Chef

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jon Favreau Starring: Jon Favreau, John Leguizamo, Bobby Cannevale, Dustin Hoffman, Scarlett Johansson, Sofia Vergara, Robert Downey Jr., Oliver Platt and Emjay Anthony

Directed and scripted by Jon Favreau, Chef is a likeable movie about a chef named Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) who loses his prestigious position in a successful L.A. restaurant after inadvertantly tweeting an angry response to a negative review, which goes viral. The fallout from the angry, crude, tweet leads to a confrontation with the restaurant owner Riva (Dustin Hoffman), who rebuffs Carl's attempt to rework the menu to show the critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt) he is better than the staid fare that has remained virtually unchanged for years. Carl quits on the night the reviewer returns; leaving his loyal allies in the kitchen to take over. Still incensed over the critic's scathing review, Carl returns to the restaurant to confront Michel and in doing so, vents his rage in an explosive manner that also goes viral; reducing him to a hero/fool figure on the web.

If jeopardizing his reputation and career isn't enough, Carl has to deal with his diminished role as father in his son's life. His son (a charming Emjay Anthony) Percy contends with his parent's divorce as he longs to spend more time with his father, who always seems to have restaurant-related matters pending. Carl maintains a very friendly relationship with his ex-wife Inez (played by the ravishing Sofia Vergara), who is very supportive of Carl but recogizes his sometimes negligent approach to fatherhood. Though Carl and Inez are divorced, there remains a flicker of rapprochement in their relationship

Carl finds very few job offers in unemployment and his frayed relationship with his son doesn't help. Inspired by his ex-wife's repeated exhortations to buy a food truck, which she believes would help Carl establish his culinary freedom, Inez suggests he approach her ex-ex-husband Marvin (Robert Downey Jr.) in Florida for financial backing--an awkward proposition at best.

Looking to form a stronger bond with his son and secure financial backing for his new venture, Carl flies to Miami with Inez and Percy in tow. The trip is also an opportunity for Inez to return to her Cuban roots and also visit her father.

During a dinner with Inez's father over Cuban sandwiches, the idea to serve Cuban food from his truck is hatched. Following a strange meeting with Inez's other ex-husband Marvin, which stokes jealous fires in Carl, he comes away with the backing he needs and in doing so, buys a truck he and his son refurbish.

The scenes where the truck undergoes cosmetic and interior changes show the ever-emerging bond between Carl and Percy. Carl learns to be more patient with his son while also teaching him food preparation basics. Because Percy is on school-break, he is allowed to accompany his father on the return journey to L.A. in the food truck. Joining them is Martin (John Leguizamo), who served faithfully on Carl's staff in the restaurant. The three make for a fun, lively trio as they stop in various towns and cities en route to L.A. With Carl's fame/infamy in the cyberworld, and Percy's savvy social media skills, the truck and the crew attract crowds wherever they stop. Even a cop who asks them to move the truck recognizes Carl, which leads to a celebrity-like request for photos.

Of course the father/son relationship is mended and in the process, Carl is able to communicate his passion for food and how it touches people's lives after a scene where Percy carelessly burns a sandwich.

The film's direction and how we get there aren't revelations but Favreau's characters are magnetic; they make for excellent company. The story is pretty wispy; the crises seem to be milder than they appear and a happy ending is never in doubt. Still, one can never underestimate Favreau's charm. He is so likeable, it would be impossible not to sympathize with any character he plays. If Favreau played Joseph Stalin, we might reconsider the tyrant's historical reputation and think his crimes against humanity minor peccadilloes. I would have liked to have seen more of the incredible cast Favreau assembled but it's his movie though we are treated to the likes of Vergara and Leguizamo for generous chunks of screentime.

I would also have liked the film to be funnier but its laid-back approach to finding humor in situations does quite nicely too. Of course a movie that deals with food must consider anything edible as a character. Chef succeeds ably in that department. I would advise anyone to avoid eating until after a screening. I made the mistake watching the film on a full stomach and wasn't able to fully enjoy the mouth-watering food on display. Succulent meats, sandwiches dripping with melted cheeses, buttery breads, beignets from the world-famous Cafe du Monde in New Orleans and even a tantalizing grilled cheese sandwich Carl fashions for his son rouse the salivary gland.

Chef is a fun trifle; an enjoyable romp that melds two disparate genres we may not have seen onscreen before; a food film and road movie. The film is as substantial as mist but it satisifies--like something savory from a food-truck grill.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

**Some Spoilers, but not many**

Director: Bryan Singer/Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Ellen Page and Peter Dinklage

Days of Future Past...hmmm, isn't that the title of a Moody Blues album? Uh, never mind. The latest X-men iteration is upon us; this time combining the "old" and "new" casts though what those designations mean character-wise is subject to the audience's point-of-view.

I was able to breathe a sigh of relief upon exiting the theater; Marvel Entertainment finally came through with a terrific super-hero film, which builds upon the equally terrific X-Men: First Class. Though the new cast; James McAvoy, Michael Fassbinder, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult occupy most of screentime in X-Men: Days of Future Past, the old cast returns, sharing the latest adventure. Wolverine acts as sort of a liason between the old and new and by now Hugh Jackman can play this role in a coma. But he hasn't taken his character for granted; offering a marvelous performance and his signature rippling torso, bursting with vascularity.

I won't offer a complete synopsis because I would rather spend more time mentioning what I liked about the film, which was nearly everything.

Mankind is threatened and mostly conquered by what are called Sentinels; robots with mutant DNA, specifically Raven/Mystique's (Jennifer Lawrence). How did such a thing happen? Back in the early 70s', a mutant-hating scientist named Dr. Bolivar Trask (an excellent Peter Dinklage) designs robots to combat what he believes is a mutant menace. Raven/Mystique, wise to Trasks's research and agenda, tracks him down and kills him but in doing so, is captured. Her DNA, bone marrow, and other bodily contents are utilized in his robot-design, which make them nearly invincible. The Sentinels can not only identify mutants, but can effectively neutralize them with near impunity.

The film begins with scenes of urban darkness; the aftermath of Sentinel domination. Only a small unit of mutants hold out in remote China. Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan) both hatch a plan that will send Wolverine's consciousness back in time via Kitty Pride's (Ellen Page) time-bending powers. His mission is to find both the younger versions of the Professor and Magneto and convince them that Raven's assassination attempt on Trask must be stopped, thereby denying him access to mutant DNA. Plenty of obstacles present themselves, and an effective ticking clock is employed to ratchet up the tension. In the the future, the Sentinels have discovered the mutant hide-out and threaten both the future and past Wolverine's mission. Very exciting stuff.

The screenplay by Simon Kinberg and story by Jane Goldman are inventive, intricate, intense, rich in character development and spare no opportunities for humor.

For once, CGI doesn't play an exclusive role in the visuals but are used sparingly and effectively; serving the story rather than smothering it. The actors are allowed to act, to explore their characters, rather than just react to a green-screen.

