A CARTON OF EGGSHELLS: a review of "Cyrus"

"CYRUS"
Written and Directed by Jay and Mark Duplass
*** 1/2 (three and a half stars)

What a strange, sad little movie this is.

Maybe “strange” and “sad” are not quite the right adjectives to utilize for a film that approximates aspects of our ever shifting and fragile human nature so precisely and effectively. Yet, once the final credits began to roll, those were the very first words to enter my mind. As I ruminate and write this latest review for you, dear readers, I will be happy to leave myself open for any potential emerging impressions as it is a film simple in nature yet deeply complex internally. “Cyrus,” written and directed by The Duplass Brothers, possesses exactly the sort of ever shifting and fragile nature that seems as if the film will fly off the rails at any moment, yet it somehow keeps its footing firmly in place. The film keeps you off guard and anxious just enough to keep the somewhat predictable storyline of “Cyrus” consistently unpredictable and always emotionally honest.

While I do not ever want to claim sides in the cinematic war between mainstream Hollywood features and independent films, as both arenas have their respective peaks and valleys, I would have to say that for 2010, some key independent releases have shown more successful and artistically greater representations of modern life in the 21st century, especially in regards to families and interpersonal relationships. Writer/Director Lisa Cholodenko’s “The Kids Are All Right” has repeatedly received high praise from me and recently, I also gave high marks to Writer/Director Nicole Holofcener’s “Please Give.” “Cyrus” is yet another smaller film of high quality that did not receive the highest audience during its theatrical run. Now that it is available on DVD, I am so happy to point you in its direction and I sincerely hope that you will take me up on the recommendation.

John C. Reilly stars as John, a depressed and lonely film editor, stuck in an emotional rut seven years after his divorce from Jamie (the great Catherine Keener), with whom he has remained close friends. At the film’s opening, John has painfully learned that Jamie is planning to remarry, yet Jamie is unwilling to leave him in such an emotionally dilapidated state. She coerces him to attend a party where many available women will attend. John reluctantly agrees and immediately begins to regret his decision due to his social awkwardness and blunt honesty about himself, his life and his needs. After drinking copious amounts of alcohol and striking out again and again in one conversation after another, he is surprised by the arrival of Molly (Marisa Tomei), just as he is urinating into a bush. During these initial moments, Molly is revealed to be quite possibly the woman John has been searching for due to their instant chemistry. And surprisingly, during John’s excited and drunken dance to The Human League’s “Don’t You Want Me,” his romantic suspicions are confirmed when she happily joins him and subsequently returns to his home and makes love with him.

After a successful second date with Molly where John’s feelings are tenderly and graciously reciprocated, he is understandably unnerved to find Molly slipping out of his apartment in the middle of the night once again. Upon discovering her home, John soon meets the other man in Molly’s life--Cyrus (Jonah Hill), a polite and inviting 21-year-old New Age musician who also happens to be Molly’s son. Cyrus and Molly are best friends and share an openly unconventional parent/child relationship (Cyrus rarely addresses Molly as “Mom,” she continues to soothe him at night during anxiety attacks, they playfully wrestle as if he is still a young child, he has open knowledge of her sexual nature, etc), which does indeed perplex John, but not so much where he would depart the first relationship in many years that potentially could be life changing. Unfortunately and despite his inviting demeanor, Cyrus is not at all ready to share Molly with anyone, a desire that threatens to dismantle the budding romance for good.

While “Cyrus” does work extremely well as a darkly comic, 21st century “Oedipus,” it never descends into an experience of uncomfortable creepiness, vile absurdity or even the pathetically lazy style of a “Meet The Parents” farce. Yet, the film does precariously straddle all of those aforementioned elements, an aspect that does give the film its undeniable edge. But what Jay and Mark Duplass have ultimately created so wonderfully is a film about the collective arrested development of a series of characters as they tentatively navigate through their lives. Like “The Kids Are All Right,” “Please Give,” Director Aaron Schneider’s “Get Low" and Woody Allen’s “You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger,” “Cyrus” is a minutely and meticulously observed character study.

And also like those aforementioned films, it is also a movie without villains. While some characters do questionable things here and there, all of the characters are trying to face their choices and consequences as honestly and as gently as they are able. The emotional eggshells they tread throughout the film in regards to each other are instantly and undeniably palpable, thus giving “Cyrus” a communal, empathetic spirit that I think audiences would easily recognize within their own interpersonal relationships. There is not one mean bone in its body.

Speaking of eggshells, the film’s characters are ones that I would like to think of as people engaged in various states of emergence, as if they were all newborn chicks forcing themselves from eggs. John, Molly, Jaime and especially Cyrus are all on the cusp of profound transformations into newer and improved selves and their struggle against that inevitable transformation lies at the heart of the story. They are all uncomfortably tethered to their long established roles while attempting to break free of them.

In fact, Cyrus himself, with his closely cropped hairstyle, which accentuates his oval shaped head, actually suggests an actual living, breathing egg, is painfully confronted with the act of becoming. This quality gives a character, which could have only existed as a freakish antagonist, a deeply human soul. Cyrus’ power is unquestionable as his arrested development hinders the necessary growth of all around him, from the budding relationship between John and his mother, Molly, but also Molly’s inner growth as an adult sexual being and even Jaime’s ability to move onwards with her life and new marriage as she constantly serves as a source of consolation to John. Even further, John and Cyrus are essentially mirror versions of each other as they fall into a desperate and unhealthy attachments to the literal and figurative Mother figures in both of their lives. All of these details are sharply, humorously and gracefully observed and presented in the Duplass Brothers’ excellent screenplay.

Visually, the Duplass Brothers utilize that slightly overactive cinematography (yes, the dreaded shaky-cam) that suggests a docudrama, and which I generally abhor. However, it somehow works to the film’s advantage, as it seems to emphasize the emotional shakiness and instability experienced by all of the film’s primary characters. It is a directorial choice that could have been an irritant but thankfully, worked in support of the material. I must also give credit to musician Michael Andrews, who once composed and performed the beautiful score for Paul Feig and Judd Apatow’s “Freaks and Geeks” television series, as he again contributes a mostly acoustic guitar driven score that signifies nothing less than bittersweetness.

