Milk* (2008)

Forget Benjamin Button. If it weren’t for the infectious spirit of Slumdog Millionaire, this is the film that would have deserved Best Picture at the Oscar’s for 2008. A biopic with historical and current value, Milk offers a powerful glimpse into a defining time in the early gay rights movement. Everything clicks- the acting, the drama, and honest emotions that will move most who watch this film.

After hooking up with a younger man (James Franco), the soon-to-be 40-year old Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) and his new lover move from New York City to an emerging gay community in San Francisco. Milk uses his business savvy to become a gay rights activist. This drives him to run for public office but his devotion to campaigning drives his lover away. His next lover is mentally unbalanced and hangs himself out of what he perceives to be neglect.

After years of organizing and campaigning, Milk is elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, becoming the first openly gay man to serve in a major public office in California’s history. It is here where Harvey Milk makes his stand. He forms a complex political relationship with social conservative Board member Dan White (Josh Brolin) and launches a campaign against Proposition 6, a state ballot initiative that, if passed, would ban homosexuals from serving in public schools. Defeating Proposition 6 becomes a rallying point for homosexuals but the spirit of victory is short-lived as Milk is assassinated weeks later.

After the PR debacle that was Brokeback Mountain, it seems that LGBT groups abstained from hoisting this film on their shoulders and parading it around as a defining film for their cause. This allows audiences to experience the power and humanity of Harvey Milk for themselves, making it all the more meaningful. Frankly, this film does more for gay rights than Brokeback ever did and probably could have used a little more vocal support. By letting the film stand on its own legs though, the story of Harvey Milk retains all of its genuineness and power.

Many ‘issues’ films fall victim to an enlarged sense of self-importance. Milk is not one of them. It does not whitewash its subject, nor does it level blanket condemnations and generalizations towards those who disagree with the issue of gay rights. This is partly due to a script that is determined to treat these historical figures as accurately and fairly as possible. The other half of the equation is the direction of Gus Van Sant. An eclectic director, Van Sant tends to avoid schmaltz and anything that crosses the line of naturalism.

The cast buys into the writer’s vision and the director’s philosophy, producing wonderful, complex characters. I may not like Sean Penn for his personal politics, egotism and hypocritical behavior, but all of this was wiped from my memory for two hours. Penn’s Milk is an honest, beautiful soul that you can’t help but cheer for. This is certainly a testament to Penn’s acting and was deserving of his Best Actor win (though I have yet to see Mickey Rourke’s work in The Wrestler). The rest of the cast displays all the right enthusiasm as young people drawn in by Harvey Milk’s magnetic personality and motivational speeches. Because these characters believe in Harvey Milk, you will find it that much easier to do so as well.

The one thing I had trouble wrapping my head around was the ease at which some of the homosexual characters in the film throw themselves into casual, sexual relationships. I think it’s dumb when heterosexual people do it too but I think my lack of understanding comes from two facts: 1) I am heterosexual and have had very few encounters with people engaging in an open LGBT lifestyle, and 2) I live in a time that is, I hope, a little more cautious about such activity. Given the time period (post-sexual revolution), the reckless sexual behavior might make a little more sense. It’s just the suddenness of it all that catches me off guard.

Had this film come out in 2007 or 2009, or had Slumdog Millionaire gone direct to DVD, it probably would have won Best Picture. Milk takes a hard, honest look at the early roots of the gay rights movement. It wasn’t about the right to have a same-sex partner or the right to have a flamboyant parade through town or to shove the LGBT lifestyle in anyone’s face. Harvey Milk and his supporters were fighting for the right to be considered fully human by society- the right to have their dignity acknowledged. Everyone, barring the most cynical and homophobic, can appreciate and respect that.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Peter Pan (1953)

Some Disney films have grown so famous over the years that you occasionally forget why you like it so much. For me, such is the case with Peter Pan. What I remembered to be an innocent, playful romp through a fantasy land from my youth turned out to be a little darker than nostalgia would have me remember. This film may not fit into today’s political correctness-obsessed culture but, taken for what it is and when it was made, Peter Pan cannot be denied its rightful place among the top tier of Disney’s work.

John and Michael Darling love to hear the fanciful stories that their older sister Wendy tells them about a roguish, ageless boy named Peter Pan. Their father, not wanting the boys’ heads filled with ‘poppycock,’ decides it’s time for Wendy to have her own room, cutting the boys off from their beloved stories. That night, Peter Pan himself comes prowling around the Darling abode and whisks them away to Never Land.

