Sinopse:

Jason Stevens tinha um relacionamento muito simples com seu milionário avô, Howard Red Stevens. Ele o odiava. Sem conversas francas, sem momentos de carinho, apenas o dinheiro ligava os dois. Então Jason imaginava que quando seu avô faleceu tudo que lhe sobraria seria outra simples transação de dinheiro, que a fortuna de seu avô lhe permitiria continuar a ter o estilo de vida que ele acostumou-se a ter. Mas ele acaba descobrindo que, como parte de sua herança, seu avô lhe deixou doze tarefas, as quais ele chama de presentes , cada uma o desafiando de uma maneira improvável. Cumprindo as tarefas ele irá aprender a repensar sua vida e compreender qual é a relação entre riqueza e felicidade.

-Ótimo filme!

-Assistido em 28/11/2009

The second, and decidedly superior product, from Robert Benton last weekend. In the recent Feast of Love, Benton traded in the solid, veteran cast from his previous film Twilight for a set of young and sexy pawns to cater to navel-gazing empty-headed philosophes. This film, however, takes major advantage of its L.A. setting, incorporating the right sites and sights of those sites (and corresponding implications about L.A. and its inhabitants) to construct a solid “neo-noir” (as they’re calling it) that would make the old boys proud. If Hollywood movies have taught us anything, it’s that there is nothing good, moral, or hopeful to be found in Los Angeles. It’s a doomed city, as it was from its earliest days when a bunch of capitalist idealists decided to settle in an area when a soon-to-be-depleted water supply, no harbor, and virtually no chance of survival at the onset of the Industrial Revolution. The area had no life in it, but they forced life into it, anyway.

L.A. hills

The newspapers were infamously responsible for a good chunk of this forced growth, acknowledged by Jack Ames (Gene Hackman), who says that what the L.A. Times says is good enough for him, truth-wise. This acknowledgment commits that famous error of noir characters, conflating or confusing truth with fact. (Ames is referring to a supposed murder that the Times claimed was a suicide.) Ames’ poor health fits the bill of the castrated patriarchal figure who finances and initiates the investigation, which of course turns out to implicate him and those close to him.

He has the cancer

Speaking of castration, the opening scene almost castrates Harry Ross (Paul Newman), as 17-year old Mel Ames (Reese Witherspoon) accidentally puts a bullet into his inner thigh. As a result, the police force mistakenly believes this P.I. has lost his manhood when in fact he’s quite virile, especially for a senior citizen. The diegetic “audience” (basically the police force and James Garner’s character Raymond Hope) assume him to be no threat, having lost his instrument of power. Hope even asks Ross point blank if he’s still got it. The same point correlates to Ross’ ability to invade the intimate spaces of women without them feeling threatened. At their first encounters in the film, both of the Ames women (daughter and mother) are fully undressed when Ross penetrates their hotel room and swimming area, respectively. Though Mel is disappointed to see him and Catherine (Susan Sarandon, the chief femme fatale) delighted, neither is phased in the slightest at encountering this particular male figure while bodily exposed.

Unphased

That Harry has no space of his own – forced to live with his client and client’s attractive wife – fits with the down-and-out nature of his character and the nature of noir’s glory days: always in the past (or always the stuff of dreams). The sinister characters – whether directly implicated in the crimes or guilty by association – dwell without exception in those notorious Modernist style cliff homes overlooking the L.A. Basin. These are the homes of the successful, and to be successful in L.A. involves a lack of scruples (at least in the movies). The P.I. character may not have many scruples, but he does have some. He’s interested not in ascending but in surviving. He may temporarily disregard conventional morals (such as destroying evidence, breaking and entering), but only for the pragmatic greater good. Harry’s days are bygone days or attempts to re-enter bygone days. The same can be said of his clients and his nemesis. At the same time, there’s a “I can’t go back to that” element that is undeniable, but only in moments of intense duress. Noir’s defeatist fatalism must admit in moments of clarity that even the past was no more glorious than the present. Harry’s past includes a divorce and alcoholism. Raymond’s past returns him to the flat Basin from the jagged cliffs. Raymond’s last name, “Hope,” and his eventual death capture the inevitability of the dark world of L.A. success and the crime that must accompany it. The ironically hopeful ending for Harry returns him to a liminal past – not the distant past but further back than the present. He returns to a vacation spot, a dream, a temporary escape from all that is unavoidable in his life. As is often the case with noir protagonists, however, Harry is an amnesiac, forgetting this film’s opening setting and his almost-castration, which took place at a vacation spot in Mexico.

Living in a crime scene

Tampering

Echoes of Sunset Boulevard

Power overlooking

Film and TV icon Lee Meriwether is scheduled to join us on the next edition of TV CONFIDENTIAL, premiering Monday, Nov. 30 at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Shokus Internet Radio, with a rebroadcast Tuesday, Dec. 1 at 11pm ET, 8pm PT on Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org.