Aside from the layers inherent within their story, the Duplass Brothers must be given tremendous credit for their excellent casting as not one member is out of place in any discernible way. John C. Reilly, after a spell of working within the Judd Apatow repertoire, returns to the type of indie film role he would have performed in a Paul Thomas Anderson film. While the character of John is a sad sack, Reilly always lines the hurt, despair and confusion with dignity. His chemistry with the always luminous Marisa Tomei is a wonder as their love story is one of the most realistic and thoughtfully romantic pairings I have seen this year. John and Molly were truly a cinematic couple I rooted for and only wanted to witness their happiness.

Catherine Keener again delivers the emotional honestly that is her trademark in her crucial supporting role. But, Jonah Hill was the real surprise for me. While I have enjoyed him immensely as a member of Apatow’s band of merry men, whose skill with broad comedy and improvisation has contributed heavily to the success of films like “Superbad” (2007), “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (2008) and this year’s ”Get Him To The Greek,” “Cyrus” gives Hill the opportunity to take on, what just may be, his first dramatic role. Not don’t get me wrong, this role does not require the “heaviest’ of lifting but what the role does require is the ability to be that provocative catalyst for all of the other actors/characters. Jonah Hill meets those requirements with seemingly effortless ease, while ensuring that he never falls into caricature. You are always unsure of where he stands from moment to moment yet you completely understand not only his motives but the aching needs for his duplicity.

As with several other strong features released this year, “Cyrus” is not the sort of film to set the world of cinema on fire. It is not designed to make $200 million at the box office and receive endless Academy awards and that is just fine as it does not need to be that type of movie. If anything, its success shows just how difficult it is to pull off a film this unassuming while being this emotionally complicated and decidedly adult.

At the start of this review, I originally used the words “strange” and “sad” to describe it. But, now at the close, I have arrived at better descriptive words for “Cyrus.”

What a wry, odd, wistful and poignant little movie this is.

SOUL SICK IN THE CITY: a review of "Please Give"

“PLEASE GIVE”
Written and Directed by Nicole Holofcener
**** (four stars)

This movie nearly slipped under my radar.

This spring when Writer/Director Nicole Holofcener’s latest film, “Please Give” arrived at my local Sundance theater, I was more than aware of its presence and of the sheer talent behind the project as I have been a fan of Holofcener’s work for many years.

Holofcener’s debut film, “Walking and Talking” (1996), focused on a woman (Catherine Keener) dealing with the impending marriage of her best friend (Anne Heche). “Lovely and Amazing” (2001), her superlative second feature (and also starring Keener), dealt with themes of self-esteem and insecurity within a family of a matriarch and her three daughters. “Friends With Money” (2006) starred Jennifer Aniston in a highly (and appropriately) uncomfortable social comedy about a woman who quits her lucrative job only to find herself in increasingly unsteady waters with her collective of rich friends (played by Joan Cusack and again, Keener). All three films are deceptively unassuming as they are meticulously and minutely written, observed, and directed character/relationship/family studies to continuously reveal themselves and for some reason unbeknownst to me, I just didn’t make the time to check out her latest offering. It was my loss indeed because after having finally watched her latest effort I am happy to say that “Please Give” is Holofcener’s best film to date as its characters, relationships and situations are sometimes surprisingly laugh out loud funny, often prickly and painful and always piercingly real.

"Please Give" stars Catherine Keener and Oliver Platt as Kate and Alex, a long married couple, parents of Abby, their 15-year-old daughter (Sarah Steele), and who own a trendy mid-century furniture store in New York City. They live in a neighboring apartment next to the cantankerous 91 year old Andra (Ann Guilbert), who is routinely cared for by her two granddaughters, Rebecca (Rebecca Hall) a kindly, lonely mammogram technician and Mary (Amanda Peet), her cruelly acerbic and perpetually tanned older sister. The characters intertwine as they all navigate the emptiness of their souls and try to discover ways to fill their respective emotional holes. Kate and Alex supply their inventory through the purchasing of furniture from the children of recently deceased parents. To alleviate her own sense of guilt, Kate routinely gives money, food and expensive items, like designer lipstick, away to the homeless, an act that constantly infuriates Abby, as she wants and deserves the same level of attention. Alex drifts into an unexpected affair. Mary continuously battles with her Grandmother and reluctantly assists her sister (when she hasn’t shirked her duties altogether). And Andra bides her remaining time, stewing, complaining, barking, and refusing to exit the world quietly.

Early in the film, Alex and Kate are described as “vultures” and yes, to a degree, “Please Give” is a film about a small collective of people waiting for a 91-year-old woman to die. And especially, for two of those characters, their wait is exclusively for the purpose of obtaining a bigger house and the opportunity to sell off her furniture for their own profit. Yet, as with all of Holofcener’s films, situations and emotions are never that facile. Her writing is as sharp as a knife’s edge and just as equally perceptive about human emotions, foibles, obsessions, frets, shortcomings and fears and throughout it all, Holofcener remains fearless and unblinking. It is more than fitting that she opens her film with a montage of close up shots of women’s breasts being placed upon a small tablet for a mammogram examination and Holofcener shows it all, up close and personal. Breasts of the young, middle aged, elderly, thin, heavy, curvy, misshapen and all in between. It recalled a stunning sequence from "Lovely and Amazing” where Emily Mortimer’s character stands completely naked in front of her boyfriend James LeGros as he picks apart all of Mortimer’s perceived body flaws. This is what Holofcener does best through her filmmaking. She lays everything out on the table and lets the viewer decide what to make of it all.

In “Please Give,” Holofcener’s New York City is a world where all of their characters exist in some form of spiritual crisis and decay where they anesthetize their pain through emotional band-aids like tanning, endless lifestyles of the rich and famous television programs and most notably and crucially, a $235 pair of jeans. All of these details are presented as matter of fact and never in a fashion that could be described as proselytizing. For a film this unassuming in comparison to all of the flashier material in our movie theaters, “Please Give” is deeply passionate and designed to elicit equally passionate responses from audiences. This is easily one of those films where you want to grab the first person you saw while viewing and head to the nearest coffeehouse and talk about it. It is a film meant to bring forth discussion, arguments and artful conversations. “Please Give” is not a passive experience as its characters and situations are too complex to be simply brushed away.

The characters and their relationships parallel each other beautifully. Mary’s harsh relationship with her Andra easily mirrors Abby’s harsh relationship with Kate, for instance. Like Writer/Director Lisa Cholodenko’s wonderful “The Kids Are All Right” from earlier this summer, Holofcener is brilliantly and brutally in tune with the nature of family dynamics, the roles in which we inhabit and the ever shifting emotions that come with those roles and dynamics.