Upon their arrival to Peter’s fantastic world, Wendy finds an unexpected foe in Peter’s pixie friend Tinker Bell, who is jealous that a girl should come between her and Peter. Tink’s jealousy leads her to assisting Peter’s nemesis, Captain Hook. The short-tempered pirate captain constantly has one eye on the lookout for Pan and the other on the lookout for the crocodile that claimed his hand and wants the rest of him too. The children explore their new surroundings, meeting the Lost Boys, an Indian tribe, and a fateful encounter with Hook.

Peter Pan gets back to what Disney does best- innovative animation, a delightful story, and memorable songs. That is the formula for Disney greatness. Cinderella nailed each component but Alice in Wonderland faltered in both story and music. Peter Pan already has a great story built in, so the songs and music are really where Disney should be most heavily evaluated.

“You Can Fly” is still among Disney’s most recognizable tunes but this is not a one-song film. Other memorable tunes include “Following the Leader” and “What Makes the Red Man Red?” are also quite enjoyable. Granted, the latter song, and the presentation of the Indian tribe as a whole, is a gross stereotype that would be met with all kinds of protest today. If you can keep in mind the time period when the original story was written (1911) and when this film was released (1953), you should be able to take these depictions with a grain of salt.

I had all but forgotten about the politically incorrect portions of Peter Pan since the last time I saw it (which is admittedly quite a long time ago). What I hadn’t forgotten was how great the film looks. Three significant accomplishments stand out for this production. First and most obvious is the animation of the children flying. I can’t even fathom how much time it took the animators to make those sequences look right. The children float, rise and dive almost without effort, creating a perfect illusion.

Second is the work involving Tinkerbell and her glow. Several times she hides behind pieces of foliage but her natural luminosity makes for a unique effect that I don’t recall ever seeing before now. Finally, during the climactic battle with Captain Hook, there is a sequence where the camera is ‘looking down’ on Hook as he climbs the rope ladder toward Peter. Instead of Hook just growing larger as he climbs closer to where the camera would be if it were live action, the effect is that of the camera panning backward at the same pace as Hook while the background deck of the ship grows smaller. It seems like a minor detail but it floored me because it is extremely intricate.

The beauty of the story of Peter Pan is that it works on two levels. Kids will love it because it is an adventure involving children that don’t grow up. The kids ultimately pick up a lesson that, at some point, growing up is inevitable and should not be resisted. For parents, the story of Peter Pan makes them confront some of the realities of adulthood. How much like Captain Hook and Mr. Darling are you? That’s the subtle question it asks while quietly assuring us that growing older doesn’t have to mean growing colder. The Disney team captures these messages perfectly.

While political correctness junkies may be loathe to show this film to impressionable children, I plan on showing Peter Pan to my kids someday. Chances are, kids won’t even remember the ‘red man’ stuff. The Disney team is on top of their game here, which means that children and adults will marvel at the colors, sounds and music coming their way. It’s a great story given a terrific treatment. This film is part of the reason that the story and spirit of Peter Pan still exists in our cultural lexicon.

RATING: 4 out of 5

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

Every year there are a handful of independent films that take critics (and occasionally audiences too) by storm. Sometimes these ‘indie darlings’ are overhyped by the pro-indie crowd. In the case of (500) Days of Summer, the hype isn’t hollow. Young stars and a clever story combine for one of the freshest and zaniest romantic comedies in recent memory.

Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a degree in architecture but works in the writing department of a greeting card company. He takes a liking to Summer Fin (Zooey Deschanel), his boss’s intern. She’s cute and they share similar tastes in music, but Summer is an odd duck. As they grow closer together, Tom discovers how difficult it can be to fall in love with a girl who doesn’t believe in true love. Despite her semi-detached stance on their relationship, the couple gives it a shot, progressing through many peaks and valleys.

This film starts out like only a handful of films dare- by telling you exactly how the story is going to end. It then proceeds to use another film technique that is risky and prone to poor execution- the nonlinear narrative. We jump around through various high and low points in the 500 days that Summer Finn is a major part of Tom’s life. Tom is a hopeless romantic to the core and wears his emotions on his sleeve, which leads to a number of humorous but honest glimpses into the whirlwind life of a guy who mistakenly thinks he’s found true love.

If this film had been made in the major Hollywood system, it would have been a bomb. Yes, it has known actors as leads but this film is indie to the core. The writing is too fresh and quirky for Hollywood, whose rom-com writers seem capable of only cutting and pasting clichés and obvious lines into their scripts. The blend of drama and comedy on display here is only something that could have come from a writer and director who are completely devoted to their little creation.