The acting, as one would expect, is top-notch, which is what one would expect from such an exceptional cast. McAvoy and Fassbender scintillate as Professor X and Magneto, particularly in an airplane scene where X accuses Magneto of ruining his life while Magneto accuses X of abandoning the mutants. Fassbender allows his character to be angry without spilling all his rage; he holds some in reserve behind his taut jaw and saber-gaze. McAvoy's X is a blend of wavering confidence and fear of his own powers, which gives his hero more depth. Jennifer Lawrence is an actress that seems to fail at nothing. She gives Raven/Mystique an edgy determination and it is always thrilling to see her character onscreen. But it is the small role of Evan Peters' Quicksilver that presents the film its memorable, mutant jester. Quicksilver seems more trickster than hero and the scene where he directs the bullets and aggression of a security force away from the other mutants is deliriously entertaining and funny. That it all plays out to Jim Croce's Time in a Bottle makes it all the more inspired.

By now Bryan Singer has earned his super-hero movie bona-fides but he doesn't Tweet his effort in. He demonstrates the new X-Men franchise is one Marvel series that deserves some longevity. It is inspired from opening to closing credits and it is one of the very few super-hero movies I can honestly say I would pay to see again. I hope Hollywood is taking note; (though it doesn't really care if their product has charm; the bottom-line is king) X-Men: Days of Future Past provides instruction on superhero-movie-making how-to. We'll see if they can recreate the magic in the next installment, which was hinted at the end of the closing credits. We'll see, indeed.

Flickread: The Friedkin Connection

by William Friedkin
512 pages.
2013


William Friedkin's career in film has seen dizzying heights and abysmal depths but in spite of his diminished reputation in 21st century Hollywood, Friedkin's best work remains phenomenal and enduring while many lesser films, like The Guardian, don't reflect his ability to dredge humanity for its darkness and moral frailties. Even some of his failures are more interesting than many successful director's triumphs. In a career spanning 50 years, Friedkin has given us the ragged streets of New York in The French Connection, the terrifying possession of a 12-year-old girl in The Exorcist, a rogue-ish FBI agent hell-bent on arresting a counterfeiter in To Live and Die in L.A. and a psychotic Texan law-enforcement officer who moonlights as a killer for hire in Killer Joe, all of which reflect a career far from the vast ocean of ordinary that grips the movie industry.

Friedkin's 2013 memoir; The Friedkin Connection is a cinephile's feast. Biographical details of his life as a son of Russian Jewish immigrants raised in working class Chicago give way to a fascinating history of his professional career. Told in unfussy, direct prose, Friedkin's memoir doesn't avoid his messy personal life; several divorces, ruined friendships, relationships, several near-fatal heart-attacks but he doesn't dwell on the personal details either. His book is what film-lovers crave: making-of, behind the scene accounts of how the films for which Friedkin earned international renown were conceived, made, marketed and were received by critics and audiences alike. Like the gifted filmmaker Friedkin is (was?), he knows how to tell great stories, of which his book contains ship-loads.

Friedkin doesn't waste any time in divulging his many personal and professional failings, how he screwed up friendships, burned bridges, infuriated those around him and often took people for granted. He is honest and straightforward but he doesn't fritter time away on soap opera-like dramas off-screen. He is painfully honest about how his career faltered after the 70s' and how the directorial offers began to thin. He is grateful to still find work and occasionally he shows his burning, creative flame still flickers in films like Bug and Killer Joe.

Friedkin's life in 1940s' and 1950s' Chicago was anything but crepe suzette; his father sold men's clothes while his mother supported him as a nurse following his father's passing. After an undistinguished high school life and no college ambitions, Friedkin found a job in a local Chicago T.V. station mailroom, which eventually evolved into a job in the studio, which in turn led to his first directorial job.

A chance encounter at a party inspires Friedkin to conceive a T.V. documentary about an african-american man on death-row who he and many others believed was innocent called The People vs Paul Crump. Friedkin's film won an award at a San Francisco film festival and flush with modest success, was able to direct another documentary for the small screen called The Bold Men. Friedkin admitted his heart wasn't in the film, which strengthened his resolve to never devote his time to projects for which he had no emotional or creative attachment.

The 60s' found Friedkin behind the camera for more T.V documentaries but also a very brief stint on the Alfred Hitchcock Hour (one episode, really). Friedkin's offbeat direction on the episode Off Season brought him some notoriety but his work remained tethered to the realm of T.V. documentaries until his friendship with singer/songwriter Sonny Bono led to his first feature film effort called Good Times, which was conceived to capitalize on Sonny and Cher's 60s' popularity. The film didn't set the cinematic world alight but Friedkin didn't tarry; he moved on to an adaptation of a Harold Pinter play called The Birthday Party. Pinter was then an emerging talent as a playwright. Friedkin met with Pinter and eventually came to stay with him in his England home while the latter wrote the screen-adapation. Friedkin and Pinter became life-long friends and the collaboration is a creative coup for Friedkin, as the experience allowed him the opportunity to work with another august talent; English actor Robert Shaw. For Friedkin to work with a playwright who was eventually awarded the Nobel Prize would be an achievement for any filmmaker, but Friedkin's star was only just ascending.

Friedkin's Boys in the Band (1970) brought him controversy; the groundbreaking (but mostly forgotten) film's frankness about homosexuality was considered taboo at the time as it depicted a dinner party of gay friends that goes awry when it is discovered a heterosexual is among the invited. The film garnered some positive critical notice and a some award nods but it also demonstrated Friedkin's willingness to provoke and explore what was then shocking subject matter.

Friedkin followed up the film with what would become a timeless, classic thriller: The French Connection. Friedkin's account of it's conception and making is absorbing reading, especially for cinephiles. He shares every pain-staking detail of its creation. We learn the great film was almost aborted due to studios tepid interest in the project. Friedkin in a directorial role was also of no interest to producers while they also held the notion that Gene Hackman in the role of Popeye Doyle seemed more like a liability than a boon. We learn Fernando Rey was "accidentally" cast as the villain Alain Charnier. Friedkin asked for an actor he liked who he had seen in a Bunuel film, only to find Fernando Rey greeting him at the airport. Friedkin was livid; castigating the casting director for hiring the wrong actor but he eventually warmed to Rey as the heavy. It is one of those serendipitous blunders that not only turns out to be a movie-changing choice but makes for a great story and great reading.

It is astonishing to read that the film's iconic car chase scene was largely improvised rather than storyboarded--a testament to Friedkin's inventiveness and his sometimes dangerous filmmaking methods.

The film's success, critically and financially, earned Friedkin much-needed clout and not a little confidence. In fact, Friedkin is keen to point out that the film's success allowed him to present his next film idea to the studios: The Exorcist. For me, the making of Friedkin's most famous film (and my personal favorite of his) is the steak entree of The Friedkin Connection and it is the making-of account to which he devotes most time and words.