Mary and Andra are easily the harshest characters in the film and it would be quite easy to simply paint both of them as villains and walk away. But, Holofcener cares about her characters too much to just let them thoughtlessly twist in the wind. With Mary, Holofcener is asking us to ponder whether she simply a bitch or is her harsh veneer a shield based in past emotional wounds and designed to protect her from future ones.

Andra is a straight talker to a wickedly vicious degree, but is her meanness a reflection of her entire life’s history or her extreme discomfort with facing down her inevitable mortality? A telling sequence occurs in the middle of the film as Rebecca, a new suitor, his Grandmother and Andra take a trip to upstate New York to view the fall leaves in their colorful transition. As three of these characters marvel at this natural wonder, Andra faces in the entirely opposite direction and exclaims, “This is NOTHING!” In a sequence designed for the characters to step outside of their own private pains and take in a moment larger than themselves, Andra wants none of it yet why?

Most compelling, for me, was the character of teenaged Abby as she is character I understood but simultaneously wanted to comfort and slap silly. Is she simply an ungrateful, over-privileged, brat or is she a typical insecure 15-year-old girl, struggling with her acne and weight, and growing angrier and more confused that her Mother turns herself inside out over the plight in the world instead focusing upon her? Or does Abby exhibit both of those characterizes plus more? The film’s concluding moment between Kate and Abby and centered around that aforementioned $235 pair of blue jeans that has been a source of contention throughout the entire film may also cause a sense of debate between viewers as it could be seen as a moment of resolution or the first steps into a darker and more turbulent emotional world between Mother and daughter (I leaned towards the latter) and this is precisely what Holofcener accomplishes so brilliantly, with her clear, clean and complex storytelling.

All of the performances in”Please Give” are first rate. Catherine Keener, to me, is simply one of the most honest actors working today. She goes beyond the ability of never striking a false note or blurs any lines between the craft and act of performance. Keener, always delvers the truth.

Rebecca Hall is an actress that continues to impress me greatly. In films like Christopher Nolan’s “The Prestige” (2006), Woody Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” (2008), Ron Howard’s “Frost/Nixon” (2008), and Ben Affleck’s “The Town” from this fall among others, she has this uncanny ability to completely disappear within a role, embodying it entirely and leaving no trace of it behind when she is seen again in a new film. Her layers are deeply compelling and her seemingly unassuming nature makes her a perfect addition to Holofcener’s cinematic world.

Not long ago, I bemoaned the lack of female writers and directors working steadily in Hollywood today, a lack has only produced a lack of breadth of material for and about women. If I could wave my magic wand, Nicole Holofcener would be making films more frequently and gaining more notoriety as her work is highly entertaining and compelling in equal doses making for cinematic experiences that are memorable. I urge you, dear readers, to…ahem…please give this excellent film a try. Now that it is available at your local video store, there’s no excuse to miss it as I nearly did.

A filmmaker of Nicole Holofcener’s talents deserves to be at the top of the pack and it is up to us to place her there.

YOU SAY YOU WANT AN EVOLUTION: a review of "LENNONYC"

"LENNONYC"
Written and Directed by Michael Epstein
**** (four stars)

"I was the dream weaver. But now, I'm reborn.
I was the Walrus. But now, I'm John."
-"God"
John Lennon (1970)

In the early morning hours of December 9, 1980, my Father woke me to get ready for school and tenderly gave me some shocking information, he wisely withheld from telling me the night before. As he watched Monday Night Football, after I had long gone to bed, he heard the announcement from legendary sportscaster Howard Cosell that stopped the world cold. John Lennon had been assassinated in New York City by deranged fan Mark David Chapman, right outside of the Dakota, the apartment he shared with his wife Yoko Ono and son, Sean Ono Lennon. After hearing this news for myself, I remember silently getting out of bed, going to the bathroom to begin getting myself ready for school and immediately tuning the radio to WLS-AM for any and all information possible.

By the time I arrived at school, I was numb. My friends consoled me in classes yet, I was numb throughout the day and I couldn’t concentrate upon anything at all as I just wanted to go home, turn on the television and radio, continuously hoping to hear the news and reports to this unspeakable tragedy. Perhaps through listening to essentially the same news over and over, I could scrounge some meaning or sense from this horrific event. But, there is just no sense to be found in an act so senseless.

To any and all who have ever known me, The Beatles are, and will always be, my favorite musical band of all time as every single note they recorded is simultaneously intimate and majestic to my ears and soul. Collectively and individually, its four participants—Ringo Starr, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and John Lennon--have been heroes to me throughout the entirety of my life, quite possibly since my birth in 1969 when my father told me that for a time, I was soothed and settled to side two of the “Abbey Road” album. They are as much a part of my life as the air I breathe and I could not imagine exactly what my life would have been like if they had never joined together rand made music for the betterment of the world.

The story of their history as The Beatles has now become something akin to a classic fable or long treasured bedtime story to me, as the details of their union, musical journey and disbandment have become so deeply familiar and even comforting with its definitive beginning, middle and end. Yet, what has continued to remain unfamiliar to me are the details of their individual lives after The Beatles. Yes, these are subjects that have been long chronicled within the music press and book after book after book but aside from general details, it would surprise you that I actually do not know terribly much about their life and times after they conquered the world and changed it forever through their music.

In the beautiful new documentary, “LENNONYC,” which aired earlier this month on PBS and is now available on DVD, filmmaker Michael Epstein deftly traces the life and art of John Lennon after his 1971 immigration to New York City. The film is no dry, stately, self-important piece about an artistic figure so immensely recognizable to all of us. Epstein has brilliantly cut through all of the details and documented records to carve out an intimately and emotional travelogue into the life and evolution of a man. The film is a political story. It is a story of addiction, depression, recovery, family and an aching love story. It is the portrait of an artist set upon his own musical journey and the process contained within the music, which is so familiar to us all. Yet, what “LENNONYC” accomplishes at its very best, is to make an individual, who has reached a near mythic status, so undeniably relatible, understandable and human.

As “LENNONYC” opens, Epstein wisely skates completely over Lennon’s tenure as one of the Fab Four and immediately plunges us into the beginnings of his new life as an expatriate in New York City. I never knew how much the city that never slept had fascinated Lennon (much like my own lifelong obsessions as an anglophile) as well as his then mounting desire to escape the invasive and sometimes cruel media bubble environment of England. Marveling that he was relatively free to live his life with Yoko just as he pleased, and move around the city without much bother and pressure, Lennon was willingly adopted by members of the anti-war movement and soon became a figurehead in the struggle to promote world peace.

