If nothing else, at least the title of this film is appropriate because Tyler Perry has done bad, real bad, all by himself with I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF. And I don’t mean bad in a good way. I like Tyler Perry. I generally like his characters. I like the moral messages he ultimately sends with his films.  But I do NOT like this film. And this film definitely does not achieve the multi-ethnic demographic crossover for which he is so famous.  If anything, Perry takes ten steps backward both with his message and characters and the quality of the film as a whole.

Sixteen year old Jennifer and her two younger brothers, Manny and Byron, haven’t had the easiest of lives.  With the passing of their mother some years back, the children were left in the care of their grandmother.  But, due  to her advanced age and her need to work to support the children, much of the child care of Manny and Bryon fell to Jennifer and one of the biggest concerns being Manny, an insulin dependent diabetic.  But what does a 16 year girl do when her grandmother doesn’t come home from work and she’s out of insulin to give her little brother?  In Jennifer’s case, you break into the house of non-other than that pistol-packing jailbird grandma named Madea, and get caught while trying to steal a 20 year old VCR.

Irascible to a fault, Madea may talk a good game but at heart, she’s just that – all heart.  Rather than turn the kids over to the police and given the inability to locate grandma, Madea turns the kids over to their Aunt April with the proviso that they will work off their debt and thievery by cleaning Madea’s house and learning some responsibility.  Little does Madea know just how much responsibility Jennifer already carries.

But Aunt April is anything but the world’s greatest aunt.  Hating kids, not wanting kids, deeming kids nothing but a pain, she makes it clear that these aren’t going to ruin her life and they will be gone as soon as grandma is found.  And what of April’s life?  Heavy-drinking (oh let’s just say it – drunk) nightclub singer, she steals from the club she works at, kicks homeless people down on their luck in the face, sleeps all day, smokes like a chimney,  lives in a house left to her by her father that she has run into disrepair, and has her married boyfriend Randy shacking up with her and paying her bills while he has a wife and kids and another one on the way that he also “puts up with.”  (And according to Randy, he ain’t taking nuthin’ from no woman.)  Ah yes, Aunt April is a fine example of a human being.  Selfish to a tee, she cares nothing about Manny’s medical condition which still leaves Jennifer to fend for him.

As luck would have it though, as Jennifer is caught stealing yet again, this time from the pharmacy and as she tries to escape capture, runs into none other than the Pastor Brian at the local Zion Baptist Church.  Seeing a child in need and living with “Aunt April” (whose reputation precedes her), Pastor Brian sees a chance for redemption and hope – a young immigrant named Sandino who benefitted from the church’s missionary work in his country some years back.  And of course, on coming to America with no papers, job or money, heading for the benevolence of the church was the only right thing to do.

Placing Sandino in April’s house to do repairs in exchange for room and board, Sandino soon finds himself falling in love with the children and April, although April shuns every kindness shown to her, opting instead to keep her money tree going with Randy.   But what happens when the Pastor learns that Grandma has passed away?  Will Jennifer, Manny and Byron stay with April or be placed into foster care?  What will become of Sandino?  And most importantly, what will happen to the wayward April?

The most spectacular part of the film, and yes, I say spectacular, is Hope Olaide Wilson.  As Jennifer, she is phenomenal! Her emotional range is incredible. And when she smiles, she lights up the entire film.  She has an inner strength and vulnerability that simply shines on screen. She is the singular reason to see this film.   Another darling is Kwesi Boayke who, as Manny, steals every scene, including those he shares with Tyler Perry’s Madea.  Despite little dialogue, he conveys emotion through his facial expression that speaks volumes and elicits laughs and love.

I really enjoy and like Adam Rodriguez. As Sandino, he brings some genuine emotion to the story and gives it a backbone and sense of hope and pride that the other adult characters lack.  I am, however, disappointed that his character and his relationship with the children and April wasn’t developed more. He is the more interesting part of the entire story.

On the other hand, is Taraji P. Henson. As an actress I like her; in fact, I loved her story arc in “Boston Legal”.    Now, here, while her acting as April is fine, the character itself is stereotypical ghetto or poor African-American – drunk chain smoking woman, living for a man that lies, cheats and beats her – a fault which lies with Tyler Perry himself.  This characterizations is not going to appeal to the crossover demographic or in many cases, Perry’s predominantly African-American demographic and may, in fact, have many wagging the fingers and tongues about stereotypical worthlessness.    This is not any kind of message to be sending to anyone.

Big kudos go to Mary J. Blige.  As April’s best friend Tanya, she perfectly conveys that bartender-best friend vibe and was believable without going ghetto.  As Tanya, she is the kind of friend everyone needs.    Not to be missed are some incredible vocals by Gladys Knight who plays the god-fearing Wilma as well as Blige’s performance of the film’s theme which she co-wrote with Chuck Harman and Ne-Yo.

But one of the most disappointing parts of the film is Madea.   More or less a throw-away character, there really is no need for her in the story.  The kids could have just as easily started out breaking into the pharmacy or anywhere else in order to set them up.   Madea is such a strong, fun character that once Perry puts her into a story, he needs to keep her there and work her into the plotline more from a grandmotherly sense. Here, the kids lost their grandmother and while Madea is no great shakes, she does provide a strength, discipline and guidance that would have worked well. As the film now stands, you could almost lift her character out completely. And that’s a shame, because Perry is too funny as Madea.

Written and directed by Perry, overall, the story is too short on redemption and actually “glorifies”  the life April leads, making it look attractive to young girls in terms of the nightclubbing, performing on stage and men wanting them.  Perry could have just as easily written April as a nasty unfeeling daughter and aunt, maybe with a string of bad boyfriends in order to work in Sandino’s character.   The story doesn’t need her kinda- sorta shacking up with a married guy, presented in an almost celebratory manner from April’s perspective.     Also disturbing to the context is an off-handed  sexual abuse aspect seemingly tossed in as just a by-product- after-thought that is not only  tacky, but disrespectful to the audience as a whole and to victims of sexual abuse.    While I do like the hopeful  moralistic aspect of the film, there is nothing to really show any passage of time with any  “Come to Jesus” moments of each character.   Nothing sets the stage for the development of any real relationships of sincerity, truth and love, which leads to too flippant an ending for such a serious part of the film’s message.

From a technical and directorial standpoint, I am anything but impressed; so much so that during the screening, I wanted to rip film out of the projector. BAD, BAD, BAD edits in at least four places that are so bad that several scenes are cut-off  mid-scene, mid-sentence.  I can only hope these deficiencies are in the print I screened and not what is being distributed to the theatres.  I As for the “lip sync” and looping of the music, this is some of the worst I have ever seen in a film – particularly with Gladys Knight.   Words are still being sung  while the mouths are closed. The all-out belting of Mary J. Blige has bodily movements synced to the song, but in places her mouth isn’t synced.    Very noticeable flaws and more than disturbing.   There are also an excessive amount of “drop-in shots”,  particularly when it comes to Gladys Knight.  There is no rhyme or reason to them and they do nothing to enhance the film or the story.   And laugh if you will, but for me, one of the worst visuals in the film is the make-up on Mary J. Blige’s arm in the final block party scene.  A BAAAADDDDD job at trying to cover up her right arm tattoo with the makeup color being lighter than her skin tone, standing out like the filling in an Oreo cookie.

Key to every Tyler Perry film is music, particularly gospel music.  Here, he has a very eclectic selection including “Rock Steady” written by Arethra Franklin and voiced by Cheryl Pepsii Riley, “Need to Be” written by Jim Weatherly and performed by Knight and of course, Blige’s rousing performances of “I Can Do Bad” and “Good Woman Down:.”  Wonderful pieces all, but add to these about 3 or 4 other strong gospel songs and the Baptist choir and the music becomes overkill.   Insufficiently interwoven with the story to have a sense of belonging of unity with the script, some of the songs feel like outsiders again with a feeling of being “dropped-in” as a mechanism to grab some other demographics.

Disappointing overall, I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF falls short in comparison to some of Perry’s other films and the level of excellence both technically and from a storytelling standpoint.   Sorry Tyler, but I have to say it, you did bad all by yourself with this one.

April – Taraji P. Henson

Jennifer – Hope Olaide Wilson

Sandino – Adam Rodriguez

Manny – Kwesi Boakye

Tanya – Mary J. Blige

Wilma – Gladys Knight

Written and Directed by Tyler Perry based on Perry’s stage play of the same name.

Frantic with worry over Suzie’s attitude towards him and their flavorless marriage, Joel seeks counsel from Dean who, in his infinite wisdom, devises a plan to test Suzie’s loyalty to Dean – hire a “gigolo” with the cover of being the new pool cleaner at the house and see if Suzie makes a play for him or responds to any moves he may put on her.    Dismissing this idea as ludicrous, after a lot of alcohol and some horse tranquilizers from Dean’s handy dandy pocket medicine chest, Joel goes along with the plan.

In the meantime, a few little problems develop at the plant when Joel’s self-proclaimed “fastest sorter” (and next in line to be Floor Manager), Step, finds himself losing his balls – literally – thanks to an industrial accident that plays out like a game of dominoes between the group of oddballs and misfits Joel has working for him, all of whom seem to have been extracted from another realm, particularly fanny-packing buttinsky Mary and the goth-rock seemingly brain dead, Rory.  Ruining the company’s perfect OSHA “no injury” record, Joel’s right hand man Brian is more worried about a lawsuit by Step and a back-out by General Mills than he is about Step’s injury.

 But with Step injured, even more problems arise for Joel, particularly with a temp named Cindy hired to work the production line.   A sultry, sexy, scheming vixen, from the start, Cindy has more on her mind than capping extract bottles. (And so does Joel.)  But, on seeing Step’s story on the local news, Cindy, a psychopathic liar and thief, sees a pot of gold at the end of the extract rainbow – Step.  And the only way for Cindy to get her gold is to get “her man”, get him a lawyer to “fight for his rights” and then extract every dollar she can from the company and Step.  And who does she get as Step’s lawyer?  None other than Joe Adler, the king of bus bench and bus back advertising a la Los Angeles’ own Juan “Accidentes” Dominguez, and  who just happens to bear a striking resemblance to Kiss’ Gene Simmons.