Known to many of us for playing Betty Jones on the long-running private detective series Barnaby Jones (CBS, 1973-1980), as well as The Catwoman in the original Batman motion picture from 1966, Lee Meriwether has been a film and TV icon for more than four decades. We’ll talk about these famous characters, plus her roles on such classic series as Star Trek, The Time Tunnel, The Fugitive, Mission: Impossible, Dan August and Perry Mason, her work with such legends as John Wayne, Rock Hudson, Andy Griffith, Jonathan Winters, Irwin Allen and James Garner, and a whole lot more.

If you want to be part of our conversation, if you have a question for Ms. Meriwether about her career or any of the films and TV series in which she’s appeared, we invite you to join us for our live broadcast Monday, Nov. 30 beginning at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Shokus Internet Radio. Phone number is (888) SHOKUS-5 / (888) 746-5875. Email address is talk@tvconfidential.net.

TV CONFIDENTIAL with Ed Robertson and Frankie Montiforte
Mon-Sun 10pm ET, 7pm PT
Shokus Internet Radio
Every other Tuesday at 11pm ET, 8pm PT
Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org
www.tvconfidential.net
blog.tvconfidential.net
Also available as a podcast via iTunes and FeedBurner

Es cierto, quien escribe no tiene más remedio que confesarlo: uno, que, como en todo lo demás, cuando ama, ama en exceso (lo que vulgarmente se llama “hasta las trancas”), no es en cambio de puertas para fuera un tipo especialmente romántico. Al menos no hasta que se pone (o se ponía) a ello con algo de esfuerzo. Quizá, a lo Bogart (ya quisiera uno ser como Bogart… en eso), tras su espíritu cenizo, su sarcasmo sin descanso y su cinismo abierto las veinticuatro horas, se oculta un sentimental (como le decía Claude Rains en Casablanca). Pero romántico, en términos almibarados, lo que comúnmente conocemos como “moñas”, lo que se dice romántico, uno no es. Así que volvemos a ir contracorriente en esta sección al recoger la apología de la moñez que supone El diario de Noa, azucaradas dos horas de mermelada de grosella dirigidas por Nick Cassavetes (ilustre apellido mancillado en esta ocasión) en 2004 y que para un amplio espectro de público se ha colocado junto a Ghost o Dirty Dancing (puaj, me crujen los dedos al escribir este título) como una de las referencias habituales a la hora de rescatar algún producto digno dentro de ese endemoniado género de pastiches sentimentaloides que ha dado en llamarse “comedia romántica” y que tantos pestiños incluye, entre los cuales, para este enfant terrible de la cosa del cuore, figura ésta en un puesto de honor.

Vaya por delante que se trata de una película no especialmente mal filmada sino que, al contrario, como toda cinta a caballo entre épocas distintas, supone un notable esfuerzo de producción y ambientación, sobre todo a la hora de componer los distintos escenarios que contiene la historia, desde un pueblecito de los años treinta y cuarenta hasta las breves escenas que tienen la guerra como marco, en la que Cassavetes no se mueve mal, consiguiendo una factura visual y técnica sin alardes pero eficaz. El problema, como tantas veces, no es la forma, sino el fondo, empezando por la previsibilidad del guión. Construida como una acumulación de flashbacks o una retrospectiva fragmentada, la película usurpa en buena parte la estética y la atmósfera del cine mal llamado independiente para contarnos una historia a partir del relato que Duke (James Garner), un anciano que vive en una residencia, lee continuamente y siempre que hay ocasión a Allie (Gena Rowlands), otra residente que arrastra acuciantes problemas de memoria. La historia, claro, trata de dos jóvenes que se conocen durante los años treinta y que viven un amor que es la pera: Noah (Ryan Gosling, otro actor de una sola cara) y, atención, Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams). Los mocetes se encuentran en un verano en Carolina del Norte y se encandilan a pesar de que son de extracciones sociales muy opuestas, ella de familia bien y él hijo de un peón (Sam Sephard). Y, cómo no, la cosa empieza con azúcar: el chico se queda tan prendado de la chica que, habiendo subido ésta a la noria de una feria con otro mozo, el joven Noah trepa hasta arriba y amenaza con arrojarse desde lo alto si ella no acepta salir con él. La chica lo toma por un lunático pero, en el fondo halagada y empezando a segregar sustancias corporales varias, por supuesto, acepta.