As plans to embark upon a nation wide tour, which would also function as a means to register 18 year olds to vote and encourage the defeat of President Nixon escalated, Lennon’s life and status in New York became placed in jeopardy. Led by J. Edgar Hoover and members of the Nixon administration, the United States Government, feeling ridiculously provoked by Lennon’s unquestionable influence with the nation’s young, threatened to have Lennon deported-an act that eventually became a four year legal battle.

This painful event, coupled with Nixon’s re-election and some painfully brutal critical assessments of his agitprop album release, “Some Time In New York City” (1972), eventually led to Lennon’s separation from Yoko Ono and his long fabled “Lost Weekend” in Los Angeles, where John Lennon became engulfed in a dangerously deep alcoholic haze and crippling loneliness without Yoko.

The remainder of the film charts Lennon’s creative rebirth upon his return to New York City in 1974, which included his triumphant appearance with Elton John at Madison Square Garden during which he received a 10-minute ovation from the crowd and finally reunited with Yoko Ono. The conclusion to his painful legal battles with the government occurred and he was profoundly blessed with the birth of their son Sean, which led to his self-imposed retirement between 1975-1980 to become a house husband and raise their son in a way he had not with his first child Julian Lennon from his first marriage. The film’s final section takes us behind the scenes of the sessions for John and Yoko’s return to music with “Double Fantasy” and sadly, his eventual murder on December 8, 1980. And throughout it all, those nine to ten years, there was the music that not only became the soundtrack of his life but also to anyone who listened and embraced it.

Epstein loads “LENNONYC” not only with John Lennon’s glorious music but he also graces us with several deeply insightful and informative interviews with key figures from Lennon’s life, including musicians with whom he collaborated (members of the band Elephant’s Memory, Elton John and “Double Fantasy” producer Jack Douglas), and close friends and associates. Additionally, we also blessed with tremendously open and self-aware archived video and audio interviews with Lennon and finally, brand new interview footage with Yoko Ono.

Ono has also graciously granted Epstein and this production access to a host of previously unreleased audio and video footage. Providing snapshot peeks through the windows of John Lennon’s creative process, we are now able to gaze into the creations of “Mind Games” (1973), “Walls and Bridges” (1974) and “Double Fantasy” through studio chatter from a host of recording sessions, including several freakishly frightening moments during the 1973 “Rock and Roll” album sessions with producer Phil Spector.

What amazed me during these sections of the film was to discover how even after The Beatles, John Lennon still continued to utilize the recording studio as another instrument through the process of really discovering the song through his musical collaborations with his studio musicians. Lennon never came off as the arrogant and elusive grand master bestowing his wisdom upon the meager session hands. He encouraged their efforts, and included anything and everything that made the song as best as it could possibly be.

I was even more amazed to learn about how intensely Lennon labored over his lyrics during his songwriting process as he strained to find the best words to fit the music and conceptual intent perfectly. His incredible economy of words became even more staggering to me as I watched because the film forced me to listen to these familiar songs anew, which illuminated deeper and sometimes coded meanings. For instance, throughout the entire “Double Fantasy” album, Lennon uses the seemingly innocuous word “Well” repeatedly. It turns out that one word and its usage was completely intentional and entirely designed to be a message to all listeners about his state of mind and being as he reached the beginnings of middle age. After five years away from the spotlight, ensconsed happily in domesticity and having reached the age of 40, John Lennon was feeling “well” and he wanted every listener to know it.

This particular aspect of his songwriting mastery allows his songs the flexibility to continue to grow, change and reveal themselves, even 30-40 years after they were first written. Think of how the song “Watching The Wheels” has changed for you over the years. When I was 11, it was “just” a great song. At the age of 41, just one year older than Lennon when he was killed, that same song contains a huge profundity that only could have been acquired through the act of growing older. John Lennon always sang of himself in his music but now, I realize that he was singing of us as well.

And then, one sequence arrived that made me choke back tears. It was a sequence of blissful audio footage of a four or five year old Sean with John at home. While I will not describe the sequence in full to you as I want for you to experience it for yourself, I can say that it is a moment that would contain an emotional familiarity to anyone who has ever spent ample time with a child. Yet, in this case, it is filtered through John Lennon’s unique history. For me, it was a moment so touching in its combined normalcy and wonder that it became the emotional highpoint of the film as it brought all of the threads together beautifully. John Lennon’s life, regardless of how fantastic it was, mirrored all of our lives and he communicate that fact into his songs. His songs were personal and generational. So simple, clear and intrinsic to his life and yet they were universal. His songs are our songs because at their core, and no matter how disturbing some of his subject matter tended to gravitate towards, these are songs of our collective humanity. No wonder the whole world and generation after generation have cherished them so.

Thankfully, “LENNONYC” does not spend much time on his murder, although it is given the proper reverence. This film is a celebration of his life, his work, and his determination to try and live it as honestly as possible, deep flaws and all. While not as expansive as Director Andrew Solt’s excellent documentary “Imagine: John Lennon” (1988), what Michael Epstein has accomplished so wonderfully is to create a lovingly helmed documentary that fans of John Lennon will treasure, savor and hopefully embrace as much as the music and life tha inspired it.

EMANCIPATION: a review of "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest"

“THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNET’S NEST”
Based upon the novel by Stieg Larsson
Screenplay Written by Ulf Rydberg and Jonas Frykberg
Directed by Daniel Alfredson
***1/2 (three and a half stars)

Noomi Rapace is a wonder!

As the lithe, moody, embattled computer hacker Lisbeth Salander, Rapace has created, over the course of three films, an embodiment of a literary character that is nothing less than definitive. In “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest,” Director Daniel Alfredson’s adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s final installment of his “Millennium trilogy,” all of Lisbeth’s demons rise to the surface and threaten to swallow her completely as she is awaiting trial for the three murders for which she was framed in the previous film. It is a provocative cauldron that boils over into not only a highly effective and involving thriller, but “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest” is a enormously sweeping conclusion to an excellent film series.