Director Marc Webb had worked exclusively in music videos before helming this film, which explains its perfect sense of rhythm and musicality. A celebratory dance number is even included, allowing Webb to work his gift for pairing action with music. For cynics, this will come ridiculously out of nowhere and seem woefully out of place. For those who actually get and follow the film, it is a harmless and delightful romp that fits the spirit of the picture.

Both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are perfectly cast here. Gordon-Levitt’s star has been on the rise the past few years and his performance here shot him into the stratosphere of buzz-worthy Hollywood talent. Here is a young actor that has not been jaded by past success (3rd Rock from the Sun) and, through careful role selection, has broken through the barriers often built up through the label “former child star” to emerge as a legitimate adult actor. He brings Tom Hansen to life. He’s not just playing a character for a paycheck, JGL believes in Tom Hansen and that pays handsome dividends.

For a refreshing change of pace, Deschanel’s typically vacant, oddball acting style is exactly what the role calls for. Summer is a bit out there and rather than have a more ‘normal’ actress pretend to be enigmatic, Deschanel is able to be herself. There’s no disconnect between her and Summer. This is a character that other actresses would struggle to understand and make right. For Deschanel, it’s as if there is a sublime connection between star and subject.

(500) Days of Summer is not your typical rom-com. It’s doesn’t fit the standard pattern and even makes you think a little in order to keep the narrative straight in your head. This alone makes it interesting to me. I can’t help but wonder if I am also subconsciously more interested in the film because it focuses on a man instead of a woman. It’s hard to say, because the male and female characters are all but emotionally reversed in this film, which only adds to the freshness.

A warning to all you formula-addicted chick-flick chuckleheads: this movie is going to make laugh you and think. Can you handle both at once? If not, you best stick with the predictable rubbish that I typically make fun of. If you’re ready for a cinematic treat that’s part reality and part fantasy, pick this gem up. Dysfunctional relationships have never been this whimsical.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Lady and the Tramp (1955)

I’m starting to see a pattern develop with Disney animated films. It seems as though the best of Disney’s work up to this point has come from classic fairy tales like Snow White and Cinderella. Other literary adaptations have proven successful as well despite the Disney version now being more familiar and influential than the source material (i.e. Bambi). Ever since emerging from the World War II era of package films, it seems that the quality of the Disney product has been see-sawing, taking a step forward with one film and then a step back with the next. Lady and the Tramp very loosely fits into this pattern.

Lady, a cocker spaniel has lived a pampered life with her owners Jim and Darling Dear. She is good friends with other well-to-do dogs in her neighborhood and consults them when her owners’ behavior toward her changes mysteriously. Her friends tell her that the humans are having a baby. In comes The Tramp, a savvy street dog who warns Lady that her life will be drastically different when the baby arrives, implying that babies and dogs don’t mix well in the eyes of human adults.

After the baby is born, there are a few subtle changes but Lady and the little one co-exist quite peacefully. Then the Dear’s go on vacation, leaving the cat-loving and dog-hating Aunt Sarah to watch the child. Sarah’s sly Siamese cats display a knack for causing trouble and laying the blame on Lady. When Sarah tries to muzzle Lady, the frightened dog runs away. The Tramp shows her a few things about life on the street and they fall in love. Their bond becomes critical when Lady returns home and is unable to help in a desperate situation.

This is only the third of Disney’s full-length one-story animated films to be almost exclusively animal driven. Dumbo was a departure from the lush animation style Disney was known for while Bambi was a return to that style. In the build-up toward Lady and the Tramp, Disney produced another detail-rich fairy tale (Cinderella), an experimental piece (Alice in Wonderland), and a fantasy-laden children’s tale (Peter Pan). While the beginning and end of Peter Pan take place in some form of modern times, this is the first Disney picture to keep itself in the ‘real world’ for its entire runtime.

The combination of these two factors makes Lady and the Tramp a real gamble. Going back to animals is the lesser risk here because Disney’s crew of animators has shown time and again that they are adept at replicating the look and movements of animals. It’s the ‘modern’ setting that might prove to be a deal-breaker for some people. After a number of films with exotic and lovely locations, the city streets are hardly what one would expect from Disney. While it does give the animators new territory, colors and shapes to explore, trash and alleyways aren’t all that visually appealing to anyone.