An encounter with Exorcist novelist William Peter Blatty years before on another film production led the scribe to present Friedkin with his hugely succesful novel as a possible film adaptation. It is fascinating to learn the novel itself might have mouldered in obscurity if not for Blatty being cast as a guest replacement on the Dick Cavett Show; an appearance that propelled his book to the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. Its success also led to a Hollywood deal with creative control over aspects of the film adaptation. The film essentially became a collaboration between Friedkin and Blatty, who wrote the screenplay and offered the director some guidance and ideas.

I winced, reading of the casting choices for the role of Chris MacNeil: Audrey Hepburn, Jane Fonda and Anne Bancroft. Hepburn asked that the production be moved to Rome, where she was living, to which Friedkin balked. Bancroft was pregnant and asked that the production be delayed a year, which was impossible and Fonda, having read the script, responded with venom; "what is this capitalist, piece of shit?" How Ellen Burstyn, Linda Blair, Jason Miller and Max von Sydow came to be cast reflects Friedkin's loyalty to those he felt were ideal for his creative vision and his daring. Both Blair and Miller were gutsy casting choices, as both were unknowns and untried before a camera. The obstacles in the production, the innovations on the set and ultimately the film's enormous, commercial success round out the filmmaking account. For lovers of the film (like me), it is very satisfying; every detail a prize, every remembrance a ruby.

The book's latter chapters cover his lesser-known films, among them Sorcerer, which has been largely forgotten, and the ill-advised making of Cruising, which may have helped diminish Friedkin's stature in the film industry, which lead to Friedkin's gradual decline as the Hollywood It director to someone struggling to fund a film.

Friedkin is painfully honest about his fall from film empyrean and posits causes though he doesn't delve too deeply. One of his films that has been unjustly overlooked is To Live and Die in L.A.; a movie I believe belongs in the Friedkin pantheon with The French Connection and The Exorcist. It is unfortunate it came along during the hero-in-white hat 80s', because its characters are rich in contradictions and moral ambiguity.

From the 80s' to present, Friedkin has made some interesting failures and modest artistic successes. His latest, 2011's Killer Joe, was unfairly dismissed by critics and the movie-going public alike.

After two failed marriages, Friedkin wedded film producer Sherry Lansing, which seems to be a solid pairing, bringing him happiness and contentment. If making movies has become a struggle, he seems to have found joy and solace in his now settled personal life.

Does he have any great films left in him? Unfortunately, he may not. But with Friedkin, one can never tell. One indisputable fact is his significant contribution to movie history and maybe that's enough. The Friedkin Connection is a must read for cinephiles and the more casual film-lovers. For ardent fans of The French Connection or The Exorcist, it is indispensable.


The Friedkin Connection by William Friedkin

Million Dollar Arm

*Spoiler Alert**

Director: Craig Gillespie, Starring: Jon Hamm, Alan Arkin, Bill Paxton, Lake Bell, Aasif Mandvi, Suraj Sharma

Based on relatively recent events, Million Dollar Arm tells the story of a sports agent named JB (John Hamm), whose agency has seen better days and better clients. JB has just lost a potentially lucrative client; a top NFL linebacker, to a rival agency. Lacking other prospects to represent, JB hatches a scheme to find and train Indian cricket bowlers to become Major League Baseball pitching hopefuls. With the help of a very powerful and wealthy investor, JB, an Indian-American associate named Aash (Aasif Mandvi) and Ray (Alan Arkin), a retired scout whose skepticism is worn on his sleeve, fly to India; their success far from guaranteed.

To facilitate his plan JB creates a show called Million Dollar Arm, where contestants compete by demonstrating powerful arms and fast pitches. The winners are given the chance to travel to America to train and try-out for a spot on a Major League Baseball roster.

JB is courted aggressively by a short, gregarious Indian man named Amit (Pitobash), who claims to be a big baseball fan, though his knowledge of the game is sketchy at best. Offering his services for free, JB takes him on as an assistant and before long, both men and newly arrived Ray begin holding try-outs on the travelling show.

The contestants are a disappointing lot at first; most and almost all demonstrating feeble arm strength. But after a tour of a few cities, JB manages to find a few strong candidates; one of them with a comically unorthodox pitching stance. Ultimately, two winners emerge; Rinku (Life of Pi's Suraj Sharma) and Dinesh (Madhur Mittal).

In scenes sure to stimulate the tear ducts, Rinku and Dinesh say goodbye to their respective families. Rinku's mother asks JB (via Amit's interpretation) to look out for her son, a promise he intends to keep.

Dinesh, Rinku and Amit manage to create trouble for themselves in America when they accidentally set off a fire alarm in their hotel, earning them an ejection from the the place. Unable to place them elsewhere, JB reluctantly takes them into his own home.

The three Indian men find life in JB's home perplexing and the pace hectic. They inquire about his family; an issue JB is only happily to dismiss as something foreign to his bachelor lifestyle. They also find JB's hurry-up, time-management skills more than a little off-putting.
JB makes a deal with a USC baseball coach, Tom House (Bill Paxton)--renowned for his whiz-bang talent for developing pitchers--to bring the two prospects to Major League readiness in a year's time. The time-table is an unreasonable condition imposed by the investor; one both House and JB warily acknowledge.

Dinesh and Rinku find pitching rough-going and show little flair for the finer points but House informs JB that though the two young men have their rough edges, they show determination and genuine ability.

JB meanwhile is ever-menaced by his business' near-insolvency; clients demonstrably lacking. He also begins to put his business pursuits ahead of his relationship with Dinesh and Rinku, who he often neglects. The men find a sympathetic spirit in JB's tenant Brenda (Lake Bell), who is quick to identify the boy's troubles as a lack of care on JB's part; which he begins slowly to address. But later, JB's business and marketing concerns get the better of him as Dinesh and Rinku fail a critical try-out before Major League Scouts. Thinking himself finished, he comes to realize how badly he mistreated both men and Amit, not to mention his prospect-for-love Brenda. Ever tenacious, JB risks everything to give the two Indian pitchers a second try-out in more favorable conditions. Finding no takers and no further financial investment, he manages to find one scout who will give Dinesh and Rinku another shot.

Is Million Dollar Arm formulaic? Definitely. Is it sentimental? You bet. But it also has charm by the ton, which the cast deftly provides. The scenes with Sharma, Pitobash, Mittal and Hamm generate warmth and on-screen chemistry while Lake Bell's quirky sexyness and humor bring a much-needed dose of estrogen to the proceedings. Hamm and Bell are an unlikely pairing but they spark together. Alan Arkin is always fun, and is again as JB's curmudgeonly foil. And for what little time Bill Paxton is on-screen, he makes up for as a very convincing coach who provides compassionate, fatherly guidance to Dinesh and Rinkure as the pressure to succeed mounts.

Is this stellar film-making? This is Disney. Take that how you will. But I must say I had more fun and found more humanity in Million Dollar Arm than the two-hour, insufferable carnage carnival known as Godzilla. The latter gleefully disposes of humans while the former at least reminds us people still populate the planet, and sometimes in funny, touching ways.

