The Cue Card

Granted, many critics took the much-anticipated “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” to the woodshed and beat it to a pulp. The local paper’s review called it “extremely disappointing”; the New York Times’ review called it “kitsch”; The Washington Post labeled it “cloying sentimentalization” and “insufferable”; and The New Yorker review longed for the main character to shut up. And yet the film has nabbed a few Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Picture. It’s almost reminiscent of director Stephen Daldry’s last film “The Reader,” which drew Oscar nominations and a win for Best Actress despite criticism of its humanizing depiction of a Nazi guard.

Similarly “Extremely Loud” takes on an emotional, weighty subject matter, this time the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Adapted from the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, the film unfolds through the mind of an 11-year-old boy who has Asperger-like symptoms and is dealing with the death of his father in the World Trade Center. The boy, Oskar, finds a key in his deceased father’s belongings and goes on a city-wide search to try and find the lock it will open, feeling that it will keep him connected to his dad and tell him something more. It’s quite an emotional treasure hunt from there as the grieving boy journeys all over NYC over many weeks meeting sympathetic strangers to try and find the lock and answer.

So far so good? Not to critics who bemoaned the film’s adaptation of the novel and its sentimentality. Also the boy’s precocious depiction drove some crazy, and others felt the story’s suspension of disbelief was too great. But despite a couple hokey parts, I thought the film quite powerful. Did it use the World Trade Center tragedy to manipulate emotions at every chance? Did it turn it into kitsch? I think it’s for everyone to decide. Personally I was surprised at how negative some of the reviews were and actually how good and moving and well made the film was. The actor, Thomas Horn, does a good job as the hyperactive boy, and the supporting performances by Viola Davis and Max von Sydow were excellent as usual. I remembered 9/11 and navigated the film without feeling overly cloyed. Now if only the film’s title were less of a mouth full. I never seem to get it right. Extremely what?

The British espionage film “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” finally came to our neck of the woods where we had been patiently waiting to see it since before Christmas. And this is a Commonwealth country mind you. So what’s with the late distribution?!

Well it turned out to be an intriguing film (well worth the wait), though not necessarily an easy one to figure out. As the final scene played out and the credits rolled, I heard a woman behind me say “I still don’t understand it.” And perhaps quite a few others didn’t understand all of it either, which is not too uncommon for a film based on a John le Carre novel. Murkiness lurks in the world of high-stakes espionage after all. It definitely helps if you’ve read the novel it’s based on or his others before seeing the film. More importantly if your spouse has read the entire le Carre cannon then you’re in luck, picking a brain and piecing the film methodically together when it ends.

On the basics, it’s not that hard to grasp. It takes place during the Cold War as a retired British intelligence veteran (George Smiley) is secretly hired back to uncover a mole within the top levels of MI6. Smiley suspects the mole is responsible for a failed mission in Hungary in which an MI6 agent has been shot and tortured for info, and subsequently he learns Moscow’s been behind the mission in order to remove the threat within MI6 of the mole’s discovery. Ultimately Smiley closes in on the double agent, setting up a trap for him to be caught.

It’s quite ingenious, the whole spy plot, and the Cold War paranoia feels palpable. Gary Oldman as Smiley is subtle but terrific, rarely speaking but moving his eyes behind coke-bottle glasses and out-maneuvering his adversaries. Oldman is very deserving of his first Best Actor Oscar nomination for this, though the category has stiff competition from George Clooney and Brad Pitt. The whole cast in “Tinker” is superb, and the film leaves you wondering long after it’s over about its details and conclusion. I can’t help thinking it was snubbed of nominations in the Best Picture and Best Director categories, but it did get one for Best Adapted Screenplay.

I heard quite a bit of criticism about “The Iron Lady” before I saw it on opening night, and yet I was pleasantly surprised to find it quite entertaining and interesting. The Hollywood biopic of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher definitely has raised hackles on both sides of the political aisle. For many liberals, the film goes too easy on Thatcher and her Tory policies, humanizing her despite her hard-line stances. For conservatives, the film shows her in too unflattering a light with dementia in later life, at a time when the real Thatcher is still alive. Some, too, don’t like the film for showing a dementia-suffering Thatcher talking to her dead husband throughout it, and for relying on too many flashbacks. Others say the film reduces her life to a series of superficial montages and lacks substance.