Beginning mere moments after Lisbeth Salander’s brutal physical and psychological pummeling in the devastating climax of “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” we find our anti-heroine being whisked by helicopter to a hospital for an extended convalescence under the caring, watchful eye of Dr. Jonasson (Askel Morisse), as she awaits the aforementioned trial. As she heals, investigative journalist Mikael Blomkvist (again strongly portrayed by Michael Nyqvist), is intensely attempting to devote the entirety of Millennium, his political magazine, to the support and full release of Lisbeth by bringing down the newly dubbed “The Sector,” a secretive alliance within Sweden’s secret police who has controlled a political conspiracy for the past 40 plus years.

Of course, with the hornet’s nest of corruption effectively and deeply disturbed, these now elderly, ailing criminals will not rest easily. Lisbeth and Blomkvist’s adversaries include, but are not limited to, the repellently insidious Dr. Peter Teleborian (Anders Ahlbom), who “cared” for Lisbeth during her pre-adolescent imprisonment at St. Stephen’s mental institution. Niedermann (Micke Spreitz), the silent, hulking blond assassin who carries a special bond with Lisbeth and Zalachenko (Georgi Staykov), the Russian defector who is recovering in the same hospital as Lisbeth and also carries an even greater bond to her. As Blomkvist grows closer to revealing the truth, the walls of Lisbeth’s tragic life converge even tighter, threatening not only her long deserved emancipation from the stranglehold of the dark forces that have surrounded her life since childhood, but also her very survival.

If “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and “The Girl Who Played With Fire,” were both brooding, intense explorations of exposition and tension, then “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest” is provides an even more intense and excellent release. Alfredson, who also helmed the excellent previous installment, keeps the story flowing grimly and thoroughly, that by film’s end, no stone has been left unturned, all plot threads have been effectively completed, and I left the theater wanting for nothing more as I had been deeply satisfied. In addition to being an expertly conceived and executed journalistic thriller, aided by some of the strongest and most realistic usages of computer technology I have seen in the movies, the film (and the series as a whole) functions greatly as a societal meditation on vengeance, imprisonment, freedom, survival, and the obsessions that compel and drive us. Yet, for this final chapter, what struck me was the film’s themes of fragility, empathy and one’s self-perceived sense of weakness that occurs when asking for and receiving help.

Over the course of two films, we have been given a front row seat into Lisbeth’s dark life and how she has been endlessly manipulated and controlled by one sinister guiding force after another. Her survival instincts have obviously remained strong as she has been forced to burrow deeply within herself to discover (and sometimes re-invent) levels of resiliency and resolve just to successfully circumvent her stream of tormentors. What has been most remarkable about Lisbeth Salander is her ability to retain a sense of morality and justice. Even when she is at her most unforgiving, she somehow possesses restraint and a certain unwillingness to cross certain boundaries.

In “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest,” Lisbeth is incapacitated, first in a hospital and secondly inside a prison cell, and forced to receive as much assistance as she is able, a situation she is understandably unaccustomed, and especially not the dogged determination of Blomkvist, her obvious soul mate within this saga. It may be an odd suggestion to say that for a film series this violent, sadistic and severe, “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest” also, and surprisingly, functions as a love story! Finally, there are others to rally around Lisbeth, to elicit protection and provide solace from her doctor, who consistently keeps the authorities at bay; Annika (Annika Hallin), her steadfast attorney, to Plague (Tomas Kohler), an underground computer hacker who receives and distributes crucial information to Blomkvist, and the staff of Millennium, with Blomkvist leading the crusade. All of these characters exist to provide Lisbeth with a societal counterpoint to the only life she has known. They all serve to open a window into a new world of tolerance, especially as Lisbeth (and the audience) has been given a window into a world where the cycle of abuse is not simply internal but institutionalized.

To save and to allow oneself to be saved is the lifeline between Lisbeth and Blomkvist and it has made for one of the most powerfully heartfelt screen duos in recent years. As I stated in my reviews of the previous films, for two actors who barely share any scenes together, the twosome strike a profoundly moving connection with each other. After seeing patches of her disturbing history in the previous two films, the full and complete arc of Lisbeth Slander is revealed in this act and Rapace’s performance is nothing short of remarkable. If she were eligible to receive an Oscar nomination for her work, it would be a highly deserved form of recognition and I cannot express my admiration for her enough. Rapace accomplishes a world of emotions by actually doing so very little! Remember, for most of “The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest,” she is out of action, either tucked away for rehabilitation in a hospital or awaiting trial in a cell. That said, she is no passive hand-wringer either as her mind is blazingly clear and racing to figure out ways to keep her head above water, especially as her inner demons threaten to engulf her. Oh but when she arrives for the film’s courtroom sequence in the film’s final third, dressed to the hilt in full S&M leather garbed regalia, she is armed for the battle of her life and the sight is electrifying!

Yet for all of the attention Rapace is receiving for her work, I would hate for the performance of Michael Nyqvist as Blomkvist to go unnoticed as it is indeed the less flashy role. Nyqvist coveys the absolute definition of “rock steady” as he embodies the type of hero I would think that any one of us would love to have in our corners on our respective behalves. He is thorough and obsessive in his pursuits to the point of being nearly devotional. And like Rapace, Nyqvist never overplays one moment. His silences and lack of histrionics draw you in, desiring to see the inner workings of this virtuous individual. Yes, Liam Neeson is a good choice for the American remakes being helmed by Director David Fincher, but for me, Michael Nyqvist has created a screen version of a literary character that is as equally definitive as Rapace’s. The two are beautifully symbiotic.

And now, the trilogy is complete and what a pleasure it was to have had the opportunity to see all three original films within the space of a few months. For fans of the original novels and for complete novices to this enterprise like myself, I strongly urge you to go out support this series. I do realize that there may be some of you who are just not interested in foreign films and reading subtitles. I do understand the extra attention that places upon viewers when they simply want to be entertained with a good story. But, as I have stated before, that while I feel confident that Fincher just may be able to craft a great movie from this material, I just do not see the point when we already have three excellent features ready for anyone who is willing to watch them.

Yes, the American version(s) will have more recognizable actors, a much larger budget and potentially no subtitles but none of those elements can erase the cinematic gold we have here.

CRUISE CONTROL: a review of "Knight and Day"

"KNIGHT AND DAY"
Screenplay Written by Patrick O'Neill
Directed by James Mangold
** (two stars)

I think Tom Cruise has received a raw deal.