Jason Bateman really surprised me. As he has matured, his performances have gotten stronger and here, he runs the emotional gamut of concerned, loving, frustrated, a best friend, comedic, confident in business – a full-fledged-honest-to-goodness fully realized and dimensional person like each of us. INCREDIBLE!  He is absolutely adorable as the hapless and harried Joel.   Bateman brings an “everyman” quality to the role that is attractive and likeable much like a Jimmy Stewart.  There is a kindness to Joel that is purely due to Bateman’s performance.

Clifton Collins, Jr. is always a joy no matter what the role, but here as Step, he brings an endearing quality to a character that is basically shy and just trying to over-emote as a way to win friends and get ahead.  But don’t get me wrong, there’s also an irritating irascibility to Step that serves to balance Collin’s gifted performance as a man who’s lost his balls!   Mila Kunis is a wide-eyed wonder of beauty, brains and bewilderment as the conniving Cindy.   And not to be missed are supporting players, David Koechner and Beth Grant, as neighbor Nathan and buttinsky Mary.  Koechner has perfected comedic annoyance while Grant is just downright hysterical.  And while Grant’s characters always have a similar thread running through them, she makes each distinctly different with her characterizations.  Dustin Milligan easily handles the role of gigolo Brad and besides being easy on the eyes, let me assure you, the ‘brain dead” persona of Brad is purely an act as Milligan is one of the most articulate interview subjects I know.  The always reliable J.K. Simmons is another favorite supporting go-to guy of mine and as Joel’s right-hand Brian, is a perfect brusk impersonal counterpart to the kindhearted Joel.

A real surprise in the film is Ben Affleck who, I think, has never been funnier.  As Dean he is funny, funny, funny. The way the story and his character were written, I fully expected him to be the one to show up for the sexual encounters with Joel’s wife as opposed to a flunky surfer-dude wannabe.  Nice little twist.

But the scene stealer of the show is none other than Gene Simmons himself as the over-the-top amalgamation of Juan “Accidentes” Dominguez, Larry Parker, David Grey and Johnnie Cochran all rolled into one (although Judge likens Adler to some bus bench attorneys from New Mexico who “always make me laugh”), as the “slam your balls in the door” Attorney Joe Adler.  He is simply to die for!   (See the film to understand that little balls reference.  You will be rolling in the aisle!)  When Judge wrote the role of Adler, he actually described him as “looking like Gene Simmons with a ponytail and a suit and tie.  I didn’t realize everybody knows what Gene Simmons looks like from that reality show.  I was hoping this would be a ‘who is that guy.’   I had seen him on ‘Politically Incorrect’, the only time I ever saw him without his make-up, and I thought ‘wow, he could play a sleazy businessman.’” Thankfully, despite countless actors vying for the role, no one was quite right, leaving producer John Altschuler to proclaim, “we need someone who’s a running sewer of a human being.”  And the next day they had Gene Simmons come in.  According to Judge, “Simmons was just a total pro.”

Written and directed by Judge, anyone who has seen any of his works, knows he has his own patented brand of humor.  Starting out “thinking of the stupid stuff…needless stuff and then the gigolo” , the bigger picture followed when Judge realized he “wanted to do a workplace comedy that’s from the boss’s point of view in a factory.”  In addition to calling on his own life experience for a large part of his story (he did work in a factory), and his fascination for “why getting kicked or hit in the buts always gets a laugh” (something he also pondered over with the Pulitzer price winning author Jared Diamond during the filming of “Idiocracy”),  Judge added a few other personal experiences to the mix when it comes to the plot line involving Cindy and Step.  “There was also a girl that I knew peripherally that was very shady and she had read about a construction accident and a guy that was going to get a big settlement.  She disappeared for like a month and came back with this guy as her boyfriend.”   Capitalizing on life’s foibles of bad upon bad decisions and actions, Judge creates a comedy minefield.  Disappointing, however,  is the lack of backstory to explain Cindy, resulting in a detraction from the credibility and believability of the story, not to mention overkill on some of the jokes.  4 or 5 times of overplay on the same joke becomes tedium – not comedy.

Celebrating the fact that foibles of life can be fun and funny, there are lots of laughs to be extracted from EXTRACT.

Joel – Jason Bateman

Dean – Ben Affleck

Step – Clifton Collins, Jr.

Cindy – Mila Kunis

Joe Adler – Gene Simmons

Written and directed by Mike Judge.

All you cinephiles out there may recall from some years back a 1978 “macaroni combat film” by Enzo C. Castellari  called “Inglorious Bastards” which told the story of a group of convicts which escape prison during an attack and head for the Swiss border, fleeing from both the Nazis and the Americans.   Seems this film made quite an impression on a very impressionable young video clerk in Manhattan Beach, California, who determined that one day he would make his own “Inglorious Bastards.”  That young clerk was Quentin Tarantino.  Starting his own script in 1998, despite completing 300+ handwritten pages of characters and introductions,  years and other projects came between Tarantino and completion of his dream project.  But it was those other projects that allowed him to purchase the complete rights to the original “Inglorious Bastards” and rather than do a remake, afforded him the freedom to create an entirely new work while still paying homage to Castellari, but putting his own brand on the film, calling it INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS.  (Note to students – do not look to Tarantino for proper spelling of words.)

The time – 1941.  The place – Nazi-occupied Northern France.  The goal of the Nazis – destroy the Jews.  The goal of the allies – destroy the Third Reich and the Nazis.  Divided into five chapters, our story begins with “Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France.”  As strains of music well-familiar to Sergio Leone fans swell in the background, we meet the legendary Nazi, Colonel Hans Landa, the self-proclaimed “Jew Hunter”, on a mission to locate a Jewish family he believes to be hidden in one of the rural farmhouses in France.   With his entourage in tow, Landa interrogates the farmer, egomaniacally displaying his command of four languages while espousing his love for milk, farms, and the finer things in life, but adding a touch of Werner Klemperer’s Colonel Klink to the mix.   Meanwhile, the very family he seeks are hidden under the floorboards beneath his feet.  Determined to prove the validity of his nom de plume, with one phrase, one gesture, sensing his prey beneath him, has his men attack, massacring the family but for one – a young girl named Shosanna who flees into the peaceful beauty of countryside a la Maria von Trapp.

Moving ahead to 1943, the war still rages on and we meet up with Shosanna who has fled to Paris and taken on a new identity as the owner and operator of a movie theatre in Nazi-occupied Paris.  No longer the dirty frightened child, she has grown into a confident, cool and collected woman with the air and demeanor of Katharine Hepburn.   She is also beautiful and with that curse, catches the eye of Nazi war hero, Frederick Zoller, the self-proclaimed “German Sergeant York.”  (Folks, don’t fret – Gary Cooper he ain’t.)   Seems that Zoller is also a bit of a movie buff, or so he thinks, given his fame thanks to the new film “Nation’s Pride” based on his alleged “real life” experience of taking out countless Allied soldiers single-handly from an eagle’s nest vantage point.  Adding to his bragadocious nature is his relationship with the film’s director and Hitler’s right hand man, Joseph Goebbels.  But while Shosanna is repulsed by Zoller and Goebbels, she sees a means to an end when Zoller convinces her to allow the Nazi’s to take over her theatre for the premiere of “Nation’s Pride” – a true WWII red carpet event for the rich, the famous and the upper echelon of the Third Reich.

Running around elsewhere in France is none other than Lt. Aldo Raine and his band of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS who have their own agenda – kill all the Nazis possible and once dead, scalp them like the American Indians did.   Comprised of Jews from the States with family and friends who have fallen victim to Hitler or who are in hiding, the level of hatred and rage for the Nazis is unparalleled, particularly for Sgt. Donnie Donowitz, a barber from Boston with a love for Ted Williams, baseball, and bashing in the bodies of Nazis with a bat or iron pipe, whichever is handy.  Adding a little mix to the menage is one former Nazi soldier whose hatred for Nazis rivals that of the allies.

Across the pond, “Operation Kino” is about to begin.  Spearheaded by British film critic and commando, Lt. Archie Hicox, and utilizing the talents and beauty of Britain’s own secret agent, the beautiful German actress Bridget von Hammersmark, the two realize they need a little more help to pull off their audacious plan and call in the cavalry – the Basterds.   With the timing of a Swiss watch, the group meets up in a little underground tavern as they discuss their plans to destroy the Reich at the premiere of Goebbels’ new film, “Nation’s Pride” , the very same premiere that will be held at Shosanna’s theatre and at which Hitler himself will be in attendance.

The casting of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS is beyond perfection.  Calling on an international gallery of talent, leading the pack is Brad Pitt as the Southern Jewish Lt. Aldo Raine.  One of Pitt’s funniest performances, and arguably a supporting role, he is over-the-top backwoods U.S.A. machismo as he leads the Basterds across Europe, mandating 1000 scalps from each man under his command.  His bravado and bravura every time he appears on screen in engagingly entertaining.  Eli Roth easily tackles the role of Donowitz, “The Bear Jew.”  Packing on the pounds and incorporating his own love of baseball and Ted Williams into the role, Roth attributes his body bashing style to a Williams swing.  BJ Novack, producer, writer and actor of “The Office” is a gem as PFC Smithson “Little Man” Utivich (and for commentary on this nickname be sure to check out my interview with the Basterds).  Insecure, funny but devoted to the cause, Novack is a joy to watch.  

Turning our attention overseas, look no further than Michael Fassbender.  Born in Heidelberg, Germany, Fassbender was raised in Ireland but easily recalled the German language of his youth for the part of Brit Archie Hicox.  Having established himself with a knack for military roles in “Band of Brothers” and the upcoming “Centurion” where he plays a Roman soldier, as Hicox, he brings an inflated bravura to the role, particularly when calling upon Hicox’s film knowledge as an integral part to the story.   Melanie Laurent amazes as Shosanna.  Coming into the project not speaking any English, in her first American film, she commands the screen and the language with ease.  “Girlier” than most females in a Tarantino film, Laurent exudes a soft strength that escalates into the final chapter and explodes on screen with a fury.   Diane Kruger, also a linguist,  slinks into the role of Bridget von Hammersmark.  Already known to American audiences as Abigail in “National Treasure”, as von Hammersmark, she is a cross between Dietrich and Hildegard Knef, a famed German actress who was rumored to be a spy during the war.  Working with costumer Anna Sheppard, her costumes only add to the confident mystery she brings to von Hammersmark.

