many details about a movie so I don't spoil it for people who go see the movie. In this case I'm going to--I WANT to spoil the movie for you so you DON'T go see it.

In Eagle Eye, the voice on the other end of the phone is a super-computer that has been developed to track EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world. The computer stores every single electronic transmission EVER. All cell phone calls, emails, phone calls, closed circuit tv transmissions, every image ever sent on tv, radio, uploads to YouTube, and every voice transmission.

The computer was designed to track bad guys and terrorists (we are now far enough removed from terror events on our own soil that terrorism is now considered fair game as a form of entertainment.) and provide ironclad recommendations on who should be assasinated. When it is over-ridden by the President who incorrectly orders the death of a suspected terrorist against the computer's recommendation, the computer decides that all the top leaders in the US Government must die because they are not responsible enough to listen to the computer.

The computer then selects two ordinary people with all the right pyschographics to carry out the mission of arranging the assasination of most of the members of the US government for our own good.

It's a "master computer goes amok" story, preaching against the evils of giving too much control to computers. But the humans DO make stupid mistakes, so there's no redeeming qualities there either.

That's pretty much the movie--no redeeming qualities. The story starts good and gets more and more implausible as it goes on. You start off enjoying the flick, and by the end, you can't wait for it to be over.

If you want a MUCH better movie on this theme, rent 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Lakeview Terrace:

Again, another film with a great preview, and the flick stars Samuel L. Jackson, so it's GOT to be good, right?

Nope.

The premise is fantastic--a young interracial couple moves into their first home and it turns out that that Samuel L. Jackson is not only the neighbor from hell, but he's a cop too. So it seems like there's nothing you can do about it.

The first half of the movie lays that foundation--Jackson shines security floodlights in the couple's bedroom at night, 'jokingly' threatens a carjacking while the new neighbor is sitting in his car smoking a cigarette, is invited to a housewarming party and is a real buzzkill, catches the couple fooling around in their own swimming pool and generally lets them know he disapproves of them living next door.

The hip twist on the story is that the guy is white and the woman is black. (I'm being sarcastic, btw, although it's true that in movies, most interracial hookups involve a black man with a white woman)

SPOILER ALERT: (just to be polite, but same as before, I WANT to spoil the film for you so don't go see it. If you go anyway, you're going to think the movie sucked and I'm going to say "I told you so.")

The first half of the movie takes too long to establish the premise. The second half of the movie takes too long to get to the thrust of WHY Samuel L. Jackson is being such an ass for a neighbor.

Turns out his wife died 3 years earlier in a car crash. While driving with her white boss in the middle of the day on the 101 in SoCal far from where they worked. The subtext is that they were having an affair...so THAT'S why he hates his new neighbors. Cuz he's white and the wife is black. And...I don't know...that reminds him of his own wife, and chasing these people away is going to make him feel better?

The movie ends with Jackson getting shot by cops. I think that was meant by the director to be artistic irony. There is also a constant (and overdone) reference to fire--a not so vague reference that racial tension in Southern California is hot and about to overcome the valley in an out-of-control inferno.

As an audience, you're kind of glad when Jackson gets shot because all sympathy for the character has long evaporated and it means the movie is over.

So there you have it. I wanted to see BOTH of those movies based on the previews. And I enjoyed about the first 20-30 minutes of each movie, and as each story 'developed', got less and less engaged with the story and how it was being told...to the point where the first words out my mouth at the end of each movies was:

"...well, THAT sucked."

So, seriously...hold on to the $30 you would spend to see either of these and buy 2 new CD's, or a couple of books...or go see a comedy show...or live music...or give the money to your local food bank. Hollywood doesn't deserve your money if they are going to put out crap like this.

Wait til they come out on Netflix, because you KNOW you're not going to blindly take my word for it that these movies aren't worth seeing. And remember this review then...and don't forget to leave me a comment saying "whoa, you're right. That sucked. I'm glad I didn't pay $30 to see THAT in the theater."

I never get tired of hearing "hey Mark....you were right!"