Before Midnight (2013) ***1/2

It’s been a long wait for a sequel, but for most of it we didn‘t even know we were waiting.  Those who are fans of the Richard Linklater films leading up to this movie know what I am talking about.  It was in 1995 that “Before Sunrise” introduced us to Jessie and Celine, a couple of strangers who meet on a train, then spend a long night in Vienna talking and falling in love.  Then, nine years later, “Before Sunset” came along in 2004 to finally get the two together properly.  At that point, according to the Hollywood paradigm, the story was over.  Almost every movie is about people falling in love.  Once they achieve that, what else is there to tell?  They just live happily ever after, right?
In his latest film, “Before Midnight,” Linklater, along with co-writers Delpy and Hawke, explores that question of “What happens next?”  The movie finds Jesse and Celine raising girls of their own and trying to see as much as possible of Jesse’s son from his first marriage.  This is challenging, because they live in France, and Jesse’s son lives in Chicago.  Jesse is a successful writer, and Celine is considering a major career change.  Then Celine and the girls are kidnapped, and Jesse is forced to save them himself, with help from a grizzled, old assassin played by Clint Eastwood.
Did I have you going for a second there?  Probably not, because if you know Richard Linklater’s work, you know he doesn’t make violent action movies.  What he does is make action out of the everyday activity of conversation, and he does it again in “Before Midnight.”  This time around, the conversation isn’t always as benign as in the first two films.  One rule of humanity is that no matter how good we have it, none of us thinks our life is easy or simple.  Jesse and Celine are no exception.  In “Before Sunrise” and “Before Sunset” they were flush with the thrill of falling in love, but now they are just trying to raise their kids and pursue their individual dreams together, or perhaps separately.  They enjoy a life that includes long vacations in Greece and dinner with artists and writers, but there is plenty of dissatisfaction to go around.
“Before Midnight” is very much the sort of thing you will like if you like this sort of thing.  The characters talk and talk and talk.  If you don’t know whether you would like such a talky, action-free movie, then rent “Before Sunrise” and find out.  If that hooks you, then go ahead and watch “Before Sunset” and finally, “Before Midnight.”  I suppose it would be possible to watch and enjoy “Before Midnight” without having seen the first two movies, but why would you want to?  I think this film will resonate much more if you have that history with the characters.
So, did I like “Before Midnight”?  I did like it, but I didn’t ENJOY it as much as I did the first two films.  The material is more difficult.  Instead of falling in love, they are trying to stay in love.  As Celine puts it, “Sometimes I think you are breathing helium, and I am breathing oxygen.“  Watching this film is like hanging out with that bickering couple we all know. There were times when I just wanted to yell, “Stop picking at each other!”  Still, you have to give them credit for making such a real, emotionally gritty film.

3.5 stars out of 5

Mid-August Lunch (Pranzo di ferragosto, 2008) and Salt of Life (Gianni e le donne, 2011) ***

They don’t make many movies for adults, and they make even fewer for middle-aged and elderly people.  This pair of Italian comedies, by writer, director, and star Gianni Di Gregorio, helps to remedy that.  The wry humor in these completely grown-up films is slow-paced, but very charming.
“Mid-August Lunch” introduces us to Gianni, an Italian man probably in his fifties, unemployed and living in Rome with his elderly mother.  With no way to keep up with their bills, they are threatened with eviction from their condo, but Gianni sips his white wine and carries himself with a resigned good humor that is at the same time depressive and somehow almost Buddhist.  Gianni is a gourmet cook who seems content to care for his mother and slouch along from one meal to the next, although he doesn’t relish the possibility of losing his home.  Salvation comes when his condo manager offers to erase their debts if Gianni will care for the manager’s elderly Mom over a holiday weekend.  Then things snowball, until Gianni finds himself caretaker for four grumpy, elderly ladies in a suddenly cramped apartment.  Gianni’s good-natured acceptance of the situation, and the women’s gradual acceptance of each others’ company is funny and heartwarming.
“Salt of Life” picks up with Gianni perhaps a year or so later. He is still this sort of sad-sack, drinking his wine and cooking fine meals.  His mom has moved to a home where she has other old women around for company, and Gianni now shares his apartment with his daughter and ex-wife (!).  His life changes when his friend pushes him to find a girlfriend.  Gianni’s sex life has been in hibernation, but finally he starts to notice all the gorgeous Italian girls in his life, and he clumsily starts flirting.  It’s a little odd to see this old, out-of-shape, penniless guy hitting on young women, but it’s a funny movie, nonetheless.  Gianni Di Gregorio may be schlubby, but he has an amazing screen presence, and the girls are pretty easy on the eyes.
If one of these movies bumped into a Michael Bay film, there would probably be a massive release of energy as the two polar opposites destroyed each other.  These movies are fairly quiet, with subtle humor.  They are fun to watch, however, if you are in the mood for a foreign, artsy film.