But I would disagree and say see it for yourself because the film is quite captivating. “The Iron Lady” doesn’t exactly presume to be an end all on Thatcher’s life and rule, but makes the prime minister come vividlly to life thanks in large part to Meryl Streep’s brilliant performance. The film also doesn’t shy away from her controversies and touches on many of Thatcher’s thoughts and the riotous events during her tenure. From what I’ve read, “The Iron Lady” doesn’t entail gross inaccuracies, it’s pretty straight on in terms of her chronology and policies.

The film combines some real footage of her time in power and delves into her life with flashbacks, looking back on her past from her later years when Thatcher has dementia. Although it seems quite risky to portray her with dementia conversing with her dead husband who comes to her in visions, it works impressionistically in the film by uncovering a side of the once powerful leader that is quite revealing. The filmmakers and Streep defend the portrayal of her dementia, saying it’s a part of real life and should not be covered up. As for the film’s controversial Iron Lady, they seem to leave her policies up to viewers and to posterity.

Surprisingly, the prime minister is only shown once with President Reagan (and none with the queen?) during the film, which seems a bit too little, considering how much they’re linked in that era. But go see “The Iron Lady” at your own whim or viewpoint but do see it.

I didn’t know much about “The Descendants” and thought it might be on the touchy-feely side based on the preview. But with Alexander Payne, who did “Sideways” and “About Schmidt,” as the director and screenplay writer, I should have known it wouldn’t be exactly like that. In fact it’s quite refreshing.

As a friend said the movie has Hawaii and Clooney, what’s not to like? Throw in a pretty good story, and it’s an engaging evening out. In it, George Clooney plays a father who’s trying to manage his two daughters after his wife gets into a boating accident. While she’s in a coma, he finds out she’s been having affair, which he begins to investigate. Meanwhile, he’s expected to vote on a huge Hawaiian land deal that’s been held in his family for generations. The pressures of both combine to upend his life and put him back in touch with his kids and former self.

As in “Up in the Air,” Clooney is quite a delight in this, as the earnest dad who’s trying to do the right thing. The footage of Hawaii, too, is wonderful in this flick in which Hawaii plays a key role. If you don’t want to move or go there after watching this, then perhaps you already live in paradise. The Hawaiian music throughout is fun and mood-setting; it definitely harkens you back to the islands. Even big wave surfer Laird Hamilton makes an appearance here, though his character is rather jerky.

It’s an entertaining and touching movie; the daughters, too, who struggle over their mom’s condition are quite good and affecting. Though a slight caution goes out about the movie’s strong, bad language. It’s rated R for a reason, mainly because kids will be kids and along with that can bring some colorful vocabularies.

Holy smokes, this is a disturbing and creepy movie about a girl who escapes from an abusive cult. I don’t know exactly why I saw it — knowing it was about a cult — but it received such high praise that I think I was enticed. The film’s definitely effective in a chilling, spooky way. The girl, played by Elizabeth Olsen (yes, she’s the younger sister of the Olsen twins), is haunted by memories and paranoia of the cult (and for good reason!) after she flees and tries to regroup at her sister’s place in the Catskill Mountains. Creepers, you may never look at the Catskills in the same way again. The film is perhaps in the same disturbing realm as the film “Deliverance” crossed with “Helter Skelter” or something.

The cult leader is a freaky bad guy, eerily played by John Hawkes. You might recall Hawkes as the sweet, goofy “Bugsy” in the movie “The Perfect Storm,” but here his character is a scary nutcase who instills fear and delusion over his polygamous sect. The girl, Martha, makes a break for it luckily, but she’s so messed up afterwards, that she’s far from normal. Her sister and brother-in-law have their hands full with her staying at their house. Eventually with the flashbacks, the foreboding of the film’s ending works its way into a crescendo.

The small indie film is quite horrifying in a psychological way. I can’t say that I’d tell someone to see it. Most likely I’d tell them to run. But since that’s too late for me now, I’m sure its vivid portrayals and chilling story will stay in my head for quite sometime.