Lady and the Tramp rises above this potential pitfall though because of its high-class-low-class romance. Both Lady and The Tramp have a few things to learn from each other and it’s hard not to find an animal romance cute. The Tramp reminds me of Clark Gable in It Happened One Night. He’s sly, witty and devilishly charming. If not for him, the film would have no fun or soul.

One critical failing of this film, however, is the lack of potent music and songs. Aside from the now politically incorrect “Siamese Cat Song” and a few lines of “He’s a Tramp,” there’s not a memorable tune to be found. Sure, some of the music may be catchy but it’s the action of the dogs meeting in the middle of a spaghetti noodle that is more memorable than the “Bella Notte” song playing throughout the scene.

While most other song-light Disney flicks have managed to bounce back through style and story, Lady and the Tramp isn’t quite capable of a full momentum reversal. It does offer some fantastic animal animation. In fact, the personalities given to each type of dog is marvelous. The problem mainly lies with its lightweight story. Yes, there’s the romance, but what else? A rich dog runs away, falls in love with a poor dog, goes home and the poor dog “saves the day” from something that doesn’t make much sense as a serious threat to begin with.

For an hour and fifteen minutes of entertainment though, Lady and the Tramp fits the bill. The animators nail their subjects perfectly, creating engrossing characters that take your mind off of any quibbles you may have with the film’s urban setting. The high point is the design and execution of the animal characters even though the rest of the animation may not be up to snuff with Disney’s best efforts. It’s quick and to the point. To do so with characters like these makes it something special.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Far and Away (1992)

There’s just something about sprawling historical dramas that captivate audiences. We’re drawn to them like almost nothing else. Are we all secretly history buffs who take pleasure in seeing the hard times and details faced by those of yesteryear? Is it maybe because these films provide us with both the exotic and the familiar? Whatever the real answer is, Far and Away is one of those films that sucks you in with a little bit of everything and keeps you there quite nicely.

After his father’s funeral, Irish peasant Joseph Donnelly (Tom Cruise) witnesses the family home being burned by the lackeys of their landlord. Fed up with aristocratic oppression, Joseph sets out to kill his landlord but his plan goes awry and he is injured in his attempt. The landlord’s daughter Shannon (Nicole Kidman) is fascinated by the lively fellow and she saves him from a pistol duel with her suitor. They run away together, boarding a ship for America. Along the journey they learn of an upcoming land claim race in the Oklahoma Territory.

Their heads filled with dreams of land and prosperity, Joseph and Shannon encounter a rude awakening upon their arrival in Boston. Far from the land of opportunity they were expecting, America for Irish immigrants turns out to be a maze of hucksters, cheats and politics. Pretending to be brother and sister, the two fall in love as they struggle to survive in a cold, uncaring new world.

Does the current generation even know/remember that Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were married for a whole decade? This fact certainly serves as a minor impetus for those of us in the know to check out any movie that they co-starred in as a romantic pairing (the same was probably true for audiences at the time). That may now be little more than a nostalgic factoid lost on future viewers but it is most certainly an intriguing behind-the-scenes thing to consider while watching this fanciful flick.

Far and Away really does have a little bit of everything, which is both good and bad. The period detail is really something but it does cross a few lines (what historical epics don’t though?) by not making enough of the costumes look truly lived in. Everyone likes a little romance but Joseph and Shannon’s antics border on soap opera cheesy at points. Then of course there’s the balance between a sprawling tale spanning an ocean and half of another continent and a Hollywood tale packed with a few too many lucky coincidences.

The acting really stands out as the driving force of the film. Do Cruise and Kidman go overboard now and then? Yes. But they give themselves so fully to their roles that you can’t help but believe in and desperately get behind these characters. Joseph and Shannon won’t go down as one of those iconic epic film couples but they have enough spunk and sass to make Far and Away a crowd pleaser.

The story is quite simple and predictable but this is an early entry in director Ron Howard’s serious stage as a filmmaker. The film has plenty of potential to devolve into a corny immigration comedy full of Irish stereotypes but Howard, having directed several screwball comedies before this, knows where to draw the line. He keeps the film fun and fresh when it’s called for and never lets it wallow in mood and harsh reality for too long.