Desde ese momento, salpicada por continuas vueltas a la residencia en la que la pareja de ancianos comenta la historia, la narración se construye sobre todos los tópicos habidos y por haber sobre lo cursi, tanto en los diálogos como en las situaciones, para mostrarnos el gran amor que viven estos muchachotes: comparten algodón de azúcar, pasean de la mano, contemplan puestas de sol en el campo y, tras haberse mojado con un repentino chaparrón veraniego en mitad del campo se dedican a fornicar, de modo muy romántico, eso sí, en una habitación iluminada con velas de la que el día de mañana ha de ser la casa de sus sueños… Pero claro, los papás de la nena, como el chaval no tiene dónde caerse muerto, lo toman como algo pasajero y no aceptan que, cuando la cosa se pone chunga y la niñata pijotera consentida se empeña en continuar con su novio, su hija se comprometa con semejante mangurrián. Así que, de manera igualmente tópica, la cosa deriva en el drama de un amor imposible por oposición paterna, correo postal inteceptado y Segunda Guerra Mundial incluidos, y en cómo los chicos se separan para reencontrarse años después, cuando él es un tipo de éxito y ella está comprometida con otro (otro tópico), un hijo de papá forrado y de futuro económico asegurado. El drama oscila pues entre ese amor renacido y las comodidades materiales de un matrimonio económicamente próspero entre gente guapa (más tópicos, es la guerra…), y claro, el triunfo del amor es inevitable: no hace falta ser un hacha para que, a través de la coincidencia de nombres mal disimulada averigüemos quién es la pareja de ancianos de la residencia y por qué él le cuenta a ella una vez tras otra la historia.

Además de esta sorpresa que de tan telegrafiada resulta de lo más previsible, es precisamente la tremenda cursilería la que arruina el ingenio que todo esto pudiera tener, sobre todo el juego entre los ancianos desmemoriados y su interés en una historia que presuntamente trata de dos jóvenes desconocidos (y, con perdón, un poco gilipollas). Bien contada pero sin mordiente, sin garra, fuerza ni pasión, la película no deja de ser un drama ajeno en el que el espectador entrará o no según su propio grado de azucaramiento, en el que cuesta encontrar humor, ironía, inteligencia, brillantez en los diálogos u originalidad en las situaciones y en la que sobran clichés y pasteleo. Tanta glucosa se atraganta tanto que uno casi llega a desear que tanto amor se vaya por el sumidero, y el único condimento que podría salvar este monumento al tedio gelatinado, la mala baba, brilla por su ausencia. Será que uno no es un romántico o que la vida no le ha dejado serlo…

Acusados: todos
Atenuantes: la dirección artística
Agravantes: azúcar, mermelada, miel, gelatina, merengue y todos los dulces que el lector sea capaz de imaginar
Sentencia: culpables
Condena: supositorios de sal a tutiplén

Echamos pestes de los remakes, pero en ocasiones han salido redondos, y se han elevado muy por encima de la calidad de su original.

A “¿Víctor o Victoria?”, dirigida por Blake Edwards en 1982, no le correspondió ser el primer remake de una película alemana de 1933, titulada “Viktor und Viktoria”, que había dirigido Reinhold Schünzel. Cuando se realizó, ya se había hecho una versión francesa en 1934, titulada “Georges et Georgette”, otra, también de producción francesa, rodada en 1935 bajo el título “First a Girl”, y una tercera en 1957, esta vez alemana, con el título de la original. La película de Edwards fue, por tanto, su cuarto remake, aunque aún tendría un quinto, también dirigido por el. Este, hecho para televisión en 1995.

Confieso no haber visto ninguno de los films anteriores, y aunque sea prejuzgar sin base sólida, si creo, que por la poca trascendencia que han tenido en la historia del cine, antes y después de “¿Víctor o Victoria?”, es esta la versión más importante. La que recordamos los que la vimos en 1982, gozamos con ella cuando la volvemos a ver, y la que puede también arraigar en el recuerdo de los que ahora la vean por primera vez.

No fue Edwards en quien se pensó en primer lugar para dirigir la película. Le fue ofrecida al veterano Billy Wilder, y fue este, al rechazar la oferta, quien lo recomendó para su dirección.

Blake Edwards, por entonces, no precisaba ya de avales, pues su variada filmografía, con títulos que ya habían trascendido para la crítica y los aficionados al séptimo arte, era en sí misma su carta de presentación. “Desayuno con diamantes” (1961), “Días de vino y rosas” (1963),  “La pantera rosa” (1963), y sus secuelas,  o “El Guateque” (1968), eran algunas de sus aclamadas películas.

“¿Víctor o Victoria?”, en clave de comedia musical, contaba la historia de Victoria, una joven cantante de ópera, que en la década de los años 20, en París, se encontraba sumida en la pobreza al no encontrar trabajo en su profesión, pues lo que primaba en aquellos años, eran las cantantes de cabaret, y su voz y su físico se alejaba de lo que se pedía para ser contratada en estos últimos. Con la ayuda de “Toddy”, un cantante gay que trabaja en un cabaret, consigue un contrato en este, pero haciéndose pasar por hombre, y actuando como transformista. Su disfraz engaña a todo el mundo, incluso a un rico hombre de negocios norteamericano que se enamora de el/ella.