I’m glad I caught this documentary on the big screen as seeing it elsewhere wouldn’t quite do it justice. Credit filmmaker Werner Herzog for bringing a broader spotlight to the Chauvet cave in southern France, which has been closed to the public since it was discovered in 1994. I knew about the prehistoric art at France’s Les Eyzies and Lascaux caves, but didn’t know much about Chauvet’s, though its contents are dated to be about 15,000 years older and have been less disturbed than Lascaux’s. The cave’s entrance at Chauvet had been sealed by a landslide, and its contents had remained virtually untouched until its discovery. The cave paintings inside are the earliest known on Earth, dating from about 32,000 years ago.

Herzog’s documentary gives an awe-inspiring view inside the cave. The only light is powered by the film crew’s battery packs, which reveal hand prints, animal paintings and prehistoric animal bones amid the cave’s various chambers. A sense of wonder pervades the screen. Here is where our early ancestors came to paint and perhaps engage in ceremonial gatherings. What were they like? How did they live? The film spends a good deal of time examining the fascinating animal art on the walls and the cave’s contours looking for clues, as ominous or mysterious music plays in the background. In many of the paintings, the animals appear to be in motion, similar to drawings in animation. A number of the cave’s scientists appear in the film, giving insight into what their research has found; a couple of them come off more understandable or informative than others. One, for instance, explains that one of the rock artists, who left a hand print near the entrance, has a damaged finger and can be traced to another part of the cave as well.

For those interested in prehistory, “Cave of Forgotten Dreams” offers a rarified, intriguing glimpse into the world of early man, where depictions of horses and cattle coincide with those of rhinos, lions and panthers, and hand prints coexist with cave bear bones and paw prints. It’s truly a world like no other.

For more on the cave at Chauvet, see Judith Thurman’s New Yorker article “First Impressions,” which prompted Herzog’s interest in the subject, and the official French site at: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/

“The Ides of March” came in second over the weekend in box-office take-home; first was “Real Steel.” “Real Steel”? Come on people, get a grip! Of course, I had to flock to the Clooney, Giamatti, Seymour Hoffman and Gosling political drama on opening night. And I wasn’t disappointed. It’s a dark little flick about aides playing dirty on the campaign trail of a presidential race that includes a couple of plot twists that’ll grab your attention.

George Clooney is the candidate, Philip Seymour Hoffman, the campaign manager and Ryan Gosling, the media staffer, who causes havoc when he meets with the opposing candidate’s campaign manager, played by Paul Giamatti. Things go from bad to worse there, for Gosling’s character and his staffer girlfriend, played by Evan Rachel Wood, who’s involvement in the plot rings a bit stale by now in light of candidates of the past decade.

It’s the acting though that’s worth the ticket. Giamatti and Seymour Hoffman are superb as always, this time in roles that offer some real sparks from opposing sides. And Gosling is quite believable as the optimistic schmoe who gets duped along the way. In running for president, no one is truly clean, “The Ides of March” seems to remind us. So don’t be so naive!

In light of this film: Here are some of my favorite movies about U.S. politics: “The Candidate,” “The American President,” “All the President’s Men,” “Nixon,” “The Contender,” “Wag the Dog,” and “Frost/Nixon.”

I almost passed on “The Debt” because the local paper gave it a pretty bad review and just 2.5 stars out of 5. Eventually, I saw it anyways and found it much better than it’d been critiqued. A thriller about Mossad agents on a mission to capture a Nazi war criminal in 1966, “The Debt” kept me on the edge of my seat for about the entire film.

It starts in 1997 as the former agents, played in older age by Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson, are being honored for the success of the ’66 mission at a book event by two of the agents’ daughter. Mirren’s character, Rachel, reads from the book, recounting the heroics of the mission, but from her despondency, all appears not quite right.

Flash back to 1966, and the three agents, played in younger years by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, are sent to East Berlin with a plan to bring the Nazi “Surgeon of Birkenau” back to Israel to face justice. But what happens there is far different than the later version recounted from the book.

Turns out, for 30 years, the agents have agonizingly kept secret what really happened. But now one of the agents looks to come clean, just as a journalist is about to publish a scoop on the war criminal. The ending gets a bit crazy, but at this point it’s impossible to turn away.

The screenplay, though fictional, seems authentic, and is helped along by strong acting and by being filmed on location. Like “Munich,” another excellent film about a Mossad mission, it’s filled with nail-biting suspense. Interestingly, Ciaran Hinds plays in both of these films. As for those who liked Jessica Chastain and Sam Worthington, who were great in this, look for them again in the upcoming “Texas Killing Fields.”