Far and Away may not appeal to film snobs who only appreciate the utmost dramatic (which for some reason usually translates to depressing) and realistic historical epic tales. Rather than focusing on high-art cinema, he aims to make the kind of films that he grew up watching and loving. He is a movie lover’s director, plain and simple. What it lacks in staying power, this film makes up for in enjoyability.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button* (2008)

Audiences, meet Oscar bait. Oscar bait, meet audiences. Bluntly speaking, that is what The Curious Case of Benjamin Button amounts to. It dabbles with a little bit of everything that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences typically goes gaga for. It’s a period piece of sorts, it’s a dramatic love story, it’s got lush scenery and visuals, plus brilliant stars and an accomplished director at the helm. Yes, for a while there, this was the film that everyone was talking about heading into awards season.

An elderly woman named Daisy (Cate Blanchett) lies dying in a New Orleans hospital as Hurricane Katrina looms outside. Though she has lived a long life she has one more story to tell- that of her many encounters with a strange and fantastic man named Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt). With her daughter at her side she begins to read from Benjamin’s diary a tale that spans 85 years.

Benjamin was born with a bizarre condition. As a baby he was shriveled like an old man and retained this appearance as he grew through his adolescence. Abandoned by his father, Benjamin is adopted by an African-American woman (Taraji P. Henson) and raised like a son. As he grows older numerically, Button’s appearance changes in reverse. Knowing that he is destined for a different life, Benjamin travels the world for meaning, crossing paths with Daisy at unexpected times. This leads to a complicated romance that spans decades.

From the previews, this film looked like it was going to be something like Forrest Gump with a more serious, fantasy-driven twist. Had this film been anything like that at all, it probably wouldn’t have been so frustratingly dull. Benjamin Button is two hours and forty minutes of moody drama. It’s easy to grasp the idea that Daisy and Benjamin’s romance will be difficult. How could it not? One person gets older while the other appears to get younger? There’s only so much time when their appearances would be similar enough to avoid controversy.

Benjamin Button may have lived a unique life but none of it is very remarkable in comparison with his condition. For a film that spans almost all of the 20th century, there’s very little intersection with history to be seen. Instead of placing the main characters in historical places at historical times, the world of Benjamin and Daisy melts through the years with little to no connection the ‘real world.’ There’s plenty of period detail but that’s where it ends. Maybe the filmmakers didn’t want to tie in notable events to avoid comparisons to Gump. Maybe they just thought it wasn’t right in order to keep the production tied to the spirit of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s short story (which I have not read).

Pitt and Blanchett do a solid job of playing two troubled individuals whose lives are intertwined. Hope, confusion, fear and sadness radiate from their faces. This, combined with a muted color palate dripping with mood and style, creates a film that is beautiful to look at but boring to watch. Deft direction, good camerawork and all the fine details are here. The only thing missing is an exciting story. Button is an intriguing concept but along the way to making a film that looks like a gorgeous still-life in motion they forgot to add a little life to the film.

I’m not asking for Button to wander through history and bump shoulders with a veritable list of who’s who, but placing him and Daisy in or around familiar events would have given audiences something to grab onto. Instead we’re left with another star-crossed lovers tale with a unique twist. It’s probably not artsy-fartsy enough to satisfy the art-house crowd but Button is a little too serious and artsy for general audiences to warmly embrace it.

While I found it to be a tedious viewing experience at times, I see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button for what it is. What it lacks in livelihood it makes up for in all the other areas. For that reason alone it is a solidly good film. Taking a few more creative liberties with the script could have made it a real winner and a legitimate contender for Best Picture.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984)

Looking up a few details about this film made me aware of a few things. First, I could have sworn that this was the second Muppet film. Lo and behold I am wrong. For someone who likes watching film series in chronological order I was shocked to learn that The Great Muppet Caper was released prior to this film. Secondly, I was further dismayed to discover that, despite owning it and having seen it within the last five years, I never posted an official rating or review for The Muppet Movie. This will be corrected in time but I am lucky in that the Muppet movies aren’t really a chronologically linked saga to begin with.

The film begins with the Muppet gang graduating from college, where they created a hit musical show called Manhattan Melodies. They make their way to New York, eager to find a producer willing to back their show. The closest they get to success is nearly being swindled by a con artist. The gang runs out of cash, morale hits the floor, and they all set off on their own disparate paths.

Kermit stays behind, continuing his search for a producer while working at a diner. Just when Kermit finds a willing producer, he is hit by a car and suffers total amnesia. It’s up to Miss Piggy and the rest of the Muppet gang (who come flocking to New York with the news that their show is a go) to find Kermit and restore his memory, thereby saving their friend and the show.