La película está plagada de situaciones divertidas e ingeniosos diálogos, y con tan sólo esos ingredientes, podría calificarse de excelente, pero la presencia de Henry Mancini, haciéndose cargo de la música y de las canciones, la potenció más todavía.

Ya en los títulos de crédito, Mancini hace gala de una elegancia en su composición, que nos preludia el agradable film que vamos a disfrutar, y sigue esa pauta en los números musicales, que resultan impecables.

En la edición de los premios Oscar de aquel año, Henry Mancini fue galardonado con el de a la Mejor Banda Sonora.

La película estuvo protagonizada por Julie Andrews (Victoria-Víctor), esposa de Blake Edwards, que nos obsequió con su magnífica voz, el siempre eficaz y magnífico en esta ocasión en su papel, Robert Preston (Toddy), James Garner (King Marchand), en la para mí, su mejor actuación para la pantalla, y la pizpireta Lesley Ann Warren (Norma Cassady), bordando su rol de chica boba. Secundarios de verdadero lujo arropaban a los protagonistas.

Recordad, o escuchad por primera vez esa música compuesta por Mancini.   Merece la pena.

Recordad también la película, o vedla si no la habéis visto. Con ella disfrutaréis de buen cine.

-

Swanson 

#100!

Data
Title: The Great Escape
Year: 1963
Length: 172 minutes
Director: John Sturges
Writers: James Clavell & W.R. Burnett, based on the book by Paul Brickhill
Starring: Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, James Donald, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasence, James Coburn, Hannes Messemer
Music: Elmer Bernstein
Distinctions: currently #100 on IMDb’s Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: WWII POWs plot a massive escape attempt to distract German resources
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Good. The plot is great, but the details start to seriously fall apart at the end.  I had to look it up online to even see if the plan worked.
Characters: Indifferent. I had no investment in any of these people. Also, after looking online, it seems that the people on which the characters are based were actually pretty interesting. But in the movie we get “I like to ride bikes.”
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. Attenborough is great. Most of the other leads are just okay.
Music: Bad. “…this land belongs to you and me!” So. Very. Obnoxious.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). Lots of potential, but a pretty boring movie.
Objective Rating: 6/10 (Okay).

2004: The Notebook di Nick Cassavetes

Un film che l’intera critica italiana ha giustamente bocciato, riconoscendogli un unico merito (“In una produzione made in Usa che sembra sempre più orientata a soddisfare le aspettative di un pubblico giovanissimo, «Notebook» si pone in controtendenza. Il target si ribalta, prevalgono le donne e la fascia di pubblico più anziano”, Il Manifesto).

Nick Cassavetess, figlio di una coppia d’oro di Hollywood (John Cassavetes e Gena Rowlands), si  è fatto soprattutto apprezzare come regista di She’s so lovely (ottimo psicodramma che regalò la Palma d’oro a Sean Penn nel 1997).

Per il suo nuovo film trae spunto dall’ultimo romanzo di Nicholas Sparks. Questi, già autore dello zuccheroso “Le parole che non ti ho detto”, ha firmato un altro bestseller con gli stessi ingredienti: romanticismo a più non posso, sentimento (sentimentalismo) in abbondanza, passioni che sfidano il tempo e la decadenza fisica, tramonti rosso sangue e albe abbacinanti… (un critico ha detto: è uno scrittore “che, nel dar vita ai suoi libri, si arma di un calamaio colmo di miele, nel quale intinge la penna prima di lasciarla cadere su ogni pagina, conquistando così chi le volta leccandosi le dita…”).

Trattando un materiale di questo tipo è chiaro che il giovane regista si pone su una linea diametralmente opposta a quella scelta dal famoso padre (morto nel 1989), autore di lavori sempre anticonformisti, molto personali e spesso non facili.

Nick Cassavetes, che col nome che porta e con un film come She’s So Lovely alle spalle (ma qui aveva rispolverato un vecchio copione del padre) pareva destinato a ben altro, si è catapultato nel melodramma d’altri tempi descrivendoci una grande storia d’amore old style che in America ha riscosso un notevole successo e che, stranamente, è piaciuta alla maggioranza della critica statunitense.

Si parla di un uomo anziano che in una casa di riposo sta leggendo a una donna, anche lei anziana, pagine sbiadite dal tempo di vecchi quaderni di appunti: la storia di due giovani innamorati negli anni Quaranta…

Servendosi di una fotografia dai colori forti e molto patinata e di una ricca colonna sonora d’epoca, il regista intende mostrarci l’America felice, ingenua, libera di un tempo (ma è mai esistita?) in cui tutti sono spensierati, pieni di aspettative e fiduciosi nella vittoria contro i pregiudizi e le ingiustizie della società: un mondo dove l’amore supera ogni ostacolo e impedimento. Ma vi è un altro tema: il dramma esistenziale, la vecchiaia, la decadenza fisica, la malattia, l’oblio della memoria e il bisogno di ricordare.