In the arena of public opinion over the course of the last five years, Tom Cruise has taken a beating resulting in diminishing box office receipts and even the amount of films he has even appeared in. I honestly cannot understand why the hatred and venom has reached, and maintained, to such an intense degree. When looking at the exploits of celebrities in our current culture, what Tom Cruise has done is relatively minor and in my eyes, not worthy of the disgust I have heard in the voices of every day people, primarily women, when they say, “I will NEVER see one of his movies ever again!!” Let’s see, this is what we know, he jumped on a couch and said some truly unsympathetic and stupid remarks (which he has long apologized for) to Matt Lauer…in 2005. Wasn't that it? (Let's not even get into Scientology because it really doesn't matter anyway.) In comparison, Mel Gibson went on a variety of drunken, sexist, racist rants, the kind of which he should never recover from but it seems that people are still willing to perhaps give him a pass where Cruise continues to receive no sense of public forgiveness.

Now, dear readers, this preamble is not designed for any of you to pull out your collective of tiny violins and play a mournful tune for the public descent of Tom Cruise. All I am trying to say, is that the level of outrage is something I have never fully been able to comprehend especially as he has continued to be one of the few mega stars who continuously delivers with his performances, takes creative risks and absolutely never phones in the work. He is as committed to the craft and joy of movie making as he has ever been.

Since 1996, he has shown growth through giving rich, soulful performances in challenging material. Additionally, he has been able to command the respect of top filmmakers from no less than the late Stanley Kubrick (1999’s “Eyes Wide Shut”), Paul Thomas Anderson (1999’s “Magnolia”), Cameron Crowe (1996’s “Jerry Maguire” and 2001’s “Vanilla Sky”), Steven Spielberg (2002’s “Minority Report” and 2005’s “War Of The Worlds”), Edward Zwick (2003’s “The Last Samurai”), and Michael Mann (2004’s “Collateral”). Since his public fall, his 2006 third installment of his “Mission: Impossible” series, directed by J.J. Abrams, was easily the best chapter. He even took on a critically well received smaller role as a Republican senator in Robert Redford’s uneven political diatribe, 2007’s “Lions For Lambs.” Yet, it was Cruise’s masterful (and masked) comedic role in Ben Stiller’s Tropic Thunder” (2007) that surprisingly afforded him a bit of a reprieve, that didn’t last terribly long. Yes, yes, yes…I know, enough with the filmography. But, I, again am trying to illustrate ad showcase the work, the determination and the quality of what he has continued to deliver to audiences.

So, now, we arrive with Director James Mangold’s “Knight and Day,” a serviceable and entertaining action comedy that will undoubtedly not do terribly much to ingratiate Cruise back into the hearts of moviegoers or alter anyone’s perceptions about him as he plays yet another cocksure whirlwind of a man, who flashes that megawatt smile any chance that he is able. I am certain that people will perceive this role as yet another blast to a massive ego desperate to win back the hearts of former fans. That may possibly be true, but with Cruise, there is almost always something else at hand. And while I do think that “Knight and Day” is perhaps a bit more clever than it appears to be, it is ultimately a MOR movie, one that does work very hard to actually achieve so very little.

Cameron Diaz reunites with Cruise for the first time since “Vanilla Sky” as June Haver, a small town woman who lovingly restores classic cars, on her way back home to Boston from Wichita and in preparation for her sister’s wedding. Unbeknownst to June, is that she is being watched closely by Roy Miller (Cruise) a super secret agent on the run. After two “unplanned” meetings in the Wichita airport, the two find themselves upon the same airplane and begin to engage in a budding attraction and charming back and forth chat about themselves and their life’s aspirations. Excusing herself to the bathroom to freshen up, Miller is immediately attacked by a collective of agents out to kill him. Miller effectively dispenses with all of the agents, including both pilots, leaving him and June to crash land the plane in a cornfield. Thus begins the globetrotting adventure of June and Roy. Filled with drugged separations, wild reunions, shoot-outs, explosions, chases, chases and more chases as they both perilously evade the team of agents led by FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald (Peter Saarsgard) and the minions of a Spanish arms dealer (Jordi Molla), as they are all in pursuit of a mysterious device known only as “The Zephyr.” And certainly, romance in the air yet will they survive their adventure in order to bring it to fruition?

From the start, “Knight and Day” is a high octane, extremely fast placed escapade completely filled with jovial spirits, a light touch and not one mean spirited bone in its body. Mangold, who has previously helmed the Oscar nominated Johnny Cash biopic “Walk The Line” (2005) and the Western “3:10 To Yuma” (2007), shows that he is more than able to handle all of the fleet of foot pyrotechnics with considerable skill (a motorcycle chase through a herd of bulls, for instance, is a highlight). Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz again show exactly why they are movie stars of their particular stature as they continue to show terrific chemistry and a remarkable ease with each other while making the preposterous situations move along in a breezy fashion.

But it is those preposterous situations that may be the film’s secret weapon (and eventual undoing-more of that later). Mangold, Cruise and Diaz inject sprinkles of sly comedy throughout “Knight and Day” that just may be slightly more subtle than one would expect with a film this busy. In addition to the dialogue that does indeed contain a certain wit, the film, as a whole, seems to be a spoof of spy movies and cataclysmic summer films in general while even playing with Cruise’s own “Mission: Impossible” series, on-screen image and public perception. Every situation is implausible, contrived, ridiculous and yes…impossible and knowingly so. The film seems to revel in just how many unreal situations it can place June and Roy into and again, with its light touch, there’ s never any real sense of danger or that something terribly awful will happen. We are meant to sit back and just enjoy the ride.

As for the character of Roy Miller, he is the eternal, over-achieving Boy Scout turned superhero who even proclaims that he could dismantle a bomb with a paper clip and a box of Pop Tarts (or something else that foolish and meant to evoke every television and movie super spy you’ve ever seen). But, what makes Miller interesting, as well as a clever conceit to any people’s perceptions of Tom Cruise, is that there is always the question that he is half-mad and so arrogantly in love with his handsomeness, skills and charm that it can easily save the day but may actually work against any lasting success. Sound familiar? There seems to be yet another perception that Cruise is a humorless sort as he has attempted to closely guard his image for so many years. But, he does seem to be wiling, to a degree, to poke holes in his own balloon and in the case of “Knight and Day,” it does add to the fun.