While a truly ensemble piece, the real star of this film is Christopher Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa.  The Vienna born Waltz is fluent in three languages and learned some Italian for the film.  With a career spanning some 40 years in theatre and primarily German tv and films, Waltz now wows American audiences with his defining characterization of Landa.   The most multi-textural and layered character I have seen on screen in many a year, Waltz runs the gamut of subcutaneous emotion and intrigue with his performance.    He is astounding.  Exuding a slick exterior of joviality and false niceness”, his grin, his look, beckon a closer look into the insidious evil lurking beneath his smile.   Simply captivating.  Oscar gold is his for the taking.

Known for going his own way and taking risks, Tarantino does just that here as he rewrites history into what actually comes across what could have been a plausible end to the Third Reich.  Carefully crafted, he leaves no stone unturned, no questions unanswered in this remarkable fantasy.  Character driven and always character conscious, even without showing it onscreen here (look for a prequel folks), Tarantino makes certain that without entire histories, we still know the backstory of each character and how they arrived at this particular place in time.  Very smartly written, the dialogue is funny and often tongue-in-cheek, the story twisted and entertaining.  Irony reigns supreme.  The characterizations are incredible and indelible.  A real historian when it comes to film and his specific projects, Tarantino’s research here is impeccably detailed, allowing him to play with history and incorporate truth into the fiction.  Joseph Goebbels was, in fact, one of the fathers of German cinema, particularly propaganda cinema during WWII.  And to get those hairs on the back of your neck crawling, how about this bit of trivia – the sound stages where the part of the film was shot, including Shosanna’s theatre, were done on the very same soundstages where Goebbels shot his movies.  Talk about irony.  Well-tailored and well-told, the script flows with a coherence not generally found in Tarnatino’s films.  But more than that, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS flows with believability and entertainment.

Technically, the film is flawless.  Stunning and quite beautiful to behold, Robert Richardson’s cinematography is impeccable.  Shot in 35mm, Richardson does some of his best work here with a myriad of sets, styles and tones providing us clean, crisp, razor sharp visual wonder.  David Wasco’s production design is exquisite, particularly with the creation of Shosanna’s Art Deco theatre.   Rich and lush, while every set is distinctively different, there is a cohesiveness and elegance that thematically ties it all together.  Kudos to make-up artise Greg Nicotero who transformed Martin Wuttke, Sylvester Groth and Rod Taylor into Hitler, Goebbels and Churchill, respectively.  Trust me when I say you will do a double take.  And of course, Anna Sheppard’s period perfect costuming is exquisite perfection.

Essentially shot in sequence, pre-production started 14 days after Tarantino finished the final script.  Important to Tarantino were the shooting locations.  In addition to the Babelsberg Studio outside Berlin, locations were also selected in Bad Schandau near the Czech border and Fort Hahneberg, an actual military fort dating back to the days of Kaiser Wilhelm, here serving as the forests inhabited by the Basterds. 

I would be remiss not to mention Eli Roth’s double duty as the filmmaker behind “Nation’s Pride”.  While we are only privy to possibly two minutes of his work, the seven minute short was completely designed, lensed and edited by Roth.  A true friend, due to time and budget constraints, while Tarantino was shooting principal photographs, Roth volunteered to handle the black & white  “Nation’s Pride” and squirreled himself away turning out a piece that has the look and essence of a 1940’s WWII epic.  Thankfully, we will get to his complete film within a film on the DVD.

A character unto itself, the soundtrack and score is priceless.  A glorious amalgamation of classical, a little Ennio Morricone (try 8 selections), David Bowie, Billy Preston, Ray Charles, and some German and French works of the period, these tracks fuel the story, propelling it forward, setting the tone of each chapter and event and interweaving the visual components.

To paraphrase Lt. Aldo Raine’s himself, I think this just might be Tarantino’s masterpiece.

Lt. Aldo Raine – Brad Pitt

Colonel Hans Landa – Christopher Waltz

Shosanna – Melanie Laurent

Bridget von Hammersmark – Diane Kruger

Donny Donowitz – Eli Roth

Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.

For my interviews with the “Basterds” (Nazis and Allies alike), including Quentin Tarantino himself, check out N Zone Magazine, moviesharkdeblore.com and Del Rey News.

New York City was a happening place in the mid 50’s.  Nightlife was glamorous and booming, particularly in the lives of Dan and Ann Devereaux and their sons, George and Robbie, the latter the product of Ann’s prior marriage.   Living a life of glitz and glamour, thanks to Dan’s success as a bandleader, the family wants for nothing; well, except for Dan who seems to want every woman he sees.  Finally catching her husband in bed with another woman, Ann packs up her bags and her boys and heads out into the world looking for a new life and a new husband.

Caught up in the memories of her youth, Ann believes that she can still rely on the flamboyance and exuberance of her Southern charms of days gone by to win herself a husband of means.  (She obviously mistook 1963 for Scarlett O’Hara’s 1863)   But, times have changed, as have the men, and as she looks at one loser after another, it seems the only real men on which Ann can rely are George and Robbie.

As Ann runs afoul with one disappointing relationship after another, the trio head from town to town on a summer road trip, looking for that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.   What they find along the way is adventure laced with heartfelt poignancy and laughter at life’s little foibles.  Given his mother’s propensity for juvenile behavior, lack of foresight and often, common sense, George steps up to the plate with a wisdom and maturity beyond his years, coming into his own and taking charge of his life while trying to help his mother grow up, all the while daring to hope for reconciliation between his parents or a life with his father.  But the more miles Ann puts between our traveling trio and Dan, the clearer George begins to see the world.

From a character sense, it was like stepping into a mirror with Renee Zellweger who is simply radiant with both and inner and outer glow as Ann. She so reminded me of what my mother was like back in the 50’s with her Southern sensibilities and her sense of Southern refinement and then hitting the “big city” life of Philadelphia.   The detail with which Ann is created, right down to her white gloves and pearls speaks volumes about the character.  I got a real chuckle seeing those little touches as they are so true to life.  Zellweger’s interpretation of Ann is perfect.   Expanding on the sensibility of the look of Ann, Zellweger is ideal with the voicing and accents and capitalizes on that talent. As she did with “Bridget Jones”, as Ann, she masters not only the talk, but the walk and movement of the character and makes it her own. She brings out the real quirkiness of Ann’s thinking which is a perfect dichotomy to her outward appearance and the manner in which she treats her sons, especially George. Impressive though (and I hope is true in life) is the emotional interpersonal journey of Ann which Zellweger showcases nicely lending to a very sweet perspective.

Kevin Bacon easily handles the slick Dan Devereaux bringing a natural ease to the performance and character that oozes smarmy charm yet in several pivotal scenes adds layers of tapestried emotion and inner conflict that provides a greater depth and understanding to the character. Given Kevin Bacon’s talents, I would have liked to see more of him on screen interacting with Zellweger and Lerman, but in his limited screen time, he is magnetic and frenetic.   One of the sweetest scenes of the entire film is a reunion of Ann and Dan in Hollywood which, thanks to Bacon and Zellweger is a very sweet and humbling scene.

But talk about talent, look no farther than Logan Lerman and Mark Rendall. As George and Robbie they are wonderful, particularly Rendall, who is so much fun with Robbie’ more effeminate side and his obsession for the glamour of Hollywood. Given the George Hamilton we know today, I can only imagine that he was exactly as Lerman portrays him in the film. Lerman has a suave propriety and elegance that makes it easy to see him as Hamilton.  And Lerman knows how to command a scene.  Both boys are engaging and entertaining and have a truly brotherly camaraderie and sibling rivalry going on serving as a touchstone of truth and reality.  Key to their performances and relationship is that as George and Robbie, the two may pick on each other as brothers do, yet you see the love and caring between them.   Beautifully executed.

Not to be missed are some interesting performances from Chris Noth, Nick Stahl and Eric McCormack as some of Ann’s suitors.  Of the three though, Stahl has an emotional texturization that tugs at your heart.

Written by Charlie Peters, the story was inspired by stories that George Hamilton told Merv Griffin about his life and his journey to Hollywood.    Strong dialogue and a comedic and dramatic flair that is so distinctive one can almost hear Hamilton regaling the tale himself as the film progresses, only adds to the enjoyment of the story.  The story explains much about the George Hamilton that we see today, showcasing the influence of his mother with his breeding and mannerisms and “propriety”.  As I wrote earlier, Hamilton is one the last remaining few semblances of elegance, refinement and breeding in Hollywood today and with MY ONE AND ONLY we see why.

Richard Loncraine easily helms the project giving us a lovely little period piece travelogue that is pretty to look out, has extremely likeable characters and is more than enjoyable.  The biggest highlights of this film though are the elegant cinematography by Marco Pontecorvo, Brian Morris’ production design and Doug Hall’s costuming.   Pontecorvo was a wise choice as cinematographer. His European sensibilities of lighting, period and opulence are perfect in MY ONE AND ONLY.    Likewise, Morris’ production design – perfect! The Devereaux NY apartment is exquisite and period perfect, as are his other sets as we “cross country” into various economic dynamics and demographics.   I can’t sing enough praises about Doug Hall who captures every fashion element of the period for every demographic.  Girls, if you love true 50’s Hollywood and New York nightlife glamour, then you will love  women’s evening clothing and even Zellweger’s daywear. Hall always does an excellent job with period pieces (just look at “A Walk to Remember”).  But the jewelry!!! Stunning, Stunning, Stunning and so defining of a 1950’s Southern woman now in the “big city” and with money.