Cosmological Cinema: Particle Fever

Director: Mark Levinson

Johns-Hopkins physicist and now film producer David Kaplan brings the historic search for the Higgs Boson particle to the big screen, which might lead a film-goer to ask: how cinema-friendly is particle physics and why would anyone want to watch physicists from around the world gather to view the results of a particle-smashing experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Cern? To answer both questions in turn: 1) apparently very friendly and 2) because it's exciting and worthy of the world's attention. If only physicists and scientists received the media attention showered on clods like the Kardashians, films like Particle Fever might be commonplace but unfortunately 21st century America is light-years from that enlightened attitude.

The Higgs Boson particle was first theorized in 1964 by physicist Peter Higgs but it was only in July of 2012 that its existence was confirmed after a test at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. To fully explain the significance of the discovery and its meaning is beyond my reach so I will include a link at the end of this post.

The film is effective in creating the tension and drama leading up to the experiment, which involved physicists from over 100 countries and technicians by the score. We hear from many physicists from the theoretical side and the experimental. The two camps are aware how mutually dependent they are but one detects a mild, almost sardonic regard the two fields bear for one another. Kaplan himself, with colleague and mentor Nima Arkani-Hamed--both theoretical physicists and academics--discuss the implications of the Collider experiment but the film also shows them in more human moments; playing ping-pong by utilizing a wall rather than a net and discussing the randomness of a university campus sculpture consisting of what looks like small slabs of flagstone.

We also meet many of those involved in the experiment as the big day approaches; a moment watched with bated breath by theoretical and experimental physicists alike, world-wide. One such person is Monica Dunford, an American physicist connected to one of 4 sub-experiments attached to the main particle-smashing event. Dunford discusses how she became involved in the experimental side but we often see her outside the Collider complex, running and biking and engaging in mundane, everyday tasks, which forms a sharp contrast with the abstract (but actually very concrete) world she often explores.

The experiment, after some technical setbacks, proceeds and ultimately succeeds, making front-page headlines world-wide and bringing some well-deserved attention to the extraordinary people who are directly or peripherally involved.

It is explained in the film that two contrasting theories of how the universe is structured would be impacted by the Collider experiment: those who support what is called Supersymmetry and those who support a Multi-verse model (Once again, please refer to links for a better understanding of the two theories). The energy the Higgs-Boson contained would mostly determine which theory offered a more plausible, sub-atomic description of the universe we live in. Theoretical physicists around the world were paying close attention to the data. Unfortunately for both parties, the data didn't support or deny either paradigm.

Watching the film made me wish Particle Fever could be seen on prime-time T.V. If the masses are tuning in to the new Cosmos program, might they also be eager to see Levinson's film? As a friend sitting next to me said, "who would have thought particle physics could be so exciting?" The film also has its touching moments, including the scene when a tearful Peter Higgs is recognized by an auditorium of colleagues and media for his theory; its confirmation only established 50 years after its existence was first proposed! It is certain more implications and discoveries related to the Higgs-Boson particle will be revealed in years to come.

I hope Particle Fever spawns more films in this genre. The world needs them. I also hope the world stays tuned.


Link: Higgs-Boson Particle Supersymmetry

Ida

**Spoiler Alert**

Directed by: Pawel Pawlikowski, Starring: Agata Kulesza and Agata Trzebuchowska

It is unusual to see a black and white film these days but very refreshing. A cynic might scoff; dismissing Pawel Palikowski's aesthetic choice as something pretentious but how else could he capture the stark images and equally stark life of a former orphan now a nun-novitiate in a Polish monastery?

Set in gray, oppressive, 1960s' Poland, Ida tells the story of a young woman named Anna (Agata Trzebuchowska), who is on the path to taking her formal vows as a nun when her aunt--her only living relative--summons her to her apartment in the city. After a few days, her aunt Wanda (Agata Kulesza) explains to Anna that she is Jewish; her parents victims of the Nazi occupation of Poland during WWII. Wanda is keen to express her grief for Anna's mother's death; a loss that has affected her deeply. The two women then embark on a mission to discover Anna's family's past, which involves meeting people who are eager to forget Poland's shameful participation in the Jewish pogroms.

During Anna's stay, Wanda, ever a free spirit, coaxes Anna to join her for an evening at night club where a band belts out pop and jazz numbers. Anna is taken by the band-leader and over time begins a relationship with him.

Over the course of the story, we see Wanda become increasingly distraught over the past. In a scene that is startling for being seemingly mundane, we see Wanda sit at her kitchen table, spreading butter and sprinkling sugar on bread. Shortly after her meal, she turns up the music on her radio, opens the window then steps out to her death. It is unexpected and horrifying and it casts Wanda's acute pain and suffering in sharp, devastating relief.

Kulesza and Trzebuchowska's respective performances are poignant, understated and exceptional. Trzebuchowska's dark, hypnotic eyes, made more so by the contrasting plain, gray habit she wears throughout, assume a character of their own. Their beautiful opaqueness express an innocence, which Trzebuchowska uses to great effect. Kulesza is a marvel. Her character is tough and intimidating to all who would defy her but Wanda is also tortured and ultimately vulnerable. She is a woman with much on her mind though she hardly reveals all of it.

The end can be interepreted any number of ways but it seems logical, though not inevitable. Anna makes a choice and it is one that might be perplexing to the audience. We can understand her decision though it runs contrary to our hopes.

Palikowski's story says so much in so little time. The film seemed to occupy less screen-time than its 80 minute narrative. It isn't a film one will easily forget. Its deceptive simplicity is one of its many attributes, as is its poetic, tragic narrative.

Godzilla

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Gareth Edwards, Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Ken Watanabe, Brian Cranston, Juliette Binoche and Sally Hawkins

Gareth Edwards' Monsters was a strange, creepy aliens-invading-earth film that managed to make a political statement about illegal immigration and execute it with more nuance and drama than Godzilla, his sophomore film feature. Godzilla is more of what summer movie-fare has become: incoherent, thrill-free, CGI-drenched destruction and noise that you wish would end sooner than it does. What is more peculiar than the creatures plodding across the screen is the presence of Juliette Binoche and Sally Hawkins; two fine actresses more accustomed to more demanding characters and scripts. It's a real head-scratcher but actors have to make a living too and both Binoche and Hawkins are probably unaccustomed to earning salaries like those they earned here.

(Brian Cranston) and his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) are engineers for a nuclear facility in Japan (the initial shot of three nuclear silos I'm sure are meant to evoke an uncomfortable image of the Fukushima Plant) when he notices strange seismic readings that go unnoticed by everyone else. Before he can bring this data to anyone's attention, the nuclear plant suffers a major catastrophe; the three silos collapse into the earth. But Joe suffers a greater loss; the loss of his wife to radiation during the accident.