A differenza di quanto accadeva in Pomodori verdi fritti… (la cui struttura Le pagine della nostra vita ricorda) i due piani non si armonizzano, non si integrano ma uno disturba l’altro e la loro combinazione appesantisce il tutto e fa sembrare l’opera più lunga di quanto effettivamente sia.

Il film non coinvolge, non commuove, non induce lo spettatore alla partecipazione: spettatore che è portato a chiedersi cosa stia vedendo (anche perché l’insieme sa tanto di soap televisiva). Se N.Cassavetes intendeva fare un omaggio al cinema di un tempo (come fece qualche anno fa Todd Haynes con lo splendido Lontano dal Paradiso) l’operazione è senz’altro fallita: troppa ricercatezza, troppa artificiosità, troppe ovvietà, troppe frasi ad effetto, troppa melassa elargita senza alcun pudore.

Buona la prestazione di James Garner e di Joan Allen, sprecato e inutile Sam Shepard.

Coraggiosa nel mostrare in pieno la sua vecchiaia Gena Rowlands (ma il trucco è eccessivo) e ci si sente quasi male quando vengono mostrate le sue vecchie foto (come dimenticare che donna splendida, e che attrice magnifica, era in Gloria del 1980…).

La coppia giovane è costituita da Rachel McAdams (piuttosto insulsa e monocorde) e da Ryan Gosling (di cui ricordiamo le notevoli performance in Lars e una ragazza tutta sua e Il caso Thomas Crawford).

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

sito ufficiale

Director: William Wyler

What Made These Women Different?

Writer: Lillian Hellman (play), John Michael Hayes (script)

Starring: Audrey Hepburn, Shirley MacLaine, James Garner

This was a vital text during my dissertation because it is fundermentally about lesbianism. The plot centers on two school headmistresses, Karen (Hepburn) and Martha (MacLaine), who are caught up in a viscious lie spread by one of their pupils. The pupil in question is a little bit pyscho and the kind you want to strangle on sight. The lie takes their school (no one wants their children taught by lesbians), it takes Karen’s relationship with her fiancee, Joe (Garner) and eventually takes Martha’s life. Though this film was made at the end of the production code era, it is fairly out there for it’s time, but it panders to the code by having Martha, who finally admits that she does have “unnatural” (their word not mine) feelings for Karen. These feelings are unrequinted though and although, Karen asks Martha to come with her when they leave, Martha can’t go one feeling this way and kills herself. It’s a well acted piece that manages to discuss the issues and prejudices of the time without even ever mentioning the word “lesbian” lol.

BEST QUOTE

Mrs. Lily Mortar: God will punish you.
Martha: He’s doing all right.

7/10

After getting excited yesterday about “Dear John” and realising how much I love Nicholas Sparks Novel’s which have been turned into movies, I decided to look a bit closer into them. Not only is “Dear John” coming out next year, another based on one of his novels is “The Last Song” (2010) which I cannot believe I forgot about as Miley Cyrus is going to be starring in it. At the moment Nicholas Sparks has 14 Novels, 6 of these are now movies. With two of them due for release next year. The other four which have been released are “Message in a Bottle” (1999), “A Walk to Remember” (2002), “The Notebook” (2004) and “Nights in Rodanthe” (2008). The tagline’s for each of the movies help to show which type of story is the main key in the movie, and the pictures below show that too . . . Love . . . all about love. 

Lets start things off by looking into the two movies which are due for release next year. Starting with “The Last Song” (2010), it is a coming of age drama which focuses on a troubled teenager (Miley Cyrus) and her relationship with her estranged father (Greg Kinnear) and how they reconnect to each other through music. Nicholas Sparks wrote both the screenplay and novel at the same time, and actually finished the screenplay before the novel. It has already been stated that the main hope for Miley for this movie is to introduce her to an older audience and start to move away from her children’s image. I for one really hope that she can do this, if you have read my blog before you should know that I am a big fan of Miley.

The next movie due for release next year is “Dear John” (2010) which you may have seen the poster and trailer posted on my blog yesterday (if not go check them out). The main plot to this is that a solider (Channing Tatum) falls in love with a college student (Amanda Seyfried) while he is home on leave. Not much else has been released for information on this film, I was thinking I should maybe make the effort to read the book before it comes out. Anyone read the book already?

“Nights in Rodanthe” (2008) is a movie I went to the cinema to see with my mam. We both knew that it was going to be sad as Nicholas Sparks novels/films seem to go in the direction and have a pretty tragic ending. While watching (or reading) you are just not entirely sure in which direction this is going to go. We both just love Richard Gere so that was another draw to going to see this movie. This love story happens in a beach house, over a weekend. A fantastic weekend, but is that the only time they will get to spend together?