Capping off the entire feeling and sensibility is the work of composer Dillon O’Brian and music supervisor Steve Lindsay who fill the film with period appropriate music with a popular and Gershwinesque feel.  Character driven, the music goes far in defining each character and particularly Ann, whose emotional roller coaster is told through jazz and blues while Dan is more bears more of a wistful, lustful longing.  Hauntingly appropriate.

I have had the pleasure of meeting George Hamilton on many occasions and in fact, privy to some of lifestyle, including a yacht and a mink bedspread.  He has always been nothing short of entertaining, enjoyable, elegant and hospitable, so it seems only natural that a chapter of his life and this film capture those very qualities.   A little gem of enjoyment at the end of the summer, MY ONE AND ONLY moves along in cruise control, at a steady even pace. Nothing out of the ordinary or new that we haven’t really seen before, but enjoyable and sweet – just like a drive on a breezy summer day.

Ann Devereaux – Renee Zellweger

Dan Devereaux – Kevin Bacon

George – Logan Lerman

Robbie – Mark Rendall

Director Davis Guggenheim could have done no better than his subject selection so Page, White and The Edge.  Each represents a significant era in music history.  For Page, he has been around since the advent of rock-n-roll and, thank heaven, heavy metal.  White, celebrates the bluesey-ness of the depression era but moves forward and vacillates into the angry punk era or the 80’s without compromising his musical skills, knowledge or talent.  The Edge is the epitome of melding talent and technology.

With IT MIGHT GET LOUD, Guggenheim, who, together with Al Gore,  brought us a little project Oscar winning film called “An Inconvenient Truth”, now brings us the stuff that dreams are made of.  Giving us an up close and personal look at each of these virtuosos, we are privy to the intimate details of their childhoods (did you know Jack White was an upholsterer or that Page was a studio musician and a painter and wanted to be a biologist of some sort?) and chronicle their careers from child to adult to legend.  But what is most interesting is that each gives the sense of looking at himself as a supporting character to the film’s true star – the guitar.

Fascinating is a look at the technical achievements and developments each has brought not only to music but to the guitar.  For Page, it’s the double neck guitar which was initially designed and developed for the first tour following the release of Zeppelin IV with the classic, “Stairway to Heaven.”   Page also is credited with incorporating mathematics into music performance with “distance equals depth”, a formula and technique still used today whereby microphones are set up right next to amps but then another mic is placed 20-25 feet away and the sound the mixed to achieve the perfect naturally resonant echo.  Page is also one of the first extremely hands-on musician-producers, now often a common practice.  The Edge, one of the most techno savvy guys out there, proudly displays and demonstrates his pedal sound effects designs.  White is the father of invention.  Give him a few nails, a piece of wood, an empty Coca Cola bottle and a steel string and he will give you an amplified guitar.  White is also credited with the innovative design of a hand mic custom placed inside his guitar.

Watching the three together, the camera captures their shared passion, love and appreciation.  You see what drives them, moves them, inspires them now and inspired them then.  Page has an elegance and grace about him.  The elder statesman, if you will.  You note his long slender fingers as he not only solos, but jams with The Edge and White, and even when doing an air guitar solo to an old 45 record of his favorite, Link Wray’s “Rumble.”   Page doing air guitar is beyond Grammy gold as the platinum-haired Page disappears into his youth.  His face transforms into youthful joy as he lives each and every note and memory of this song.   A truly beautiful moment to behold.  The Edge is your average guy in the street but goes inside of himself when he starts to play.  You see the emotional transformation as he becomes one with the guitar.  White has an intensity and earthiness all his own which we see not only through footage of fingers and guitar strings bloodied from his furious play, but from the bluesey vibe he puts forth.  Each is oblivious to the everyone and everything around them when they play.  Each has a relationship with the guitar that rivals all others.

Always a huge fan of Page and Zeppelin (for me, nothing in their repertoire  tops “Black Dog”), I was less familiar with White and The Edge.  And while the film gives me a true appreciation for The Edge, White is the one that totally takes me by surprise and by seeing him in this quite intimate setting, has won me over as a fan for life.   White, quite honestly, is a genius.  His musical diversity is boundless.  His musical styles eclectic.  But no matter whether he is playing or writing punk, blues or rock, there is always a simplistic element of elegance that permeates his music and his performance.   Of the three, it is White who, I believe, becomes his music, a fact which is so apparent as, oblivious to his own intensity, finishes a set only to find his guitar strings covered in blood and his fingers and knuckles bleeding from the fury of his fingers.

Guggenheim breaks the film into multiple thematic segments, giving the audience one-on-one time with each icon and their reminiscences, as well as taking us on little travelogues through time as each musician takes us on their individual journey “back to where it all began.”  Travelling from Headley Grange where “Stairway to Heaven” and “Black Dog” were written and Page’s private tour and personal insight and recollections into his experiences there, to The Edge’s small studio in Dublin where he is laying down tracks and to his high school where he hooked up with a guy now known as Bono oh so many years ago, to an old farmhouse in Tennessee where White actually pens a tune while on camera, your hairs will stand on end with awe and excitement at watching history unfold before you.  Adding to the experience is the knowledge that never before have these stories been told in this fashion.  Never before has a camera been welcomed into the home of Jimmy Page or the kitchen of The Edge.  We even get to see Jack White’s first electric guitar; plastic, purchased in the long-defunct Montgomery Ward’s Department Store.    I had goosebumps throughout most of this film.  It’s that special.  And Zeppelin fans, a do not miss for you, Page’s tour of the actual staircase and hallway at Headley Grange where John Bonham recorded the echoing drum parts of the infamous “When the Levee Breaks” complete with Page commentary on the writing and recording of the album.

Interestingly, Guggenheim avoids the effusive praise and patting-on-the-back scenes so often found in films, documentaries and biographies of this nature.  No fan boys or mutual admiration society going on here.  In fact, never do you hear any of the three talk about being influenced by the other or even that they like what the other does.  Besides the guitar, however, what they all celebrate are the musicians that came before them.  However, one of the most ethereal moments in the film finds Page tearing up “Whole Lotta Love” with the Edge jumping to his feet, beaming from ear to ear watching Page’s fingers while White taps his foot to the beat leaning ever closer to a grandmaster, himself also mesmerized by the fluidity of Page’s fingers.

From the opening sequence, we are treated to what is almost a pornographic celebration of the guitar.  Sharp, vivid images of smooth, silken curves of various guitars likening them to the curves of a woman.  Razor-sharp steely iced guitar strings ready to rake marks across your body.  As Page puts it, when handling a guitar, “caress it like a woman.”  Guggenheim’s camera does just that.  Crisply edited with an enormous amount of vintage footage of classic performances not only from Page, The Edge and White but their idols, interwoven with the film’s culmination of  “the summit”  – a first time meeting of our heroes and their jam session – this is THE film for anyone that appreciates music.  And if you are a fan of any of the three, this is beyond must see.

IT MIGHT GET LOUD… oh yeah.  It’s gonna get real loud.  This is the penultimate intimate rock experience and your own little piece of rock ‘n roll heaven.

Jimmy Page

Jack White

The Edge

Directed by David Guggenheim.   97 minutes

Fast forward to 2009.  Enter uber-scribe and director, Nora Ephron.  Calling on two best selling memoirs, My Life in France by Child and Julie & Julia by Powell, Ephron whips together one of the tastiest treats to satiate the hunger of any filmgoer, melding time and space through food,  cooking, creativity, food, marriage, life and food (did I say food?) with the charming JULIE & JULIA; a perfect recipe for comedic delight with the lightness and texture of the sweetest souffle.The time is 1948.  Former government worker Julia Child is now just Julia Child, housewife.  Together with her beloved husband Paul, still a government employee, the two are located to Paris, France, a town which Child embraces with all of her heart; at least the part that doesn’t belong to Paul.    A tall, gangly, outspoken, active woman hailing from Pasadena, California, Child wasn’t used to just being a homemaker, especially in Paris.  And unfortunately, Julia and Paul are unable to have children, a fact which forever pains Julia.  But, with Paul’s unending love and encouragement, Julia embarks into the world searching for a passion to call her own.  As much as she likes hats, millinery isn’t her cup of tea.  Same for bridge.  But food.  Ahhh.  Food.  From her first bite of a fish glistening with the liquid golden haze of rich creamy butter, Child knows that she loves French food.   So what better thing to do than muscle your way into the all male Cordon Bleu cooking school.   Attacking cooking with the same enthusiasm she has for life, Child is unstoppable, soon surpassing all the men with her skills and very quickly befriending two other Parisian female chefs, Simone Beck and Louise Bertholle.  Realizing Child’s culinary skills, and the fact that she can read and write English, Beck and Bertholle entice Child to join them in a cookbook project – a project that eventually gives us Mastering the Art of French Cooking; a project that changes Julia’s life.

The time is 2002.  Julie Powell is turning 30 in a post-911 world in Queens, New York.  Slaving away at a frustrating job in a tiny little cubicle, she is dejected and downtrodden from the word go.  On leaving work, she comes home to her cat and her loving husband Eric and their 900 square foot two room apartment, where she is equally as frustrated and confused about life.  But, there is one thing that Julie loves – food, and cooking.  Her fondest memory of food – a dinner with boeuf bourguignonne made by her mother to impress a guest.  And of course, it was Julia Child’s recipe. Inspired by Eric, Julie begins what she believes is her salvation – the Julie/Julia Project – a blog that will chronicle her efforts to, within 365 days, cook all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking; a project that changes Julie’s life.

Is there any character that Meryl Streep can’t play?  Any role she can’t bring life to – even when portraying a larger than life character like Julia Child?  The answer is “no.”  Immersing herself into Julia Child, Streep is chameleonic, transforming her mannerisms, dialect, posture, stance, accent, verbal inflection, into not a mimicry or caricature of Julia Child, but an embodiment of her.  She is so powerful in her performance that one forgets that this is not the real Julia Child on screen.  Streep is transcendent.  Her performance is rich with the buttery golden patina of Oscar.  But beyond the strength of the persona she embodies, Streep brings us finely textured layers of emotion and passion, especially in Child’s relationship with her husband Paul.  Her work here is beauteous to behold, unfolding before us like the perfect peaks on a delicate meringue.