I really don’t have a lot to say about this film. Any movie involving the Muppets should tell you that good-natured fun is about to be had. This is the Muppets after all. They stand for wholesome, cheeky humor and zany fantasy-like antics. The fact that they are infiltrating the ‘real world’ only adds to the wonder, beauty and magic that befalls your eyes.

The Muppet Movie was a landmark film, so it’s hard for any follow-up to match the standard it set. Still, I may be short-changing Manhattan because, from a technical standpoint, any Muppet film presents a daunting task for both cinematographers and editors. Setting up shots just right to keep the Muppeteers out of view is one things- rigging up and blocking scenes where the Muppets are actually moving presents a litany of logistical challenges for the whole crew.

Technical wizardry aside, Manhattan doesn’t quite grab you the whole way through. Highlights do include Rizzo the Rat and his friends, as well as a hilarious scene where Kermit tries to pass himself off as a big shot producer in Sardi's restaurant (betrayed only by unknowingly taking down Liza Minnelli’s portrait), but not much else will stick in your mind. Each member of the core gang gets time to shine when Kermit is reading letters about what they’re doing while he’s still trying to sell the show, but the Muppets function best as a team. Human help is nice but nothing can replace the chemistry and on-screen magic of having the gang interact and feed off each other’s energy.

Of the 10 songs listed on the film’s soundtrack, I can remember only one of them and vaguely at that. Perhaps this is why I’m not as fond of Manhattan. The Muppets are every bit as much about music as they are about their antics. To fall short in either is going to reduce the fun. It’s a tall task to ask lightning to strike twice. This being the third Muppet film makes it quite an uphill battle to keep audiences fully enamored by the Muppets' magic still.

It may not be as memorable as other Muppet films but it is by no means a substandard product. The Muppets Take Manhattan continues the technical mastery of Jim Henson and his devoted team; no question there. The creative department may have run out of gas or simply couldn’t come up with enough new ideas after two films and five seasons on TV. Despite this, Manhattan is an adorable underdog tale about Kermit the Frog taking on New York City and winning. As I said before, just about any time you’re watching the Muppets is time well spent.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Calendar Girls (2003)

Seeing really is believing. Prior to this film I would have doubted very much that a story about older women stripping down could be something enjoyable. Sure enough, Helen Mirren leads a pack of seasoned British actresses to success in a risqué tale with a lot of heart.

After her husband dies of leukemia, Annie Clarke (Julie Walters) receives an outpouring of support from her friends. After spending many a day sitting in the hospital waiting room, Annie decides she wants to raise money to donate a more comfortable sofa to the hospital. Her friends in the social organization Women’s Institute come up with the idea of selling a calendar to raise funds for the donation. Annie’s bold friend Chris Harper (Mirren) sees the need to make the calendar something more exciting than the standard WI fundraiser. Her proposition is to have some of their club members strip down for tasteful, discreet nude pictures while engaged in typical WI activities.

Chris and Annie have a hard time convincing their friends to take part in what seems like a lewd gimmick and an even harder time convincing the WI organization to approve of their controversial fundraiser. Once it becomes a hit, the bonds of friendship are tested as Chris takes center stage in publicizing the calendar. Annie believes she has lost sight of their original mission in awe of her newfound celebrity status.

Even if you’re not a part of the film’s target demographic (I know I sure wasn’t), good comedy almost always prevails. Calendar Girls possesses a lot of witty but dry British humor but it doesn’t over-Brit the comedy. American audiences will be able to snicker, giggle and laugh at all the right moments. Older viewers may find more humor in the subtleties of post-middle age life but the film does its best to stay fresh and accessible to everyone.

Much like the ladies in the calendar, the film is not interested in being an explicit skin parade. Very little nudity is on display and occurs briefly while the women are getting into position for their tastefully risqué poses. While some ultra-prudes may object to even this minimal amount of nudity, a little exposure comes with the territory and it's carried out as tastefully as possible.

The film does get a little bogged down towards the end as Chris’s ego inflates and gets challenged but it would seem a little too conveniently perfect otherwise. This is a conundrum faced by most comedies these days. Do you go all out goofy, forsaking any possibility that the events of the film could actually occur and turn off cynics? Or, is it better to say ‘tough luck’ to the total escapism seekers and add that dose of reality in order to keep the film grounded? Calendar Girls makes the right decision and stays true to its ‘based on a true story’ roots and shows the bumpy road the girls face.