The story leaps ahead 15 years. Brody's son Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has returned to his home in San Francisco after serving in the Army, where he is greeted by his wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and child enthusiastically. He isn't home long before he receives a call from his father, who has been arrested for trespassing on the premises of the former nuclear plant--now off-limits to the public. As Joe awaits bail, Ford flies to Japan to see his father, still haunted by the loss of his wife and still obsessed with the seismic anomaly he discovered years before. Ford, impatient with his father's inability to move on, asks Joe to accompany him back to San Francisco. The father insists he stay to unravel the mystery behind the nuclear plant. Donning protective suits, Joe and son wander through the former plant grounds. Joe then discovers the place isn't the radioactive site the Japanese government would have everyone believe after removing his headgear.

The two are eventually caught and incarcerated near where the government guards something top-secret: a "thing" not of this world, thrusting above the surface. The object begins to move and what it is connected to emerges from beneath the ground; a hulking, multi-storied creature that crawls on all fours (and sometimes flies), which embarks on a destructive ramble through the plant and beyond. In the carnage and chaos, Joe and Ford escape. Once the world learns of the rampage, the American Navy is alerted and assigned the task of confronting the creatures.

We learn the creature is a primordial, dinosaur-like beast who once lived deep in the earth but has surfaced in a figurative response to man's rapacious need for minerals and environmental plundering. We also learn the creature has a mate, who carries unhatched offspring in her glowing womb. The creatures feed on radiation and in their hunger for more, they turn to west-coast America, specifically San Fransisco (allowing Elizabeth Olsen to remain connected to the narrative). Why the creatures don't attack a nuclear energy-rich country like France is, I guess, beside the point. (It probably goes without saying that film-goers in this country need to see their own shores menaced; Parisians being crushed by monsters probably wouldn't elicit much sympathy from American audiences).

As the creatures arrive on the west coast, they begin their savage tour of destruction; the U.S. military powerless to stop them.

Meanwhile, the American navy tracks another large creature moving slowly under the ocean; its vertebrae riding ominously above the surface. The creature heads for San Francisco Bay and in due course it is revealed the creature is called Godzilla and has emerged to re-set the balance of nature and more to the point; kick some monster butt in San Francisco.

The characters all become part of the drama, save for those who perish along the way. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is the movie-stud who becomes implausibly involved with the military in their various missions while Elizabeth Olsen is given little to do but stare with mouth agape at the gargantuan terrors kicking buildings around. Sally Hawkins seems lost in all commotion while Cranston often seems a little-over-the-top.

The battle commences, carnage becomes rife and what the hell it all means beyond mankind upsetting the balance of the planet not even Ken Watanabe's Dr. Ichiro Serizawa can answer. What it does mean for Hollywood is a franchise opportunity and employment for the legions of special effects crew hired to make San Francisco architecture look expendible and rubble-sexy.

I actually had to fight off the drowsies several times during the movie. I've noticed this has become a ritual for me during Hollywood blockbusters. That so much mega-decible racket could cause drowsiness means Hollywood may have developed an antidote to insomnia. Can't sleep? Godzilla just might challenge NyQuil for sleep-inducing supremacy.

Neighbors

**Spoiler Alert*

Director: Nicholas Stoller, Starring; Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, and Lisa Kudrow

Nicholas Stoller, director of Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek, now has the comedy Neighbors under his directorial belt.

Seth Rogen plays Mac Radner, a thirty-something father of a new baby who lives in a quiet neighborhood with his wife Kelly (Rose Byrne). Settling down but with collegiate frolics not far behind them, the Radners find themselves parents with adult priorities thrust upon them. Kelly's friend begs her to step out for an evening at a club concert, which involves marital negotiations with Mac. Not wanting to be homebound himself, Mac and Kelly decide to bring the baby along for their evening out. Mac and Kelly can't completely embrace the demands of adulthood; sometimes stumbling with their responsibilities as parents.

One day, while standing in their front yard, they become intrigued with the prospective home buyers next door. Anxious about possible noise, their fears are allayed when they see the buyers are gay. Days later, their hopes for a quiet neighborhood are dashed when they see a legion of young college students moving in next door rather than the hoped-for gay couple. In the clutches of one student' arms are greek letters to adorn the facade of a frathouse, which realizes the Radner's worst fears.

Summoning their diplomatic instincts, the Radners approach the frat's leader in their home in hopes of securing low-noise living. Mac and Kelly have an amusing discussion about how they will approach the frat leader, which of course doesn't go exactly as confidently planned. Frat president Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) is every married man's nightmare; a sexually-threatening stud with an obscenely-defined torso and a young man's love for living in cacophanous chaos. The movie plays up the amusing contrast between the shlubby Rogen and Efron's renaissance, marble physique.

Not wanting to appear too grown-up and square, the Radner's offer Teddy some rolled joints in a gesture of good-will. Teddy and the frat vice-president Pete (Dave Franco; brother to James) welcome the couple and subsequently the Radners end up partying with the frat. In acceding to the Radner's noise-reduction request, Teddy makes an ominous, counter-request that the couple never call the police but instead approach him, to which they agree.

Of course it is absurd to ask a frat to "keep it down," which subsequent nights at the frat bear out. Mac and Kelly find their infant daughter can't sleep with the mayhem and racket next door, which prompts them to reluctantly call the police. They ask that the complaint remain anonymous but when they watch the officer confront Teddy and Pete on the lawn, the cop points specifically to their home. In a funny scene at their doorstep moments later, the officer, Teddy and Pete stand on the Radner's doorstep, inquiring about the complaint which the Radner's deny but the cop confirms when he mentions Mac's caller ID. Needless to say the neighborly detente quickly deteriorates, which leads to war between the frat and the Radner home.

The frat resorts to humiliation as a retaliatory tactic; trimming the Radner's hedge to resemble a sexually suggestive person bent over. In another scene, the Radner's ill-advisedly leave their curtains open to allow their love-making a frat audience. The Radner's don't remain passive. They damage the frat's water-pipe, which floods their basement--an act intended to tax the frat's budget and stimulate a shut-down, which is effective but ultimately fails.

The Radner's are forced to appeal to the unsympathetic, University Dean Carol Gladstone (a funny Lisa Kudrow) who refuses to penalize the organization for what she feels isn't a headline-grabbing infraction. The frat is eventually placed on probation, which paves the way for the Radner's elaborate plan to get the frat to resume its partying--an act that will get it shut-down--by faking a school letter with a bogus, probation-lifting message.

The film has its funny moments but they prove to be too few to really make Neighbors an enjoyable romp. Nevertheless, it manages to be very watchable. It certainly is a nice change of pace for Efron; on leave from seemingly endless teen-crush flicks. Here he plays the not-very bright leader whose sole objective is to earn a place of honor in frat lore by throwing a seismic party rather than plan for his post-college future. Though his dumbness is alarming, Efron is able to also make it funny. Rogen is an old pro at comedy but it's Byrne who distinguishes herself; having shown in Bridesmaids that being funny comes natural to her.