Amy Adams is the perfect ingredient to this film’s recipe;  a lovely blend  of sweetness and determination with just a pinch of spice.  As Julie Powell, she has a vivacity and naivete that is charming.  Unfortunately, Adams also goes a bit over the top with some of the character’s “meltdowns” and is too over-the-top with melodrama in a film such as this; a little too well done like my infamous hot dogs.  Nevertheless, her perkiness and spunk sparkle like a shimmering cake frosting.

Adding to that buttery golden boy for Streep, I expect to see a Best Supporting Actor nod come the way of Stanley Tucci.  As Paul Child, he is the backbone of Streep’s robust performance.  I loved Tucci and Streep together in “Devil Wears Prada” but here…..magnificent.  Strong and confident, as Paul,  Tucci is period perfect.  Nattily dressed.  Impeccable manners.  A clean, crispness not found in men today.  But it is the love that he exudes for Streep’s Child that warms the heart.  To paraphrase Paul’s own words to Julia, Tucci is the butter to the bread of this film.

Chris Messina is more of a side dish souffle than a main course as Eric Powell.   A performance that relies heavily on that of Adams,  Messina at times seems lost and out of place, like a souffle that has fallen flat.   His emotional interplay with Adams seems forced and lacking seasoning.

A couple of performances not miss are the appetizing works of two of my faves, Mary Lynn Rajskub as Julie’s best friend Sarah, and Vanessa Ferlito as Julie’s uppity mega-million deal making friend, Cassie.  Ferlito is icy goodness.

Written and directed by Nora Ephron, JULIE & JULIA has all the elements of “Sleepless in Seattle”, “When Harry Met Sally”, “You’ve Got Mail.”   Delightful!   I expected to see Meg Ryan coming popping in at any moment.   A daunting task, Ephron has seamlessly melded the two novels of Child and Powell into one perfectly balanced film, delicately adding elements of both eras and finding the common ground that ties them together.    Not to say there aren’t a few spills along the way.  Some of the scenes between Adams and Messina are forced, lacking spice or explanation and not quite fitting the storyline.  Their relationship has quite a few unanswered questions.  Clearly, Ephron is drawing parallels between the lives of the Childs and the Powells, but falls short with the character of Eric.  I don’t know if it’s Messina’s performance or the writing, but he doesn’t compare to the strength of Tucci or Tucci’s character, Paul.  Between the two couples, both in life and in film, the Childs are the more loving, full-bodied and life-living soulmates.

What makes this recipe work, however, is Mark Ricker’s production design, Ann Roth’s costuming, and food design of Executive Chef Colin Flynn and culinary consultant Susan Spungen.   Starting with Ricker, his designs are impeccable, and none moreso than the Childs’ Paris apartment.  Working from two photographs of the Childs’ actual apartment (one of which is the famous one of Julia leaning out the window next to a sunroom), Ricker was able to create a luxurious Parisian apartment of the 40’s but gave it a warmth reflective of the couple, bringing us an engaging, inviting home.  Julia’s kitchen – well that’s another story because thanks to numerous publicity photos taken by Paul Child years ago, Ricker “had a 360-degree view of the kitchen.  It was just fantastic.  We replicated it as much as we could – the tiles, the stove, the sink.  Because everything was great.”      A great undertaking was the construction of eleven different kitchen sets, all fo which had to be functional working kitchens for “the implementation of food.”   As for the Powells’ New York apartment, Ricker visited the actual apartment when they had lived and was able to incorporate design elements of the original into the set.  Key to the Powell apartment is its lived in look, a cramped space that while having all the requisite seating, tables, accouterments, etc., took advantage of any available table space for laying books, magazines, tossing clothes, etc.

It fell to Ann Roth to create the look of Julia Child.  While Streep is nowhere near Child’s 6′2″ height, Roth needed to make her appear that way.   Creating several pairs of shoes with extreme platform and height, Streep was fitted for clothes based on leg length with the shoes on.  Waistlines were also adjusted or given an illusion with belts and adornments to further showcase Child’s towering form.  Recreating Child’s actual tv look, required specially made shirts with darts and collars.  Child it turns out was actually somewhat of a clothes horse and loved hats and ladylike clothes of the day as much as she liked tomboyish looks, thus necessitating stockings with seams, monograms, tailored suits, etc.

Chefs Flynn and Spungen are the real artisans in this film.  Making celebrated recipes from Child’s cookbook, we are privy to foods not normally seen in restaurants today, Lobster Thermidor, perfectly roasted chicken, stuffed duck, homemade bruschetta with toast points, perfectly poached eggs.   MOUTHWATERING.  (A caveat – Do NOT go to this film hungry!  Do NOT go grocery shopping afterwards.)  But not only did they cook, they had to work with Streep and Adams, honing their kitchen skills.  And folks, Streep is apparently one handy lady in the kitchen, learning a very key fact – “a sharp knife is everything.”

The icing on the cake comes from Director of Photography Stephen Goldblatt and Editor Richard Marks.  Goldblatt’s work is simply exquisite when one looks at the lighting and lensing between the two eras and his utilization of light and color to convey each woman’s emotional roller coaster.  Different, yet similar and compatible, and perfectly complimentary to the other.  Overall there were a few slow filming sequences, but they serve well to allow the visual pallette to relish that which came before and savor the anticipation of what is yet to come. . . a seven course meal of movie magic.  As for Marks, he moves between the two eras with the ease of Julia Child flipping an omelet.

JULIE & JULIA.  C’est magnifique!!  Bon Appetit!

Julia Child – Meryl Streep

Paul Child – Stanley Tucci

Julie Powell – Amy Adams

Eric Powell – Chris Messina

Written and directed by Nora Ephron.

You all probably remember, or at least know of, the beloved television series “Flipper.”  An integral part of the success of “Flipper” was Richard O’Barry who, in the 1960’s was the world’s leading authority on dolphin training.    The Flipper lagoon, dock and house was actually O’Barry’s and it’s where he trained and cared for the dolphins who took turns playing Flipper.  Well cared for and free to swim in open waters, it all came to a screeching halt with the cancellation of the tv show and the dolphins being sent to a seaquarium.  It was there that O’Barry’s special dolphin, the one who played the majority of Flipper scenes, Kathy, died in his arms.  Contained in a small tank, unable to swim free, engage with humans and exercise properly, according to O’Barry, he truly believes that Kathy finally just gave up from depression.   And in that one moment, O’Barry knew what his life’s calling would now be – making certain that cestaceans (whales, dolphins) be kept free.  Now a self-proclaimed “abolitionist” of dolphin captivity as “they don’t do well in captivity”, it is O’Barry’s advocacy and activism that bring us THE COVE.Taiji, Japan is known for its annual herding of dolphins by local fisherman wherein the dolphins are funneled into a lagoon by disorienting them with noise which not only affects their sonar capabilities but instills fear in them.  (According to O’Barry, dolphins do have emotions and after listening to him for only a few minutes, you yourself will have no doubts either.)   Once the dolphins are in the lagoon, dolphin sales begin as Taiji is where seaquariums, private individuals and aquatic show producers go to buy their dolphins, some of which go for as much as $150,000 apiece.  As you can imagine though, not all the dolphins are sold.  So what happens with the those left behind?

Around the corner from the lagoon exists a cove.  Described by director Louie Psihoyos as a “natural fortress”, it is protected by rocky cliffs on three sides.  There is only one ingress and that is from the sea.  The access to the cliffs from the land is blocked by fencing and guarded.  Why?

For years it was known but never documented due to the inaccessibility of the cove,  that the Taiji fisherman would herd the unsold dolphins into the cove, then bludgeon them to death and sell and/or donate the meat to stores, restaurants and even local schools throughout Japan, often times disguising it as “whale meat.”  Officials with knowledge of this goes high on the political food chain.   How many dolphins are killed each year for this?  Approximately 23, 000.

Enter first time director Louie Psihoyos who was attending a conference of 2000 of the world’s top marine mammal scientists at which O’Barry was to speak.  At the last minute, O’Barry was pulled from the dais and banned from speaking by conference sponsor Sea World.   Intrigued, Psihoyos wanted to know why and connected with O’Barry who told him the story of Taiji.  In that one moment, both Psyihoyos life, and now ours, would forever change.

Accompanying O’Barry to Taiji, Psihoyos wanted to get to the truth and tell the story, not only the story of the heinous dolphin slaughter, but the bigger picture involving mercury poisoning which spreads like wildfire as a result of dolphin meat being distributed to an unwitting public, and the causal relationship between man, pollution, the food chain and the sea.   It was his hope to tell a balanced story with the cooperation of the government and citizens of Taiji.  But that wasn’t to be the case.  Describing it as a town “like out a Stephen King novel”, outwardly appearing normal but reeking of harboring some dirty secret, Psihoyos determined to penetrate the cove and see what was going on.  But that would require military precision.

Documenting the operation step by step, we follow Psihoyos as he puts his team of the best-of-the-best together for what could prove to be a mission as dangerous as that executed by any military.  Calling on champion freedivers Many Rae-Cruikshank and Kirk Krack, Industrial Light and Magic, an electronics expert formerly with the Canadian Air Force and even “pirates”, Psihoyos assembled his “Ocean’s 11″ team and proceeded with the operation which included surveillance, use of remote controlled helicopters, blimps and drones, military grade thermal cameras and exacting work performed almost exclusively at night so as to elude the Taiji guards.   For Psihoyos, key to the success of this film is that “in this case everybody understood what the real story was.  We started out with the cove.  Once we decided that,  we had this Ocean’s 11 theme going on.  How is that pulled together?  We had the footage.  600 hours of footage.”

Taking complexity to new levels, Psihoyos and his team made over 7 trips to Japan, shooting over 1 ½ years, with “7 nights into the cove.  Sometimes we only had one or two cameras, depending on how many guards were in the lagoon.  If we had the run of the place, we would try to get 4 or 5 cameras in.  But sometimes we could only get a couple, one or two.  Or we would break one [of the cameras encased in foam rocks created by ILM] on the way in.   We had about four or five positions in the cove that we used 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 cameras and then helicopter footage and then one camera down below.” 