In the end, Calendar Girls will get a few laughs out of you. Just don’t expect it to last in your memory beyond being ‘the one where the old ladies make a nude calendar.’ So like Mirren’s character, even audiences will be hard pressed to remember the original purpose of the titular calendar. That’s not such a big deal though because that will be enough to remind you that it was a sweet and charming little movie.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)

Let me preface this review by stating that I plan on watching this documentary again in order to give it a more accurate rating. Oftentimes documentaries are tricky things. Anymore, they almost always promote some kind of viewpoint or stance on a certain issue. Very few documentaries since the Michael Moore era began have been truly objective. This makes it very difficult to review the artistic merits of a documentary because the subject matter can present a major barrier. If you happen to be opposed to its subject matter, you risk dismissing the entire product outright. If you agree with the subject matter, you may gloss over its shortcomings in the name of supporting the subject.

No bones about it, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not a truly objective documentary. It supports the idea of intelligent design- a controversial concept that means different things to different people depending on their viewpoint. For supporters, it is a way of acknowledging that science is limited in explaining some things through straight evolutionary theory and that an intelligent, supernatural designer may or must be involved. For skeptics, it’s merely a thinly-veiled front for Christian fundamentalists to push a new breed of creationism onto the masses. There’s actually an immense grey area between the two, but this is a review of a documentary, not a treatise on intelligent design.

Expelled does not address intelligent design on a scientific level. Instead, Ben Stein leads a series of interviews with adherents and skeptics alike into the stigmatization of the concept that has developed within the scientific community. Stein makes the observation that there are scientists who believe in God and intelligent design concepts, but these people often times have to cover up their beliefs out of fear of reprisal from their academic and institutional peers.

Stein highlights the cases of five individuals who feel that they lost their positions, were rejected tenure, or were passed over for promotional opportunities due to their belief in intelligent design theory. These stories require a little extra research because the filmmakers only convey how these highly-credentialed scholars and researchers suddenly found themselves barely capable of finding work or subject to intense harassment once their beliefs came to light in one fashion or another. Few if any responses from the offending institutions accepted the filmmakers’ invitation to rebut the claims. Rather, most provided written accounts for what they claim happened in each situation before or after the film’s release.

This, along with several of the skeptics interviewed, provides Stein ample opportunity to use his trademark dry sarcasm while ‘exposing’ the scientific community’s unwillingness to be ‘truly scientific’ and explore all avenues in regards to the origins and development of life on earth. While it is true that some hardcore atheists cling to evolution in an attempt to refute religion, Stein does a disservice by painting opposition to intelligent design as an institutional plot by the scientific community to do the very same thing. By referring to the elite, string-pulling members of the scientific community and ardent atheists almost interchangeably, Stein & company themselves become guilty of engaging in smear tactics.

The last third or so of the film changes direction and goes into the history of what has happened when Darwin’s concept of natural selection is taken out of the realm of natural science and applied socially. When placed on the pedestal of societal progressivism, you get the eugenics movement and genetic engineering. When abused in conjunction with hyper-nationalism, you get dangerous political parties such as the Nazis. Stein fails to fully connect all the relevant dots in these cases, so this tangential segment may strike some lesser-educated folks as implying that the theory evolution led directly to Nazism.

It is this last portion of the documentary that leaves me with uncertain feelings about Expelled. It’s such a radical departure from the earlier focus and takes up a serious chunk of time. This leaves the documentary feeling a bit scattered. Interesting points and observations are made in each part but both sections feel as if they belong as subjects for two different stand-alone films. I don’t know of anyone who would actually argue in favor of social Darwinism, so the latter segment serves mostly as an effective and spooky cautionary tale.

While this review may seem mostly negative, I actually enjoyed watching Expelled. The filmmakers made a terrific choice in selecting Stein as their narrator. Just about everyone remembers him from his supporting film and TV work, and his sense of humor is delightful. He may be a bit too dry for some people to understand but his intelligent wit and subtle sarcasm are employed to maximum effectiveness here. Those who disagree with the film’s subject will likely think he’s just being a smart aleck but isn’t that what detractors usually say of Michael Moore as well?