The theme of shedding one's youthful, carefree past and embracing the adult world not only applies to the Radner's but to Teddy and Pete. While Pete interviews with companies visiting the university, planning for the transition to the real world, Teddy is stuck in a college party holding pattern. When he approaches a representative from a company at a job fair, his mediocre grades fail to impress, thereby earning him an insulting, curt dismissal. The Radner's eventually realize that parenting and the grown-up world is where they want to be.

Neighbors has so much that I wanted to like more but its humor is infrequent and not always inspired. Another promising comedy threatens to spring to life then limps, then springs to life again...but mostly limps.

Belle

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Amma Asante, Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Tom Wilkinson, Emily Watson and Miranda Richardson

Amma Assante's Belle re-creates the 18th century British political and social climate but also addresses the issue of slavery and those who sought its destruction.
The film tells the story of real-life Dido Elizabeth Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw); a woman whose father was white and mother an enslaved African. An Admiral in the British Navy, Dido's father's duty called him to the West Indies, which meant placing his illegitimate daughter in the care of his uncle; Lord Chief Justice William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson) and his aunt; Lady Mansfield (Emily Watson) on a rural estate known as Kenwood.

The Earl and his wife are naturally reluctant to raise Dido; though they are bound to duty as relatives. The Earl decides to raise her along with his other niece; Lady Elizabeth Murray (Sarah Gadon), who also lost her mother. Dido's suitability as a companion to Elizabeth is a factor in the Earl's decision to raise them together. Dido's color is a social complication to the Earl and his wife. It even becomes house-etiquette that Dido not dine with the family when guests are present but is permitted to mingle after formal dinners, where the restrictions of social decorum become more less-constricting.

Social life at Kenwood is complicated when Lady Elizabeth Murray is presented into society while Dido is denied the same by the Earl and Lady Murray. While Elizabeth is courted by a young man named James Ashford (Tom Felton), his older brother Oliver (James Norton) is smitten with Dido; which sickens James. The Ashford family hopes an Ashford/Murray union will bring wealth to the family but become furious when they learn Elizabeth is penniless. Meanwhile, Dido's financial future is secured when it is revealed her Admiral father left her with a substantial income; making her a more attractive catch to the Ashford clan. Though Dido responds to Oliver's wooing, her heart belongs to John Davinier (Sam Reid); a clergyman's son who hopes to rise in the legal ranks where he might effect change and more importantly; end slavery. The Earl opposes Davinier's attentions for reasons involving the young man's feeble social rank but also complicating the relationship between them is a case known to history as the Zong Massacre.

In 1781, a British naval vessel named Zong, owned by a slave-trading syndicate, sailed from Africa to Jamaica with its human and non-human cargoes. The overcrowded ship, ill-provided with water and ravaged by disease, decimated both crew and slaves alike. It comes to light later that the captain deliberately missed several ports to restock its dwindling supplies. Fearful that the diseased crew would contaminate the cargo (as was claimed later), slaves were thrown overboard to their watery deaths. The company who owned the slaves made an insurance claim; demanding compensation for the value of human cargo lost. The incident created a uproar back in England, with accusations of fraud by those hoping to seek justice for the murdered slaves and by abolitionists who wanted Britain to end the ignominious slave trade. In the center of this controversy and scandal was the Lord Chief Justice himself, who was pressured by various parties who believed the company deserved financial restitution, those who were convinced of the company's heinous, fraudulent practices and by abolitionists.

In the film, Dido learns of the incident (much to the Earl's annoyance), which draws her closer to John Davinier, whose indefatigable efforts to persuade the Lord Chief Justice to deny the slave-trading company its claims and his romantic interest in Dido, make him persona non grata at Kenwood.

Dido becomes engaged to Oliver Ashford then breaks it when she is mistreated viciously one day by Oliver's younger brother. The Ashford family's aggressive pursuit of wealth and status also contributes to her decision. Defying the Earl's disdain for Davinier, Dido becomes involved in the efforts to bring the slave traders to justice by providing documents of the Zong's ship log to the young lawyer.
The climax of the film involves Dido's love for Davinier and the crucial judgement by the Lord Chief Justice on the Zong Case. The rest is history, to use an over-summoned and overworked cliche.

From the previews, I expected Belle to be a dry, sterile costume drama in the tradition of Merchant-Ivory productions. I was impressed with how it handles the complicated Zong case and Dido's life at Kenwood. It is difficult to follow the developments in the case (make sure you don't doze) but it is fascinating. Kudos to the screenwriter Misan Sagay for crafting a screenplay that addresses both Zong and Dido's life, which are inter-related and speak to the issue of servitude. The film recognizes slavery in all its isidious guises: the African slave trade, Dido's near servile position in British society and John Davinier's diminished social ranking; a class distinction that leaves him in a position not unlike Dido's.

Fine performances all around, particularly from Mbatha-Raw and Reid. Reid also delivers a terrific performance in The Railway Man and here he offers the same square-jawed charisma and fine acting. Mbatha-Raw plays her character with dignity and intelligence.

I enjoyed the dialogue, which resurrects the eloquence of a vanished age, where education, diction and englightenment were once highly-regarded.

I don't know that Belle is a brilliant film but it has much on its mind and it is an effective drama. Its statement about slavery and inequality--the latter still sadly evident today--is very relevant and its triumphant conclusion demonstrates society's potential for eradicating a persistent, global problem. Assante handles the material deftly, showing directorial promise. Belle isn't just one more costume drama with striking scenery and comely finery; it has plenty of brains to match its beauty.

Al's Omniflick Spotlight: Deborah Kerr

Deborah Kerr is one of those unsung talents in film history who had her share of accolades but whose career is now sadly eclipsed by the Hollywood glamour of yesteryear. If a critic or cinephile recalls actors and actresses of the 40s' or 50s', Kerr's name never or rarely rates a mention but one only need scan a list of her films and the brilliant directors she collaborated with to know how astonishing her career really was. Six Oscar nominations yielded no statuettes for Kerr but awards are seldom a true assessment of one's greatness.

Born in Scotland in 1921 and reared in England, Kerr cut her thespian teeth on London stages before landing her first screen role (actually her second; her scenes were deleted in her first film) in the 1941 production of Major Barbara; an adaptation of a George Bernard Shaw play. She performed in several more films before being cast in the now classic Black Narcissus, Michael Powell's haunting story of a monastery in the Himalayas. Denied her full femininity in a Nun's habit, Kerr manages to be luminous and lovely while offering a searing performance as a Nun whose desperate attempts to run a monastery in the dizzy Himalayan heights leads to the madness of isolation among some of her colleagues.

Kerr earned her first Oscar nomination for her role in George Cukor's Edward, My Son, sharing top billing with Spencer Tracy. The 1950s' saw Kerr merit 5 more Oscar nominations, including iconic roles in From Here to Eternity and The King and I. Her beach interlude with Burt Lancaster in From Here to Eternity has become one of the most enduring images in cinematic history, while Yul Brynner specifically requested Kerr for the role of the governess in The King And I. Kerr's last Oscar nomination came in 1960 for The Sundowners, which re-teamed her with Robert Mitchum; the two shared the screen only three years before for Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison for which she received another Oscar nomination.