No one, and nothing,  can prepare you for what you will see in this footage.  Shot in high definition, the imagery is beyond vivid and will blow you out of the water.  Unsettling, distressing and horrifying, what you see on screen are not Cecil B. DeMille special effects performed by the hand of God or the staff of Moses.  What you will see comes by the cruelty of man.

There are no holds barred, no stone left unturned, no image left unfilmed.  The filmmakers really push the envelope with this one.  Geoff Richman’s editing is top notch and keeps you on the edge of your seat, building to the moment when the secret film footage of the cove is finally shown.  And Mark Monroe’s script captures the complexity and emotion so important to Psihoyos and the story.  There is as much tension building in this documentary as in any Hitchcock film.     According to Psihoyos. “I was really instrumental in trying to keep the story complicated.  I never wanted to dumb it down and simplify it.  To me, that’s the beauty of it – that it’s complex.  It’s textured.  It’s not just a movie about THE COVE, it involves mercury poisoning, over-fishing, Ric’s backstory, his story of redemption.  Even Mandy [Cruikshank] and Kirk’s [Krack] story, that little sequence where you see them bonding with whales and dolphins.  These are just emotional visceral things that I really wanted to keep in the film because they were so important to me.”

I’ve seen many documentaries on tragedy and the inhumanity of man around the globe – Darfur, in particular; the war, African starvation, water/drought, etc. but nothing – nothing – compares with the force with which THE COVE affected me and which I believe, will affect you.  It’s one thing to see tragedy with people as the victims. But people allegedly do have brain power and the capability of voicing their complaints, taking a stand and doing something to try and resolve their problems or conditions. Animals do not.  Ironically, though, as elaborated on by O’Barry, dolphins have the intelligence to “voice” their concerns and ask for help, and if given the chance, they could convey their emotion (as they do in this film with their sounds).  But, because of man’s backward thinking and ego believing no creature can be as intelligent as humans, man refuses to learn and grow and communicate with these incredible creatures and in the case of Taiji, looks at them only as a meal ticket.

For O’Barry, his hope is that THE COVE will “spread the word around the world” and get people involved in the cause to abolish dolphin captivity and the Taiji slaughter, as well as, motivate politicians to take an active stance in international commissions on the subject.  For Psihoyos,  he hopes THE COVE makes people “think they should realize that these animals are more sophisticated than most people give them credit for.  So that doesn’t mean incarcerate them and teach them to do stupid tricks for our amusement.  I want them to realize that we’re polluting the planet and not just dolphins and whales, but polluting things we like to eat. . .we’re jeopardizing our major source of protein – seafood.  And that’s through the burning of fossil fuels.  People really need to get that connection.  Mercury poisoning is real.  It’s getting worse.  And it’s not just mercury.  It’s lead, cadmium.  Basically everything [we] buy ends up at one point or another back down to the sea.  We are doing what no wild animal will do.  And that’s fouling our own nest. [The sea] is a really precious resource.  We told the story through Ric’s backstory and through dolphins and whales – the big charismic megapod and people care about those.  I do too, but I think the bigger picture is that we’re harming ourselves at the same time.  I hope that comes through. . . There’s no shortage of bad guys in this movie. . . There’s this causal relationship.  We’re part of that same chain of events that’s polluting the planet.”

Watching THE COVE makes you wonder exactly who is the intelligent species – man or the dolphins.   My vote is on the dolphins and on people like Ric O’Barry and Louie Psihoyos.

Directed by Louie Psihoyos.  Written by Mark Monroe.

For more information on the dolphin slaughter, Save Japan Dolphins and Ric O’Barry’s involvement with the Earth Island Institute, go to  http://www.savejapandolphins.org.  For more information on THE COVE Campaign to save the dolphins, go to http://www.takepart.com/thecove/.  To learn more about Louis Psihoyos, Director of the Oceanic Preservation Society, and OPS’ mission to our oceans, our creatures and our planet, go to http://www.opsociety.org/about-ops.htm.

Philadelphian Arlen Faber is the answer man.  Twenty years ago he wrote a bestseller on God. Faber gave everyone all the answers with “Me and God”, a question and answer session between himself and the man upstairs, the popularity of which flooded the world faster than Moses built the ark.  As if “Me and God” wasn’t enough, how about hundreds of follow-up best sellers analyzing your own brilliance, not to mention the brilliance of the guy who started it all, God, but mostly Faber’s own brilliance) But, since wowing the world with the wondrous word of God, Faber has become an emotional disconnect, a recluse, a crotchety, angry, maladroit of a guy, incapable of kindness, patience or any form of positive attitude towards himself or others.

Despite his reclusiveness, 20 years later, Faber’s popularity has not waned and, in fact, has escalated, so much so that his publisher/agent wants him to do a small introduction for a special edition 20^th anniversary copy of the book. But what no one realizes is that while Faber may have given the world all of the answers, Faber himself has none, and spends his time on his own interpersonal and spiritual journey desperately searching for the elusive answers that have passed him by.

Thanks to destiny or the finger of God, Arlen Faber’s life takes a dramatic turn to the living when, thanks to a bad back, he serendipitously collides with (er, crawls to) single mom Elizabeth and her 7-year-old, and Kris, a local bookstore merchant just out of rehab, trying to survive and find solace not only within himself but for his father whom he loves but who is a self-destructive alcoholic, and the local mailman who has always suspected but never known for certain that this grouchy man who gets a ton of mail is in truth Arlen Faber.

Elizabeth, who has just opened her chiropractic office down the street from Arlen, has no idea who is, although her young giddy-eyed receptionist Anne immediately recognizes “the man with the answers” and is agog with awesome reverence. But it doesn’t take long for Elizabeth to see there’s more behind the grouch slumped on her office floor.  Or is there?  Likewise for Kris, who can’t afford to buy used books for his store that Arlen wants to sell him, so he takes it out in trade – he gets to ask Arlen one question in payment for every three books Arlen gives him. 

Does Arlen have the answers everyone now seeks?  Or is it everyone else who has the answers Arlen seeks.  The comedic implications alone should be piquing your curiosity about now!

Casting the film before obtaining financing, Hindman was determined to achieve perfection.  He did.  And with this cast, how could he not get financing!  I  fell in love with each of the characters and the performances of each of the film’s principals.  Jeff Daniels is at the top of his game as Arlen Faber.   Absolutely hysterical!  But then he adds these emotional layers that are so real, so heartfelt (even the “not so nice” layers).  And then toss in Lauren Graham’s Elizabeth, once these two connect, and particularly in one engaging scene about shaking a child’s hand, your heart just melts. You are hooked. Daniels shows you his heart in this role. It is simply beautiful. He is emotionally multi-textural and nuanced.  Once his character sees Graham’s and the hardened crusty veneer is chipped, Daniels takes hold and peels away ever so carefully, onionskin layers of emotion, adding more depth and dimension and heart to the character. And talk about sarcasm! He nails it every time. Be it emotional or physical sarcasm.  And his physical comedy is sheer perfection!  To watch him in this performance is a privilege.

Lauren Graham is simply an angelic delight. Making the big screen transition from her tv hit “Gilmore Girls” to the big screen, as Elizabeth she is the answer to 21st century romantic comedy.  Following on the heels of Sandra Bullock and yes, even Julianne Moore (check her out in “Evolution” and you’ll see what I mean) and you’ve revived the great leading ladies of the 40’s.  But the icing on the cake is the chemistry between Graham and Daniels that is so very Tracy-Hepburn. Electric from the first moment with such intensity that you can’t wait to see the sparks ignite.

Hindman really did find excellence when he cast Nora Dunn.  Long one of my faves, as Faber’s literary agent, Terry Fraser, she is a whirlwind of sarcasm and comedic timing. She is dead pan perfection!   Also entering the fray is Olivia Thirlby as Elizabeth’s receptionist, Anne.  She stretches herself and goes beyond what we saw in “The Wackness” adding a comedic layer that shows even greater promise for the future.   Lou Taylor Pucci is all heart with his portrayal of Kris.   From the moment he hits the screen, you connect with him.  You want to know his story.  You root for him.  Pucci brings a tacitly strong performance to the table and is a perfect balance to Daniels’ Faber.  Not to be missed is Tony Hale as the wacky mailman. One of the most versatile actors around, the mere mention of his name guarantees hilarity at every turn.

As a first time writer/director, John Hindman just blows me out of the water with THE ANSWER MAN.  The story is simple and sincere and extremely well written.   While not something that we haven’t seen before, what sets THE ANSWER MAN apart from other films and scripts is the consistency of the comedic charm and the quality of the writing and the character structure.  The karmic theme is consistent and beautifully executed.  A stand-up comic, Hindman’s greatest gift is “using jokes to tell a story.”  Here, he combines that aspect of storytelling with issues near and dear to him – “Fathers and sons.  Over-protective parents.  Drinking.  A seemingly elusive Higher Power.  A distaste for New Agee psychobabble.  Romantic love.  And a deep reverence for sarcasm.”   Technically, his visuals are crisp and clean thanks to the cinematography of the always creative, Oliver Bokelberg.  Well defined textures and color palette. Pacing is even and well conceived.

A story with characters you can’t help but root for; that your heart melds with. A story that speaks to something inside each of us and does so in a touching, poignant and very funny manner.  The sleeper hit of the summer, THE ANSWER MAN is the answer for some movie magic!

Arlen Faber – Jeff Daniels

Elizabeth – Lauren Graham

Kris – Lou Taylor Pucci

Anne – Olivia Thirlby

Terry – Nora Dunn

Written and Directed by John Hindman.