Unfortunately, none of those qualities are remotely enough as the film never goes anywhere, despite all of the locales and environments it places June and Roy into. I have to say that I felt a certain fatigue settle in around the middle of the film, as it was being slowly revealed to me that this movie just didn’t have a real destination. My mind turned, quite often, to Robert Zemeckis’ classic “Romancing The Stone” (1984), another implausible action romantic comedy starring Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, which has endured over the years due to the affection that was built between the audience and the characters they played. Their incredible celebrity and chemistry just wasn’t enough to stand on its own. They worked so diligently at the service of a story and characters that had a progressive arc to follow. We had the opportunity to experience Turner’s journey from a mousy wallflower romance writer to an independent, gusty, sexual adult woman of action. We watched Douglas’ journey from heartless mercenary to someone more giving and collaborative. And, of course, their individual journeys melded with their own romantic journey as they also evaded bullets, precarious rope bridges, shoot outs, mudslides and so on.

With “Knight and Day,” the two characters of June and Roy are not drawn so fully or even that well. The action begins at a fever pitch and remains there for the entire proceedings. There is no progression to the story and adventure at all and since there’s nothing to build, and no characters to become invested in, then what the point? If the filmmakers just wanted to create a film that could coast on the star power wattage of Cruise and Diaz, then that’s just not enough, no matter how much fun and skill they have placed into it. There is no emotional connection to be had and by the film‘s end, it just becomes the exact type of mindless summer movie it seems to be parodying. And most unfortunately, it nearly becomes just as unmemorable as those films too.

But, as I stated at the outset of this review, “Knight and Day” certainly isn’t lazy, as it works like the devil to ensure that audiences will be entertained with all of the action and verbal fireworks. Again, no matter how impressive it all looks, it is always, always, always about characters and story, which this film has decided to place upon the back burner in order to showcase the power of celebrity. And considering the massive distaste for Tom Cruise these days, that makes this film quite the misfire.

I’m still rooting for Tom Cruise to make that picture that will ingratiate himself positively into audience’s good graces and witness his immense and often overlooked talent. But sadly, this is not the film to achieve that goal.

CHOICES, CONSEQUENCES AND THE VAMPIRE GIRL: a review of "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse"

"THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE"
Based upon the novel by Stephenie Meyer
Screenplay Written by Melissa Rosenberg
Directed by David Slade
** 1/2 (two and a half stars)

Dear readers, I am certain that you will not believe what I am about to announce to you. “The Twilight Saga: Eclipse,” the third installment of the film adaptations of Stephenie Meyers blockbuster novel series, is not only a massive improvement over Director Chris Weitz’s shockingly dreadful adaptation of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon” (2009), the series’ second installment. It is also and easily the best of the film versions thus far. Now before any of you think that I have become a convert and will pledge my allegiance to either “Team Edward” or “Team Jacob,” don’t hold your collective breaths. My praise, while true, is about a hair above faint as this series, as a whole, is just not designed to meet my particular sensibilities. In particular, there is the matter of the film’s love triangle, which has only continued to grow even more wearisome and torpid at the exact point when it should be accelerating, deepening and broadening in romantic scope and passion. It is difficult to become emotionally invested in a love story when the actors at the center are collectively unable to bring it to wrenching heights in any way, thus hurting the film and keeping the romance as painfully trite and ridiculous as ever. But somehow, someway, "Eclipse" did not speed off of the tracks entirely as I was astonishingly entertained from time to time.

Tension and trouble are mounting in Forks, WA as Bella Swan (again played by Kristen Stewart) approaches her high school graduation. Reunited with her star-crossed vampire love Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) after the events of their separation in “New Moon,” Bella is surprised with a marriage proposal. However, all is not blissful in Bella’s world as she is still being pursued by the ferociously vengeful vampire Victoria (now played by Bryce Dallas Howard), who holds her responsible for the death of her true love in the first film. Additionally, a new series of murders have gripped Seattle, placing the authorities in a fevered search for the killer but, the entire Cullen family suspects the creation of a reckless (and extremely hungry) sect of newborn vampires. Amidst all of the supernatural turmoil, lie the affairs of the heart as Bella is placed squarely in the middle of a love triangle as she is forced to choose between Edward and face her true feelings for Jacob (Taylor Lautner), the perpetually shirtless teen werewolf.

“The Twilight Saga: Eclipse” has been extremely fortunate to enlist the directorial hand of David Slade, most known for a bleak Alaskan set vampire thriller “30 Days Of Night” (2007). Slade is easily the strongest director of this series to date and he gives this third installment its most accomplished visual presentation with a slick, silver sheen always suggesting the constant chilly rainfall of the Pacific Northwest. Slade also allows the series to have its first real pangs of haunted house fear as sadistic vampires await unsuspecting victims deep within the shadows. This is also the first film in the series for me that has been able to plunge more successfully within its primary themes of love and romance as several characters surrounding the love triangle explore the choices, consequences and real emotional disorder that arrives once the reality of love eclipses the fantasy. But, most unfortunately, there is that aforementioned love triangle to not only deal with but to struggle to endure.

As I have stated in both of my previous reviews for “Twilight” and “New Moon,” I have not read Stephenie Meyer’s series and I do not plan to. To be fair to the original source material, I can only give the benefit of the doubt as to its romantic power which continues to have an impressive stronghold over millions upon millions of readers. That said, whatever may be working on the page continues to refuse to work for me on the screen for two gigantic reasons.

The first is the simple fact that the movie grinds, I mean grinds, to a halt whenever it shifts its focus to the love story as Pattinson, Lautner and especially Stewart are tremendously weak actors who are unable to convince, for even one moment, that they understand the emotional mine fields of first love, unrequited love, sexual desires and pressure, and rejection. Lautner is all huffing and puffing and acting solely through his abs while Pattinson remains chilly, distant and acts solely through his tilted head, hairstyle and pasty makeup.

As with “New Moon,” the greatest and weakest link of the series is the character of Bella Swan as played by Kristen Stewart. The character of Bella Swan is a wish fulfillment fantasy gone amok as, once again, everyone’s lives in the entire movie revolves, in some way, around Bella’s existence. Everyone is worrying about Bella, concerned about Bella, fighting for or over her. Or they are envious of her and even if they detest her, Bella is the solitary thought consuming their passion and venom. Even an inter species war between vampires and the tenuous formation of a truce between a sect of vampires and werewolves is due to Bella. And when it is all said and done, she's not worth it as Bella remains an unappreciative, selfish, narcissistic, self-absorbed brat who always wants what she can’t have and doesn’t want what she can have.