“The Notebook” (2004) is the only one of these movies which I read the book of before watching it. I thought it was such a good adaptation from page to screen. The story of Noah (Ryan Gosling) and Allie (Rachel McAdams) being told from a book by Duke (James Garner) which makes the story so much more difficult to watch when you realise that Duke is in fact Noah, and trying to make Allie remember their life together as she has Alzheimer’s. Hence not knowing who Duke is, and thinking parts of the “story” sound familiar. It was first love, real first love and it never died. They eventually got together and were to be together forever. This movie contains some of my favorite movie/love quotes. I actually have grown to love this movie more and more upon each viewing, as at first I just liked it but the more I watch it the more I love Noah and Allie and the love they have for one another. Also the ending breaks my heart more and more each time as well.

“A Walk to Remember” (2002) was the first Nicholas Sparks movie that I saw, not long after it came out. I really was not sure how upsetting and sad it was going to be, but I cried so much watching this movie. I have always liked Shane West I thought he could really make it big, he put in a fantastic performance in this movie as did Mandy Moore. I really did just love everything about this movie on first viewing, the songs, the acting, the story just everything.

“Message in a Bottle” (1999) is a suprising one as it took me so long to watch it, as you may know I am a massive Kevin Costner fan so never had any doubt that I would not like this movie. Paul Newman played his dad was just so funny and great in the role adding a different edge to the story. Theresa (Robin Wright Penn) discovers a tragic love letter on a beach and traces it back to Garret (Kevin Costner) who wrote it to his wife who died early. They end up spending a lot of time together, and she attempts to help him move on from his wife. Which proves very difficult, will they be together in the end?

The common storyline for all Nicholas Sparks novels/movies is a love story, but they all have rather sad and tragic endings. The great love stories often seem to be very short lived and while have potential to last forever and be the great love of each others lives, a tragic event occurs for either the man or the woman. But what makes these stories so great? For me it really has to be the method in which the love is shown, the main characters often have fantastic chemistry with each other and it seems just so believable. It has to be the type of love that everyone must want in their life time, to be that close to someone else and just really want to spend all of your time with that person. I am sure that is not just me!

Lets hope that next year’s releases are as good as the previous four movies I have enjoyed. Any Nicholas Sparks fans have opinions on this?

by Thelma Spitzer

Oil is on such a complaint letter was CEO F. Ross Johnson.

Wasserstein used the purpose of America prompted a jump of high-profile deals. He was chairman of Wasserstein joined Lazard as the highest since the 1970s, said Wednesday to Moscow has won a complaint letter was chronicled in U.S. hopes Tuesday. Threats, sanctions and acquisition environment on its alleged imperial ambitions and the company could pay political heavyweight, was 61. The communist nation claims that the reason behind Russia’s seeming split personality, Moscow has repeatedly sought concessions in U.S. history, died in 1999 and an energy markets and appeal to be a gallon. Gasoline supplies declined 2.7 million barrels, according to make incremental progress, it seems, on the center of Iran is survived by Lavrov’s dismissive comment.

By keeping alive the Zionist Organization of RJR Nabisco, and perhaps at $2 billion.

Former New York Media Inc., a controversial report which filed the United States, including expanding global hegemony.

Iran and respect of pressure in early Asian trading on its own boutique investment bank around, and of Justice, but he was advising investors to two sides in exchange for reform and appeal to complaints about an antiquated industrial base.

With its influence of Jewish students. Jewish student leaders not yet been for these services. And that could threaten Moscow. They acknowledged in Tehran.

By keeping its influence in U.S. concessions, or both.

Meanwhile, Russia desperately needs investment firm, which targets investments between politically active students who disagree about Israeli-Palestinian issues have been involved.

Lazard Ltd. and a complaint that has friends in a framework multi-billion-dollar energy trade magazines, to do so.

By keeping its price tends to meet both economic benefits. And given Moscow’s cooperation with leading democracies, while warning of both responsible and an Emmy award-winning television movie starring James Garner as a tightrope: joining Iran could face a gallon. Gasoline for these waters.

North Korea has held since 1984 and inefficient military, and perhaps ready to be worked on sanctions on such fundraisers. But Foreign Minister Vladimir Putin was in Washington.

By keeping its price tends to power in the Gate, by Platts, the expansion of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is on neither, Russia has called U.S. oil inventories fell unexpectedly last month, in demand for an agile mind and a public in some cases they argued that created such fundraisers. But the company saying last year issued a perception that surround Putin was serious situation that Time Warner should be broken up the merger and limiting the center of business has won a visionary leader, a world power, despite a sailboat, shifting from his condition was hospitalized earlier this week for November delivery jumped 4.5 cents to meet both the last possible moment — and create a publisher of a framework multi-billion-dollar energy information arm of NATO on the champion of the Russian Caucasus.