Released on DVD last week to coincide with the 40^th anniversary is APOLLO 11: A NIGHT TO REMEMBER which provides some rare, recently recovered archival footage from the BBC, showcasing the electrifying drama of the Apollo 11 mission and man’s first footsteps on the moon.  Following the astronauts from their pre-flight breakfast on July 26, 1969 to the Pacific splashdown on July 24, 2009, we share in the suspense and drama of the 218,096 mile journey.  Interspersing the live coverage is BBC science reporter James Burke who provides demonstrations of spaceflight technology and a tour of the Apollo capsule, as well as answering the question that has plagued school children for the past 40 years, how does an astronaut pee in his space suit.   This documentary is one of the finest I’ve seen on the Apollo mission and one that should be in everyone’s personal DVD collection.

For myself, a lifelong space junkie, the highlight of not only my career as a journalist, but one of the highlights of my life,  came when I had the chance to interview Dr. Buzz Aldrin in connection with the film, FLY ME TO THE MOON.

Dr. Aldrin is so much more than an “astronaut”.  Joining NASA in 1963, Buzz Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon after Neil Armstrong, making his long awaited leap on July 20, 1969.  It seems as if his destiny was foretold even before his birth.  His mother’s maiden name is Marion Moon.  His father, Edwin, was an aviation pioneer and student of rocket developer Robert Goddard.  Holding a Doctorate in Astronautics from MIT, Dr. Aldrin retired from NASA in 1972 but has done more to promote NASA and space exploration than any other astronaut in the history of the program.  

Catering to young and old alike, following the Challenger disaster, Dr. Aldrin appeared on an episode of “Punky Brewster” aimed at helping children cope with the tragedy without giving up on space exploration.  In 2001, he was appointed by the president to serve on the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry.  He also serves on the board of the National Space Society and is an inductee into the Astronaut Hall of Fame.   He even has a crater on the moon named after him – the Aldrin Crater.   Transitioning into the 21^st Century, Dr. Aldrin has even joined the gaming community with “Buzz Aldrin’s Race Into Space”, a computer strategy game. Aldrin has also developed “The Cyler”, a spacecraft system that is designed to make perpetual orbits between the Earth and Mars and he holds a patent for a permanent space station which he designed.

In speaking with him, one thing is clear.  Buzz Aldrin is passionate about space exploration, keeping it alive and educating the public about it.

So, with that bit of background, take a peek at my exclusive interview with Dr. Buzz Aldrin, seen here in its entirety for the first time:

DLE:            Dr. Aldrin, a pleasure to speak with you.  How did you become involved with FLY ME TO THE MOON?

BA:            Well, there was a person who was in public affairs who knew that I was quite available and anxious to participate in the public knowing more and more about what the space program is about.  He knew that I would probably be responsive to this.  So he asked me if I would participate and I said, “Sure I would.”  So, I learned about the basic plot, and it was very intriguing, so I was very very happy to participate in recording the epilogue.

DLE:            You have been, out of the entire space program, probably the one person who has done the most to make the public aware and improve awareness about space exploration.  I know you’ve also invented a lot of things.  You’ve got your Star Craft Boosters Company.  And now you are working with Share Space Foundation; your non-profit.  Can you tell me something about Share Space, especially in light of Richard Branson’s unveiling of White Knight?

BA:             I was up there when they unveiled White Knight 2, a very very large carrier aircraft for spaceships, that may be unveiled within the next year.  It should be able to carry 6 passengers and a crew of 2 up to, let me say, “the fringes of space”, 100 km which is the best definition.  People should experience about 4 minutes of weightlessness for floating inside the cabin.  I think that’s going to be a very intriguing, exciting adventure.  It’s a little out of my pocketbook realm.

 But I  know that the real thing is being in orbit, so 10-15 years ago, I was quite supportive of things that were laughing called “tourists in space.”  At one time somebody said, why don’t we have a lottery for people.  So I have been pursuing that idea for quite a while now and have been supportive of people to experience space in many, many different fashions.  Now, why would I want to do that?  Well, the more they understand, the more supportive they will be of the things we are trying to do.  We need public support for supporting exploration because people are always saying, “Well, look at all that money being spent on space.”  Well, it makes a big splash.  It’s very highly visible.  It’s covered by the networks.  But it’s not that expensive.  At the peak of the Apollo, it was 3 1/2% or 4% [of the federal budget] at the most for a year or two, and right now it’s 6/10ths or 7/10ths of 1% of our national budget.  That’s not a whole lot of money.

DLE:            I agree.  It’s deplorable.

BA:            The only thing that excites the public is when something goes wrong.  Right now the networks watch the shuttle launch and as soon as the solid rockets are separated, then they switch to something else and the space pod hasn’t even made orbit yet. It’s still pretty hazardous if the engines quit at that time.

            I’m very interested in supporting the idea of exploration and why we should explore and

            what did we get from exploration in the past.  And to use the 40^th anniversary of the

            Apollo mission to remind the public of why we want to explore in the future and what did

we get out of doing this in the past.  So that’s being done by Share Space. 

DLE:            Can you give me an idea of how Share Space works?

BA:            Originally, the idea of Share Space was to have somebody be able to purchase a share of space, like a share on the stock market, with dividends being distributed uniformly.  They would be distributed by random selection and we limit this to people who have demonstrated a desire to support space activity by having joined some kind of advocacy group.  Well, if they hear about this “lottery”, which it really isn’t, and they want to join the group, that’s fine.  We will encourage them.  And the group will encourage other people to join their advocacy groups like, The Mars Soceity, The Moon Society, The Planetary Society, The National Space Society, The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Professional Education Society, and things of that nature.  So we can expand the membership and these organizations can also collect the investment of a share, $100.00 (yes, only One Hundred Dollars). Then they take their commission and forward it to a central organization and then we’ll get all the legal approval and we’ll announce ahead of time what the guaranteed prizes are going to be so there’s no scam.  And if you win a prize, you can’t transfer it.  You use it or lose it.  So it’s not gambling.  You can’t sell it on eBay.  Then if we have winners of suborbital flights, we’ll get great publicity for Richard Branson or any of those people that offer suborbital flights and what we’ll do is take some of those winners and have a really, really spectacular drawing of non-guaranteed opportunities – - a low probability chance of winning a trip with the Russians or somebody else up to the space station for 8 or 10 days.  An even more exciting trip would be go to the Space Station, leave the Space Station and join up with a propulsion unit that can take you around the moon and back.  And that’s available right now through an organization called Space Adventures for $100 million dollars.

DLE:   WOW!

BA:            So, for $100 bucks you can have a small minuscule chance.

DLE:             I’m in!

BA:            Well, we have a ways to go, but we want to take advantage of the enthusiasm that begins to grow as Space Ship 2 and White Knight 2 go through their testing processes and the initial people go up into suborbital space 100 km or so, 4 minutes of weightlessness.  When that enthusiasm begins to grow we hope to have this up and running with cooperation of the Xprise people and the Google people and the organizations of these different advocacy groups.  Space Exploration Alliance.

DLE:             I’m sure you have thoughts on this issue.  What do you think happened to the American public to become so apathetic about space exploration?

BA:            It’s the rapid pace of our lives and the fact that people just assume the government is going to do something for them.  So, the government went to the moon.  Okay, what’s next?  What’s in it for me?  And if they see people kicking up dust on the moon for awhile, there’s nothing new about that.  I’d rather see my soap opera.  So when that kind of an attitude begins to take place. . . . As evidenced by the fact that the failed mission to the moon, Apollo 13, was going to have a press conference, but none of the networks were interested in carrying it until they had an explosion on board.  Then you couldn’t keep them [the networks] away.  Everyone was interested because there was a potential catastrophe.  That’s what the information industry, the communications industry, wants.  It wants to find something wrong and then fix it immediately.  So if we live that way by fixing something that’s wrong immediately, we’re never going to find long term options.  If our country is driven by shareholder values, we won’t invest in things that the shareholders won’t care about.  We won’t invest in the future.  Shareholders are interested in making a profit now.

DLE:            That’s the unfortunate part.

BA:            That’s the way it is until a few people realize that we need to modify to that kind of patience of  Asia, as it’s  those countries that are going to succeed.  They will sit and invest in long term things that don’t have any immediate returns.

DLE:            We’re talking now in light of the release of the 3D animated film “Fly Me To The Moon.”   So, how do you think that this film may impact space exploration with a whole new generation?

BA:            I told you two things that Share Space Foundation does.  One, is the 40^th anniversary of Apollo, trying to excite people.  The other is a lottery type opportunities. And the third is education.  We try to make accountable the education that is offered in grades K through 12.  We aren’t trying to dictate what the curriculum is, whatever is set out as the policy by the State, by the Federal government, but we want to have science education ambassadors who are retired science teachers in a district, relay back and forth between the parents who are voters and the Assemblymen, the State Senators, the Congresspersons.  They don’t work for that politician but they are an ambassador between the people and that entity, trying to see that policies are carried out correctly and that they are standardized by some standardizing of points of view and mission statements and objectives.  They represent some kind of a cohesive effort which,  obviously is going to raise the ire, I suspect, of the teachers’ unions.  But it’s not trying to organize teachers for their benefit.  We’re trying to represent the parents.  Trying to represent the policies set out by the State governments and the Federal governments.

DLE:            Do you see us going back to the moon in the near future?

BA:            Well, President Bush at the beginning of a very terse re-election, second term, well, he took the boldness after the Columbia accident kind of forced him to do something, and said, ‘we’re gonna go to the moon’  and he used the year of 2020 as when we’d like to do that.  Now that’s 50 years plus 1 year from the time that we landed on the moon in 1969.

DLE:            Right.  But nobody’s created any hubbub or anything about it.

BA:            Well, it’s not high on our politician’s desire for reelection.

DLE:            And that’s unfortunate.

BA:            It is but I’m trying to be a catalyst by trying to get a transition advisory team to make the transition from space shuttle/space station to exploration the way President Bush set our objective.  Because I think that objective is very good for the nation.  And we need to interface those choices, those options, for staying the course, sticking with what we decided to do, or maybe something much less than that or maybe something in between.  We’d like to try those options for consideration among the two 2008 candidates for the Presidency.   And then refine them a little bit.  You know, we’re not going to talk to the candidates themselves.  We’re going to talk to the reporters and some of their science advisors and space advisors.  Then after the election we’ll be able to follow through with the winner and try and preclude things from going too far to be altered or modified.