In fact, Expelled owes its craftiness and structure to the success of Moore’s infotainment documentary style. Like Moore, Stein and the filmmakers plays loosey-goosey with facts and cherry pick the best sound bites from those both for and against their argument. Stein comes off as more reserved and intelligent than Moore but he has his tongue placed very dryly in his cheek nearly the whole way through. As with Moore’s work, the end result is a murky mix of fact, opinion and flat-out exaggeration.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed tries to do too much in 97 minutes. It showcases what it believes is a not-so-secret conspiracy to marginalize scientists who don’t hide their religious beliefs while also providing a lengthy public service announcement regarding the past evils of social Darwinism. The former doesn’t provide enough detail to satisfy their claims and the latter is oversimplified. Split these two up and give them the full treatment and a more compelling argument may indeed rise to the surface. Until then, Stein smirks his way through a truly entertaining although incomplete documentary.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Julie & Julia (2009)

There have been plenty of movies made about instances when ‘worlds collide,’ but I don’t recall ever seeing a film that weaves two true stories together like Julie & Julia. Unique as its dual biopic approach may be, this split biography becomes unbalanced both in time allotment and level of interest. While it may not exactly be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen, Julie & Julia isn’t quite as delicious as advertised.

The main component of the film focuses on Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a call center worker for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The year is 2002, not long after the September 11 attacks. Looking for some stress relief, Julie decides to cook every single recipe in Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking within one year’s time. To help hold herself accountable, she starts a blog about her journey, which develops an unexpected following. The self-inflicted pressure of reaching her goal, along with the assumed pressure of her readers’ expectations, leads to some tense moments in her marriage.

The other component of the film focuses on Powell’s muse- Julia Child. These scenes are set in the 1950s when the Child’s were living in France. Julia (Meryl Streep), bored with day-to-day life enrolls in the famous Le Cordon Bleu to learn French cooking. The experience leads her to collaborate on said cookbook targeted at American housewives. She struggles to earn respect for both herself in the male-dominated profession of cooking as well as the validity and marketability of her book in the eyes of publishers.

The main focus of the film is on Powell and her journey through Child’s book. It’s current, features a popular young star in Adams, and there is love and drama that everyday people can relate to. The only problem is that the average person couldn’t give a crap about Julie Powell. You may have heard of her book by chance but she is little more than someone who found success and landed a book deal thanks to a blog. Sure, the struggles she endured in cooking and saving her marriage are her own, but the only reason anyone would be drawn into her story is because everyone (okay, maybe not those in Generation Z) has heard of Julia Child. Powell may not have intended to use Julia Child’s work to become famous but she certainly owes much of her success to the association with Child.

Therein lies the downfall of the film. If you don’t find Powell interesting, you’ll only have roughly half of a film to enjoy. The film’s target demographic is women, who are usually much less cynical and will probably enjoy watching Powell’s struggle to keep herself together as a working woman and wife. But our culture as a whole has grown more cynical towards faux celebrities who pop up online or on TV despite having little or no actual talent to speak of. Powell was fortunate that her success came before the onslaught of relative nobodies blogging about specific issues or topics and making a killing off of it. This movie, however, came after that wave and is thus open to such criticism.

If you are able to keep Powell’s setting in context, though, you probably won’t have that difficult a time taking it for what it is- a puff piece with a little drama mixed in. After her blog becomes a hit, she develops a bit of a responsibility complex in that she feels a somewhat imagined amount of pressure from her readers to stay on target with her one-year plan. She begins to devote a little too much time to her blog, which understandably irks her husband. Having been involved with a minor web phenomenon myself for a few years, I can understand where Powell is coming from with her need to fulfill audience expectations. But she commits a cardinal sin by letting this perceived pressure control her. Frustrating as it is to watch, it was nice to see they didn’t gloss over this issue.

The Julia Child scenes definitely steal the show. Meryl Streep nails her character’s mannerisms and eccentric voice. Her performance is so spot-on that I don’t think anyone will be able to produce a satisfactory, full-length biopic of Child. It’s a shame that she wasn’t cast for a full biopic of Child but the parts of her life that Julie & Julia focuses on are the key points. We see her struggle in two very significant arenas but, since her name has become legendary, we don’t require much more than what made the final cut.

More of the film focuses on Powell, which is fine (the title is Julie & Julia after all). It’s just ironic that, try as they might to play up the modern success tale, the combined weight of the legendary Julia Child and the stellar Meryl Streep completely overpower the up-and-comer Powell and the then relatively new Adams. If anything, you would want it to be the other way around- get a big name leading lady to make Powell significant and important while perhaps finding a solid, pedigreed supporting actress to create a star-making performance out of the Child role.

Inventive in its approach, Julie & Julia falters in the execution. The Julia Child sequences are rich with Hollywood biopic glory while the Julie Powell segments occasionally border on Lifetime movie of the week territory. The end result is a cinematic confection that’s sweet enough to get a recommendation.

RATING: 3 out of 5