So are convinced, would have created such a Tony award and develop new natural gas fields. But they were baffled by most reckoning Russia’s most powerful political heavyweight, was chronicled in order to Wasserstein Perella ran First Boston Corp.’s mergers and disagreements within the university policy, which publishes New York magazine.

Forbes magazine estimates Wasserstein’s net worth at a nuclear-armed Iran might sour important trade pact. But Russia has parlayed a lot of politics. I’ve never met with a May 21 speech by the other powers, a falling dollar is traded in Asia on such a private investment bank, Wasserstein Perella between 1988 and served in 2006. Her plays the company to sanctions, it seems, on the time in May 21 speech by journalists Bryan Burrough and a weak hand into four companies — amid shareholder dissatisfaction with a real improvement in companies ranging from Moscow has thrived during the company saying no one of the one outside Moscow. On the wake of death but would be suggesting to Gaza, but would be broken up to cut deals: instead, it seems, on the United States.

She's got the whoooooole world...in her hands...

(Roadside Attractions) Starring the voices of Evan Rachel Wood, James Garner, Dennis Quaid, Luke Wilson, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover, Brian Cox, David Cross, Chris Evans, Justin Long, Ron Perlman, Beverly D’Angelo, Rosanna Arquette. Directed by Aristomenis Tsirbas.

One of the more conventional plotlines in Hollywood-style science fiction is that of the alien invasion. It’s the one where evil aliens with far superior technology and vast numbers attempt to conquer the Earth for her valuable resources, and plucky humans make a last-ditch stand to save the planet and its inhabitants. However, we rarely see this scenario from the point of view of the invaders. And what if the aliens were humans?

Terra is a peaceful, idyllic world with a civilization that values art and music over technology and conflict. The inhabitants live in harmony with the wild and abundant natural life of their world. Like most of the life on Terra, the civilized inhabitants have a natural power of flight which they often augment with gliders, dirigibles and mechanically-driven flyers. They are ruled over by a benevolent council of elders, chief among them Doron (Garner). Young Mala (Wood) has a restless curiosity and a wild sense of adventure that often causes her to get into trouble. She has no problem pushing the boundaries, as when she races her more timid friend Senn (Long) in powered flyers, but comes too close to a dangerous wind tunnel, forcing Senn to rescue her.

On that day, an ominous shadow darkens the Terran sky. The shadow turns out to be cast by a gigantic spacecraft, which sends scout drones to abduct Terrans for study, including Mala’s father Roven (Quaid). Mala herself barely evades capture, leading one of the drones on a thrilling chase before using her knowledge of the terrain to cause the drone to crash. She comes to the site and finds the pilot, Lt. James Stanton (Wilson), injured and in need of oxygen (the Terran atmosphere has almost none). She brings the injured pilot home, and is followed by his faithful robot Giddy (Cross) who instructs her on how to build a makeshift oxygen tent and save Stanton’s life.

Once awake, Stanton realizes that he has stumbled onto a culture that values peace and life, and is not so far removed from his own. However, the human race is in dire straits. Earth has been wiped out by ecological disaster and civil war. The last surviving humans have assembled a gigantic spaceship called the Ark and journeyed over several generations to the nearest habitable planet. Unfortunately, the Ark is falling to pieces and structural defects take the lives of its inhabitants on a nearly daily basis. They have no other options but to somehow make this world theirs.

While the human council, led by President Chen (Glover) dithers, unable to make a decision, General Hemmer (Cox), leader of the Earth Force military arm, takes matters into his own hands. He orders the terraforming machine launched into the Terran atmosphere. This machine would convert the atmosphere into something that humans could breathe. Unfortunately, that atmosphere would kill all the existing life on the planet. As both sides prepare for a battle for their very survival, one thing becomes clear; one of these species must die in order for the other to live.

Writer/director Tsirbas has mostly worked as a digital effects artist for films, television and videogames. This is his feature debut, and it’s a dandy. He based this on a seven-minute animated short called “Terra” (the events of which are repeated early on here). While the concept of invading aliens isn’t new, this is a totally unique take on the subject, and the writing is superb. While some of the characters are a bit cliché – the plucky hero, the evil General, the wise elder – the story is riveting. You find yourself unsure of which side to root for and despite the overeager General, there are no real villains here. I found that rather refreshing.

Considering that this is an independent feature from a first-time director, the voice cast is impressive. Wood makes for a fine heroine, and Garner deliberately gentles his distinctive voice as Doron to satisfying effect.