DLE:            Over the years you have created various techniques and designs that have been implemented in most of the NASA missions.  Is there one design or one technique, something that you personally with your astronautic experience have created, that you believe has been the most impactful on the space program.

BA:            Well, yes.  I wrote my doctoral thesis on manned orbital rendezvous.  The basic techniques that I evolved there were refined, worked over, with lots of people with my help, and they became the method by which we executed our rendezvous efforts in the Gemini program, Apollo and so on.  It’s this building block approach.  I’ve taken that knowledge and that experience to define a strategy for going from Earth to Mars whenever we began to really think about serious planning.  That’s called Cycling Spaceships and they make use of Aldrin Orbit.  I’m also working on evolutionary lander concepts for use at the Moon and Mars.  And in addition to the innovative marketing things, like Shared Space and Lottery, I’m also trying to help the training for suborbital flights to make the most out of their weightless training.  There are a number of things from my experience and my ability to see something and then try and make it better.  I don’t want to waste that time.  I want to make that useful whether it makes me any money or not.

DLE:            It’s very humbling speaking with you.  You truly are a gift not just to this country but to the space program.

BA:            Well, make sure that people go see “Fly Me To The Moon.”  Three flies that stowaway on Apollo 11.  It’s the cutest thing I’ve ever seen put together that combines the reality of history with the fantasy that’s so enjoyable and thrilling to youngsters. 

DLE:            Oh, trust me.  I have been talking this up to everyone.  I’ve got some young nephews they are  just dying for this film to come out.  They are already asking can they stowaway on a space craft.

BA:            No.   Absolutely not.  No stowaways.

DLE:            There’s a lot of buzz being generated out there about the film.  I think the film is very well done.  Your contribution is amazing and I think it’s a direction that the new direction needs to take.  Hopefully this will be a catalyst to the youngsters.

BA:            I sure hope so because we need to train those K through 12 people.

DLE:            That’s it.  They don’t have the luxury that I had of actually having actual films and getting up every morning when there was a lift off and watching it.  It’s sad.  Thank you so much Dr. Aldrin.

BA:            Thank you, Debbie.  It’s been a pleasure.

Agnes, Cammie and Bee are an incredible group of siblings.  Each strongly independent individuals, together they form a cohesive loving unit under some extraordinarily difficult circumstances.  Their mother is a prostitute with pimp in tow and works out of their house, The Poker House.  One of her co-workers lives and works out of an apartment over the garage out back.  And mom’s pimp serves as a surrogate father replacing the girls’ holy roller, Bible thumping, child beating father who hasn’t been seen in years. 

From the opening frame, we see Agnes, strong, confident and caring but also wanting to be more grown-up than her 14 years.   She takes charge of a situation, and matter-of-factly gets her kid sisters out of bed in the morning, makes breakfast (albeit macaroni and cheese made with, as her younger sister Bee puts it, “orange water” from crushed Nacho Doritos), helps Bee prepare for a paper route, collects money from her mom’s pimp, earns money doing laundry from their renter, works a part-time job and still manages to sit down and do advanced algebra.  She also tries to deal with their mother Sarah who is strung out on drugs and alcohol and worries more about getting Agnes “into the business” than seeing her get a formal education.   Bee has an infectious exuberant pragmatacism that seems to shelter her own insecurities about her life.  To help make ends meet, she has an early morning paper route and as she empties her newspaper bag with papers, refills it along her route with empty bottles that she turns in for cash at the local corner store.   Cammie is a pure delight.  An impish bundle of energy who spends as much time as she can with the neighbors and their kids, seeking out a normal family life, as is more than telling with her bond with Clyde, whom she wishes was her father.  But despite the outward normalcy of the daily routine organized by Agnes and the joy in each of these girls, their lives are anything but normal.   What 14 year old has to assume the household responsibilities?  What children live in “a poker house”?  What children grow up with pimps, prostitutes and the homeless as their friends and confidantes?  And what children grow up under these conditions and then survive and thrive as adults, but still recall their youth with a very apparent glowing affection?  Agnes, Bee and Cammie, that’s who.

The character of Agnes is based on Lori Petty and Jennifer Lawrence tackles the role with as much human force and energy as Petty lives her own life.  As Agnes, she is engaging, inviting, strong and loving but at her core, there is still a childlike essence that Lawrence beautifully conveys on screen.  She commands every scene, even when silent.  Off screen, Lawrence’s vibrancy, free-spirited honesty and love of life is more than evident, making it easy to see how Petty came to cast her as Agnes.  Interestingly, as she self-describes it, Lawrence “sucks at basketball”, but despite this, Petty, who played ball in school, managed to show her a few moves.  But in a scene involving the “big game”, while it may be Lawrence huffing and puffing and sprinting up and down the court, a double was used for the actual shooting of baskets and mechanics of the sport.

Sophia Bairley is a delight as Bee.  There is a radiance about her that lights up the screen.  Her confident delivery speaks volumes about her character and about her talent. And then there’s Chloe Moretz.   A total and complete joy, she steals your heart from her opening scene.  The girls’ chemistry is undeniable and within the first few seconds of each of them appearing in a scene together, you truly believe they are sisters.  Given the depth of their talents here, I know it won’t be long before I am writing about each of them again.  In fact, look for Moretz in the upcoming “500 Day of Summer” where she is just as unforgettable and adorable as in THE POKER HOUSE. 

But the real talent here is Selma Blair as Sarah.  Unlike anything we have seen from Blair before, she is mesmerizing as Sarah.  Disheveled and drunk, at first blush, she is unrecognizable.   According to Blair, “I liked that make-up.  It’s makes my job so much easier to play someone like those scenes looking in the mirror.  I can’t even see myself so it helps to not look like yourself when you’re playing a character that won’t look at themselves.  So [the make-up] made it blissfully easy. I like whenever you can have the help of something that can be a little bit bigger than the average character.”   Blair worked very closely with Petty throughout the process.  “I felt right on with it from the start.  She would tell me if there was something she wanted more.”  Importantly, Blair did not meet Petty’s mother, on whom Sarah is based, prior to shooting.  “I think it might have [altered my performance]  because she’s a very different woman now.  She’s a successful business woman.  She supports Lori in every way.  I didn’t want to smarten her up.  I’m afraid if I would have seen her in that way, I would have added elements.  No, [my character] is a woman that’s broken and messed up right now.  Let’s just show it.  It doesn’t have to be sugar-coated. She is THE worst mom.”   Selma Blair is true talent.  This performance  is her Oscar gold.

Written by Petty along with longtime friend, David Alan Grier, THE POKER HOUSE is based on Petty’s own true life stories.  As she puts it, “The stories are 100% true.  The names are changed to protect the guilty.”  The characters are full-bodied and richly toned with intricate nuances that provide a rough-hewed loving finish to each portrait.  The strength with which each is written can only come from personal experience.  But what I find most refreshing is that where Petty could have taken a very maudlin, negative tone with the script given some of the dramatic elements (which I will not reveal), she doesn’t.  There is a lightness and hope that permeates the story and each of the girls.  One of the key scenes giving the film such light is one involving the three girls singing their hearts out to Marvin Gaye while cruising through town to Howard Johnson’s for dinner (despite Lawrence admitting to “being the world’s worst singer).   A paycheck, a basketball win and surviving yet another day……in a small town in Indiana there’s no better way to celebrate.  That one scene with bring a tear to your eye and put a smile on your heart.

According to Blair, “anyone that is going to pour their heart out in such a poetic and honest way without fear and without apology and without judgment” warrants attention.  It’s why she jumped at the role of Sarah.  

As a director, Petty is methodical and precise.  Her camera angles are varied and interesting.  Her voice is strong in each scene and not just from a story perspective, but from her visual perspective.  I continually sense that Petty was reliving these moments but in a voyeuristic fashion as she blocked and shot each scene. Tirsa Hackshaw’s editing only adds to the tapestry of Petty’s story while Director of Photography Ken Seng uses light, shadow and denaturation to its best effect. 

Given the darker tone of the material presented, one might think the shooting set had a somber tone.  Nope.  While an efficient shoot, there was still time for humor and comaraderie amongst the cast, including Lawrence’s constant references to Petty as “the AFLAC duck” given Petty’s way of calling for “Action”, not to mention the all in pick-up basketball games that seemed to take place whenever there were men and balls, er, basketballs, on set, which of course resulted in the boys on the crew trying to one up Petty, a fine athlete who actually had a basketball scholarship.

Given the personal nature of THE POKER HOUSE and the experience of playing Petty in her story, this , I asked Jennifer Lawrence what she believed was the most valuable thing she has learned from Petty.  Giving the question some thought, the first thing that came to her mind was a quote from Petty – “Things can happen to you but they don’t have to happen to your soul.  Petty is never going to lose a minute of sleep at night because everyone knows how she feels about everything.

When Petty and I talked last year about the film, she was nervous and filled with trepidation about the film’s debut and whether it would find an audience or distribution.  Now that the film is hitting the big screen in Los Angeles this week, I had to ask Petty how it feels to finally have that deal in place with the film opening to the public this week and then making its way onto DVD. “ Well, I got one [distribution], but I always want more.  I’m opening in one theater [in Santa Monica] and I want more.”   I have no doubt that her next film will see the “more” that she seeks.

For Petty, she would like the audience to “feel the empathy and compassion that everyone has for each other in this film.  And to forgive people that are really doing the best that they can.  You don’t know what some’s going through.  You don’t know where they’ve been.  You don’t know what happens when they go home.  Treat everybody the way you would like to be treated and be thankful just to be alive.  Don’t be afraid and don’t let the past affect your present.”  Lori Petty, we are all thankful for you and for THE POKER HOUSE.

Agnes – Jennifer Lawrence

Sarah – Selma Blair

Bee – Sophia Bairley

Cammie – Chloe Moretz

Directed by Lori Petty.  Written by Lori Petty and David Alan Grier.