My favorite Deborah Kerr performance and my favorite of her films is the 1961 adaptation of Henry James' Turn of the Screw; re-christened The Innocents for the screen. Truman Capote's brilliant script, Jack Clayton's inspired direction and Freddie Francis' superb, spookily moody cinematography all contribute to the film's enduring magnificence but it is the sum of Kerr's masterful performance as the governess that makes the whole. Her character, Miss Giddens, begins a seemingly innocent position as a governess to two children, only to find the spirits of lovers who once worked on the estate are using the children as conduits for their diabolical trysts. As the creepy happenings accumulate, Miss Giddens is driven to near madness and despair as she tries to save the children. Kerr's performance captures Miss Giddens' naivete, her fear and finally her manic obsessiveness, which is tinged with a touch of subtle malignance.

Her film roles continued on through the 60s' though her career came to a halt in the 70s'. She acted in T.V. roles in the 80s' before retiring from acting but received received an Honorary Oscar for her screen work in 1994. She passed away in 2007.

Mentioning an actor's Oscar nominations really says nothing and means nothing in terms of talent and work. That Oscars have been awarded to many undeserving recipients attests to the statement's validity. Oscars don't really matter; enduring, solid, imaginative work does and Kerr's legacy reflects that notion. A luminous, delicate face with expressive, lovely eyes, an unerring taste for roles with dimension and shadows; a bend-but-doesn't-break fragility and a presence like that of a Black Narcissus flower with its colorful yet dark shades, define Kerr's onscreen personae and career. Kerr left many stirring characters for us to explore. And re-explore.


THE DEBORAH SIX: A few films from Kerr's singular career

1. Black Narcissus (1947) Kerr plays Sister Clodagh who is assigned to run a Himalayan monastery. Michael Powell's direction is excellent as is Kerr's performance. Kerr's performance is notable for being "face-only," as she wears a nun's habit the film entire, leaving her face to carry the emotive load. Luckily Kerr's talent and superlative eyes manage quite nicely.

2. From Here to Eternity (1953) Kerr's rollick on the beach with Burt Lancaster is a sexy, iconic scene. Her role as Karen Holmes allowed Kerr a rare opportunity to be a siren and she makes it pay dividends. Terrific performance. Kerr held her own against Lancaster's Adonis-charisma.

3. The King and I (1956) One of Kerr's most famous roles as a governess hired by the King of Siam (now Thailand) to instruct his children. Kerr's singing voice was dubbed but she still sparkles and again, more than holds her own against a very charismatic male lead.

4. Heaven Knows Mr. Allison (1957) Kerr plays a nun who finds herself alone on a Pacific island during WWII. She meets a marine who paddles his boat to the beach after the submarine he was on is sunk by the Japanese. The two unite to survive the enemy occupation of the island and form a bond in the process. Again Kerr dons a nun's habit for a film but Sister Angela is no Sister Clodagh; she is less angst-ridden and more life-loving but no less interesting. Mitchum and Kerr's chemistry makes the film though John Huston provides some lovely images. Kerr again shows her ability to act within sartorial limits.

5. The Sundowners (1960) Kerr plays Ida Carmody, wife to Robert Mitchum's Paddy as the couple and their child brave the Australian outback as sheep drovers. Again Kerr and Mitchum are teamed up and again, both scintillate. Kerr shows some wonderful moxy as she and Mitchum pull the family in different directions.

6. The Innocents (1961) Kerr shines as a governess hired to care for two children on a large, rural estate. The house is full of dark secrets and even darker shadows. Kerr demonstrates that her best work was wasn't all behind her. Her role as Miss Giddens is one for the ages.


To read an extended, more comprehensive bio on Deborah Kerr, click here: Deborah Kerr

Only Lovers Left Alive

**Spoiler Alert**

Directed by Jim Jarmusch, Starring: Tilda Swinton, Tom Hiddleston, John Hurt and Mia Wasikowska

Jim Jarmusch's vampire film is stylish, moody, atmospheric and anything but horrorifying or thrilling but it is terrifically cast and acted. It's also other than something Bela Lugosi or Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart might have found themselves in.

Jarmusch in never one to slavishly cling to genre conventions, like his western Dead Man or martial arts film Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai. His are more contemplative, cerebral affairs and so it is again in Only Lovers Left Alive.

We find ourselves in two settings: the labyrinthine medina of Tangier and a room awash in instruments in a shabby room in a shabbier building in Detroit. A vampiress named Eve (Tilda Swinton) lives in a room hidden from the world in the medina while her vampire husband Adam (Tom Hiddleston) lives hermetically in said room in the Motor City.

The two live their days (nights really) trying to stay supplied with healthy blood, which grows increasingly difficult to find in this world of tainted hemoglobin. While Eve relies on a fellow vampire Marlowe (John Hurt) for her precious supply, Adam visits a hospital to pay off a doctor named Watson (small role for Jeffrey Wright) for his. From conversation between the vampires, we learn each has been alive for centuries. Adam is an accomplished musician who once provided Schubert with music the famous composer claimed as his creation. Marlowe is actually the Christopher Marlowe; once Shakespeare's rival and in the film, tha acknowledged author of the Immortal Bard's great plays. Adam still records music though his current instruments of choice are mostly relegated to electric guitars and drums. While Marlowe still writes and Adam composes, its never clear what Eve's pursues in her spare time.

Jarmusch's film isn't plot-driven; it relies heavily on mood and the characters' backstories to create what little drama and tension are sprinkled among scenes of vampire angst and dark, ill-lit interiors. Only Lovers Left Alive still manages to be watchable. Tilda Swinton's unique, not-of-this-world looks and Tom Hiddleston's broody impatience with what the vampires call the "zombie world;" the human species, keep us watching when the film's temperature seems to be set at almost absolute zero.

After Eve flies (on an airline, not on bat-wings) to Detroit to be with Adam, her sister Ava comes to stay and in doing so, inadvertantly kills Adam's friend Ian (Anton Yelchin) after a night of clubbing. His death forces Adam and Eve to flee Detroit for the safer, more remote environs of Tangier, only to find Marlowe dying, which threatens their supply of life-giving blood. The loss of Marlowe brings about soul-searching and the unavoidable but crucial hunt for blood via the direct source; in this case; two lovers out at night for a stroll.

The vampire culture presented in Jarmusch's film is nothing new; immortality, historic contributions to art, existential doubt, etc, but he brings his brand of humor to the proceedings, and characters who seem more like artists than vampires. He also makes subtle, political statements about man's physical self-contamination and in setting half the story in Detroit, manages to comment on the decay of American cities brought on by real blood-suckers: corporate America and the depredations it has visited on workers and families as the population of a once-thriving factory town dwindles.