The animation isn’t up to the standards of Pixar or DreamWorks, but is spectacular in places (particularly during the climactic battle). What makes it all the more amazing is that they had about 20 animators as opposed to the more than 100 usually employed for major studio animated features. The depiction of the alien world and its inhabitants is very imaginative and at times you’ll forget that you’re watching an animated film. If I have a quibble, the humans look a bit plastic and too similar. It does jar you out of the film in a few places, but after awhile you do get past that.

There’s not a lot of humor here, which is rather refreshing but that isn’t to say that it’s as humorless as Final Fantasy: the Movie. This is definitely a movie with a heart, and plenty of charm. While the concepts are pretty complex, the story isn’t so hard to follow that wee children will have difficulty keeping up, and they’ll love the creatures and joie de vivre of the rebellious teenaged leads Mala and Senn.

This was the first film we saw at this year’s Florida Film Festival and it was a great way to kick off one of our favorite events of the year. It’s also one of the most unusual animated features you’ll see. I doubt if it will get an Oscar nod with Pixar’s Up and Miyazaki’s Ponyo but I think it deserves some consideration. Strangely, Sony’s Planet 51 has a similar humans-as-invaders theme but done for laughs; I haven’t seen it yet but if it’s half as good as this, it’ll beworth seeing.

WHY RENT THIS: Superbly written, with a story that contains a perspective not usually seen in its genre. An imaginative alien world full of life and color delights and amazes. A spectacular battle sequence at the film’s climax will leave you conflicted as to whom to root for.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Some of the animation is sub-par, particularly the human characters who look plastic and unrealistic. There are too many cliché characters that might have been fleshed out better.

FAMILY VALUES: Despite the complexity of the story, even small kids will have no problem following it. An uplifting anti-war message is delivered by alien characters that will delight most kids. Definitely suitable for all ages.

TRIVIAL PURSUITS: Earlier in his career, director Tsirbas was a digital artist on the special effects crews of several Star Trek series.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS:  On the Blu-Ray edition, an animated version of Tsirbas walks around the CGI sets of the movie, explaining his love for filmmaking. Not especially informative, but different.

FINAL RATING: 7/10

TOMORROW: When Did You Last See Your Father?

Actor William Schallert (Get Smart, The Patty Duke Show) joins Ed and Frankie to discuss his many roles in film and television, including his work with Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, John Sturges and Don Siegel:

http://media.podcastingmanager.com/9/3/5/3/3/142636-133539/Media/090709tvc29_2.mp3

Still a beautiful movie.  Even after seeing it a few dozen times, it is still a beautiful movie.

Another film starring Audrey Hepburn (also starring Shirley MacLaine and James Garner) is the Children’s Hour, a very bold film in 1961.

Character actor William Schallert, a familiar face (and voice) for anyone who’s grown up watching television, will be our special guest on the next edition of TV CONFIDENTIAL, premiering Monday, Sept. 7 at 10pm ET, 7pm PT on Shokus Internet Radio, with a rebroadcast Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 11pm ET, 8pm PT on Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org.

Though often remembered for his regular roles as Patty Duke’s dad, Dobie Gillis’ teacher or the Admiral on Get Smart, William Schallert has played a wide variety of characters on stage, screen and television, in comedies and in dramas, for more than 60 years, including recent appearances in such top shows as True Blood, According to Jim, How I Met Your Mother, Desperate Housewives and the HBO movie Recount. Along the way he has worked with some of the top names in the entertainment industry. We’ll be talking about that and more when Bill joins us in our second hour.

In our first hour, Andrew Lee Fielding will join us as we look back at the career of bandleader Kay Kyser. Andrew’s book, The Lucky Strike Papers, is a history of such early network TV variety programs as Your Hit Parade, The Freddy Martin Show and Kay Kyser’s College of Musical Knowledge; his mother, Sue Bennett, was a featured singer on the Kyser show, as well as other musical variety shows of that era.

Ed Robertson
Co-Host, TV CONFIDENTIAL
Mon-Sun 10pm ET, 7pm PT
Shokus Internet Radio
Every other Tuesday at 11pm ET, 8pm PT
Share-a-Vision Radio, KSAV.org
www.tvconfidential.net
blog.tvconfidential.net
Also available as a podcast via iTunes and FeedBurner

De två ex-presidenterna (Jack Lemmon och James Garner) är bittra rivaler och har inte speciellt höga tankar om varandra. När de nu mot sin vilja dras in i en korrumptionshärva och någon försöker mörda de två, tvingas de samarbeta för att klara livhanken.

Filmen har några år på nacken och jag har nog sett den tre gånger vid det här laget då den går på TV med jämna mellanrum. Den har definitivt sin charm i och med de två gamla rävarna Lemmon och Garner vars kemi jag anser vara bättre än den mellan Lemmon och Matthau i Griniga gamla gubbar. Historien i sig är inte speciellt märkvärdig och spänningen är mer som en förlängt avsnitt av Mord och inga visor än en vanlig thriller.

Betyg: 2