Near the end of the film when Bella explains to Edward that this stage of their romantic experience was not about her choosing between him and Jacob but about choosing what kind of a person she wants to be upon her personal road of self-discovery, I vehemently guffawed, “HOGWASH!!” Bella is too egocentric to even ponder a road to enlightenment and she uses the two boys as emotional/sexual playthings, loving every moment they threaten to tear each other apart over her. She’s just sickening and I cannot understand what her appeal is beyond the first film.

Again, I have to give a certain benefit of the doubt to the novel as whatever virtuous qualities Bella Swan may possess within the books is just completely not served in any discernible way by Kristen Stewart, who again shows that she is just incapable of carrying an entire movie on her shoulders. Believe me, dear readers, I am not attempting to be irresponsibly mean or clever to a sinister degree. but, I’m sorry, it is a terrible, terrible performance. Stewart creates no empathy as she carries one, singular expression upon her face and voices every situation with the same bored, flat, falsely superior monotone. She has no range of emotions. No subtlety. No sense of dynamics and no layers. Frankly, Edward and Jacob should do themselves considerable favors and leave her behind for two other young women who can suit their needs more successfully.

It’s too late now, but I could not help but to wonder if someone else in the role would make her spring to life as a heroine to root for. Like Emma Stone, perhaps. Or even the sharp Anna Kendrick, who appears in the series once again as Bella’s classmate and school valedictorian, Jessica. Kendrick arrives in, I believe, only two scenes within this installment and when she does appear, the movie sparks to life. She is someone I could believe these two boys would fall all over themselves to fight and risk their lives for as she conveys type of quick wit, intelligence, perceptiveness, and sexual charisma that Bella needs and that Stewart just is not providing at all.

Yet, Ms. Kendrick remains upon the periphery of the film’s main event and surprisingly, it was exactly the events on the periphery that attracted me to this storyline in ways the two previous chapters had not. As I stated earlier, “Eclipse” gives ample time for characters to demonstrate the deeper truths of love to Bella as she single-mindedly marches towards her desired destiny to become a vampire and leave all that she has ever known behind forever. In addition to Jacob, who proclaims that she would never have to change for him, and a fireside werewolf history lesson describing the sacrifices of love, we are given darker, tormented and highly engaging back stories to two members of Edward’s clan. We are shown Jasper’s (Jackson Rathbone) Civil War set transformation and most compelling is Rosalie’s (Nikki Reed) violently tragic downfall and unrepentant revenge after her transformation into vampire. Both of their back stories are more interesting than any one moment seen between Bella, Edward and Jacob so much so that I would have rather seen a film featuring the evolution of Rosalie instead.

The third time around the “Twilight” world also revealed a deeper interest in Bella’s Father, the reticent police officer Charlie Swan (Billy Burke). He often reminds me of a younger Tom Skerritt, the strong, silent type who houses an impenetrable and sorrowful melancholy hinted at in the previous two chapters but explored a tad more in “Eclipse.” Charlie is the embodiment of love gone wrong (due to his failed marriage to Bella's Mother), love tested (in regards to his impetuously inconsiderate daughter) and love faithfully steadfast. Each and every time he appeared on screen, I wanted to know more of his inner world and secret hurts, again preferring a film about him than the three dishrags we are strapped against.

Additionally, I have to give special mention to Bryce Dallas Howard, who also provides the film with a sexual energy the three leads lack and the CGI heavy battles between werewolves and a newborn vampire army gives the film an adventurous and exciting kick in the pants.

Before I close this review, i would like to engage you with a little tale.

This summer, when "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" was released in theaters, I was accosted upon my school playground by a gaggle of grade school girls excitedly asking me if I was a member of either "Team Edward" or "Team Jacob"! After wondering just why oh why did they ask me, the only male teacher in a sea of female teachers this very question, I began to joke with this one 9 year old girl in particular about the upcoming conclusion to the series. She expressed with uncontained fervor that she could not wait for the final instalment, "Breaking Dawn," to hit theaters. I asked her if she wanted to know what happened and of course, she squealed, YES!!!" So, I patiently explained to her that Bella, finally tiring of all of the vampire drama with Edward decides to break up with him and the story concludes as she takes up a new relationship with the high school janitor.

"She does what?!" she asked with a blank stare.

"Yes, she takes up with the school janitor," I deadpanned.

"But, aren't janitors all old and stuff?" she asked, completely confused.

"Well..if you really look at Edward, he's really over 100 years old and the janitor is actually about 22, so at least Bella is a bit closer to her own age. With him, she enjoys the quiet life after all of this adventure and that's how the story ends."

The girl walked away from me silently and in utter disbelief. Do not worry, dear readers, as her posse immediately assured her that I was pulling her leg and they immediately spent much of the summer proclaiming their undying love for Edward or Jacob or for both.

Look, I will be the first to acknowledge that I am looking at this film with more of a critical eye than necessary as that anecdote explains exactly who these movies and stories are made for. But, again, Meyer's novels and these three films have tapped into something within viewers of all ages and because of that, I do think it is more than fair to look a little deeper at what is being served.

At the core, "The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" is the story of a bizarre and painful love triangle which fails due to the thinness of the actors asked to play a variety of emotions they are not able to deliver. But thanks to David Slade, who not only tries his best to keep the action and events moving at a higher intensity, he thankfully grounds the story with weightier material and surrounds the central trio with a tale that reveals, for the first time, the realities of love.

A revelation this series desperately needs as it heads into its final laps.

SAVAGE CINEMA'S COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR DECEMBER 2010

With the whirlwind of the holidays approaching rapidly, I hope that I am able to keep up.

1. I still have yet to view "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest," which has very recently arrived in Madison.

2. The ballet themed psychological thriller "Black Swan," the latest film from Director Darren Aronofsky and starring Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis is at center of my cinematic cross hairs.

3. While I have not been terribly excited with his last few releases, and I keep wishing for a film on the level of "Broadcast News" (1987), this month will also see the return of Writer/Producer/Director James L. Brooks with his latest romantic comedy "How Do You Know."

4. On the other hand, I could not be any more anxious for "Somewhere," the new film from Writer/Director Sofia Coppola.

5. And then, I have to get myself to "True Grit," the new film from Joel and Ethan Coen, reportedly adhering closer to the original novel rather than the John Wayne western classic.

6. And YOU KNOW, that the people must step aside for me to get my ticket to see "Tron: Legacy"!!!

Lots to see and never enough time. But, I'll do my best--for myself and for you, my dear readers who have sustained me throughout this process.

I'll see you when the house lights go down!