Only Lovers Left Alive isn't an ambitious film, but it has the offbeat stamp of an unpredictable auteur; one that manages to show us something that doesn't have product tie-ins or needless, gimmicky 2D and 3D options. We can always count on Jarmusch to lead us off and away from the assembly-line cinema of Hollywood. I'm sure he intends to keep it that way.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Director: Marc Webb, Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti

I won't bother with a spoiler alert because what could I possible spoil in summarizing a story one could easily discern from the preview. I also won't be verbose (I'll try not to be anyway) because it just plain bored me--my typical reaction to Marvel Comic adaptations.

Peter Parker's problems from the first Spider-Man continue though I couldn't remember what they were exactly and I couldn't tell if I were recalling the Tobey Maguire Spidey movies or the rebooted franchise. Does it all matter? Peter's girlfriend, cash-flow, and Aunt May troubles are the same though the villains are slightly different; this time an electrically-charged bad guy named Electro (Jamie Foxx) threatens the city, Spiderman and the power-grid.

The story involves many things at Oscorp; one CEO dies, the next assumes control, while the company develops or hopes to develop serums and high-tech gadgetry; which all threaten to fall into the wrong hands. All the villains seen in the movie are all connected to Oscorp. If you're like me, you grow sick of hearing the word Oscorp.

Electro is born, develops a destructive contempt for Spider-Man, fights him and blah ad infinitum. In Marvel adaptations, suspense is never really created because we know the hero is indestructible, which leaves him intact for sequels. The villians never really develop an edgy menace because they never have any agenda other than a single-minded hatred for the hero.

And what a weepy hero he is! Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man tears so often I thought the movie was financed by the Oxygen network. I realize he was trying to breath vulnerability into the hero to make him more empathetic but it became a bit much. Even Gwen Stacy didn't deluge us with the water-works. Maybe the radioactive spider should have bitten her instead of Peter Parker.

Aside from one significant twist at the end, nothing in the story is left to the unanticipated or unheralded. One knows where the story and characters are all headed and of course the movie lays the groudwork for the next film. The first Spider-Man series began auspiciously then gassed out quickly. The current franchise has gassed out quickly but the movie studio must sell merchandise and Taco-Bell must sell Spider-Man mugs and there must be a movie tie-in to the U.S. Postal Service and everything else, which leaves solid storytelling and thrills sadly beside the point.

The Quiet Ones

Director: John Pogue, Starring: Jared Harris, Sam Claflin, and Olivia Cooke

What does Based on a true story mean in cinema these days? When attached to historical or dramatic films, we know the phrase is vague and fluid but how does it apply to horror flicks; stories that already stretch plausibility and our capacity to believe? If a horror film delivers the scares and administers them in an effective manner, what does it really matter if the movie is based on fact or something purported to be true? Unfortunately for The Quiet Ones it only bears a vapor-like resemblance to the "real story" and it doesn't really frighten at all. What it does do is take up screen time with the cliches most horror films can't shake and a story that doesn't bear much logical scrutiny or sense.

An Oxford University psychology Professor named Joseph Coupland (Jared Harris) is convinced supernatural claims can be explained as mental projections and is determined to prove his theory. When we see him in his Oxford classroom, his students become agitated over an argument on the supernatural. The students seem less Oxford material than suburban community college enrollees with British accents. One can't imagine a university of international renown like Oxford allowing a professor or class to waste time discussing the supernatural but there it is onscreen.

Coupland recruits three students to help him in his research. We learn that the subjects Coupland has filmed have had strange, frightening experiences with the supernatural and one of them; a young woman named Jane Harper (Olivia Cooke), has had her share of disturbing, unexplained brushes with the weird which Coupland insists can be readily explained by his theory. The woman has been in and out of asylums and shows no signs of improving. Coupland believes that if he can prompt Jane to project what is tormenting her, he can capture the "energy" and expel it, thus ridding her of her psychic torments.

Documenting the experiment on film is a young, naive student named Brian McNeil (Sam Claflin) who has a yen for camera work. His camera allows the movie to shift point-of-view from first person to third, mimicking the Paranormal Activity hand-held perspective horror fans have come to know.

As the experiment begins, Brian learns Jane must be locked up to protect Coupland and his staff from her violent episodes. How a professor and three students could allow their subject to be locked up in spartan coditions, sans bed, proper clothes and comforts is disturbing. Jane is treated very much like a wild animal then coerced into summoning someone she calls Evie, a sinister entity she believes lives inside of her.

Before long, Coupland's experiment comes to the attention of the Oxford administration, who inform the professor his work can't continue on school property, thereby making the experiment's relocation an imperative.

Coupland, students and Jane find themselves in a large, house in a rural area. How they can afford the place wasn't clear to me but it is abandoned, cold, creepy-looking and shabby inside. It isn't long before the weird and frightening "thing" inside Jane begins to emerge through a series of experiments that look strangely like those employed in The Exorcist II; one of them involves a strobe-like device similiar to the one Richard Burton sat before in the silly Exorcist sequel. A homage?

Coupland remains doggedly determined to explain Jane's problems with rational, scientific arguments--kudos to the professor--but he adheres stubbornly to reason even when it becomes abundantly clear something just might be inside Jane. One such proof is an ectoplasmic "thing" that is discharged from her mouth. As the students become frustrated with the professor's methods and his obsession to cure Jane, it comes to light that a little boy, also suffering mental torments and seen earlier in films in Coupland's class, was the Professor's son; one he couldn't save from a condition similiar to Jane's.

As the days pass, Brian begins to fall in love with Jane and realizes she should be receiving professional care in an institution. While investigating strange, self-inflicted markings Jane has made on her legs with a bobby-pin, Brian discovers said markings are actually a symbol representing a 5000-year-old Sumerian demon whose name we never learn. Brian's sleuthing also uncovers Jane's story. We learn she came to the attention of a cult who worshipped said demon and who believe her to be a conduit for the evil entity.

All comes to a head the night Brian decides to rescue Jane from Coupland's experiment. The demon comes home to roost, unleashing mayhem and death; thereby ruining the professor and student's semester.

How does Coupland have ample time and funds for the experiment, which seems to devour all his time? Doesn't an Oxford University professor have to grade papers, write books, read academic journals, or pursue other areas of his professional and private life? At least the students mention walking away from the experiment and salvaging the semester.

The film never fully creates the dread and visceral fear we want from a horror story. Pogue confuses loud, startling sounds for a sustained atmosphere of gut-churning fear. The demon never truly threatens; instead he acts more like a disgruntled teenager hoping to incur his parent's wrath by making a racket. And do we need to see one more horror film where the protagonist discovers a symbol seen on a body or wall is that of a demon from some ancient, mythical lore?

Over the final credits, we see what are supposed to be photos of those who participated in the real-life experiment but they looked suspiciously phony. I learned the photos are indeed fake at a website called History vs Hollywood. The people are supposed to represent the characters in the film though I can't figure the filmmaker's reason for including them.

Too bad the Sumerian demon didn't demand script revisions or make an appearance himself; the movie could have used alot of both.