Both films, 3 stars out of 5

Pitch Perfect (2012) ***

When I heard that Rebel Wilson, the blond, British girl from “Bridesmaids” who poured frozen peas on her tattoo, would be in “Pitch Perfect,” I knew I had to see it.  I was not disappointed.  “Pitch Perfect” is a lot of fun, and it turns out Rebel Wilson isn’t even the best thing in it.
The movie takes place at a college where a cappella singing groups are the big thing.  The most dominant group, the Treble-Makers, is an all-male group, and national champions.  The Bellas, a female group, were once competitive, but have seen their fortunes fall after their leader had an on-stage vomiting incident.  With their numbers decimated, the Bellas have to recruit desperately, taking on a group of misfits like Fat Amy (“I call myself that so twiggy bitches like you won’t say it behind my back.” - Rebel Wilson), a whispering Asian girl, and a grumpy alterna-hottie (Anna Kendrick).    Beca, the alternative girl, spends her time mixing music and warily flirting with one of the Treble-Makers (Skylar Astin), when she isn‘t rehearsing with the Bellas and challenging the conservative leadership of Chloe(Brittany Snow).   (No one in this movie spends their time attending college classes or studying.)
The plot isn’t nearly as important as the music.  Even more than the TV show “Glee,” “Pitch Perfect” tries to pack in as many musical numbers as possible, and fittingly, the singing is the most fun thing about the movie.  This is true even if they do trend heavily toward pop music (They even sing a Miley Cyrus song.)  As for comedy, I actually found Rebel Wilson to be a bit disappointing.  Her character in “Bridesmaids” was hilarious, but in “Pitch Perfect” the funniest thing about her is her name, Fat Amy.  Fortunately, the comedic slack is mostly taken up by Brittany Snow and Anna Camp, who play the Bella leaders, and Anna Kendrick, who is a decent straight-man in addition to being super-cute.  Did I mention these ladies can sing?  By far, however, the funniest part of the movie is the outrageous banter of John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks, who play the a cappella competition announcers.  It’s worth watching “Pitch Perfect” just for them.

3 stars out of 5

The Avengers (2012) **

You have to give Marvel Comics credit.  In a genre ruled by guys like Superman and Batman, they chose to make comics about an enraged, green monster; a hokey, patriotic bodybuilder; and figments of Norse mythology.  Even more remarkable is that a modern-day movie studio turned these characters into tent-pole franchises.  By stringing together a series of films (Iron Man I and II, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and finally The Avengers), all linked by a subplot involving a secret government agency called S.H.I.E.L.D., Paramount Pictures and Marvel have created a true economic juggernaut.
I haven’t seen all the films in the series.  I thought Iron Man was okay, and Thor was surprisingly watch-able given its goofy premise.  For me, these movies never managed to balance spectacle with intellectual heft the way the “X-Men” series did.  I had high hopes for “The Avengers,” however, when I learned that Joss Whedon was directing.  This is the Joss Whedon who created the TV show “Firefly,” the coolest and most fun sci-fi western ever to get prematurely cancelled. With Whedon teaming up with actors like Robert Downey, Jr. and Mark Ruffalo, the project had real potential.
I suppose that’s why I was so disappointed with “The Avengers.”  When I watched “Thor,” my expectations were low, and I was pleasantly surprised by the film.  Not so with “The Avengers.”  Like “Iron Man,” the movie takes excellent actors and refuses to give them much of anything interesting to do or say, instead dulling the senses with nonstop action and gee-whiz CGI effects.
The movie finds Loki, who was banished to another dimension for his crimes in “Thor,” making a comeback.  Aided by alien allies, he returns to Earth to claim the Tesseract, some sort of high-energy cube that the government is trying to figure out.  After he busts things up and takes the cube, SHIELD agents Coulson (Clark Gregg) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assemble the crew of misfits who will become the Avengers: Bruce Banner (Hulk), Captain America, Iron Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Thor.  Action ensues.  One-liners are exchanged.  Thirteen-year-old boys are delighted.
I was particularly disappointed by Loki.  Loki is supposed to be the god of deception and mischief, but this film reduces him to the role of petty, would-be tyrant.  Other than occasionally fooling someone with a false image of himself, he doesn’t really engage in much trickery.  Tom Hiddleston is excellent in the role, but it’s just another example of unmet potential in this film.
If I seem to take these comic-book movies too seriously and judge them too harshly, it’s because I refuse to give points based purely on spectacle.  I’ve already seen men flying, things exploding, and girls in skimpy outfits, and I’ve heard all the zippy one-liners from action heroes I need to hear.  Am I up for seeing more of this stuff?  Damn straight!  But for a movie to impress me it also has to have all the other elements of a good film, like well-developed characters, good dialogue, and a compelling plot.  Apologies to Joss Whedon, but “The Avengers” falls flat in these areas, and with better films like the X-Men series and “The Watchmen” out there, there is no excuse for it.

2 stars out of 5

A Cat in Paris (Un vie de chat, 2010) ***

In the movie “Chaplan,” there’s a scene where the star discusses the advantage of silent films when it comes to the overseas market.  All one had to do was change the language on the text cards.  Animated films share this advantage to some extent.  Dubbing a cartoon is doubtless easier than a live-action film, especially if the cartoon has rather crude animation, as does “A Cat in Paris.”  Thus, I came into this family movie expecting my kid to have to read French subtitles, but we got to watch it in English, complete with gangsters with cockney accents!
The story is fairly simplistic.  A young girl discovers that her cat has been sneaking out every night to run the rooftops of Paris with a cat burglar.  Meanwhile, the girl’s mother is a police superintendent focused on capturing the ruthless gangster who killed her husband.  The characters are thinly developed, with the exception of the gangster.  With his hooked nose and cockney accent, he is quite compelling.
To call the animation in this film crude is not to say it is ugly.  The fluid, hand-drawn animation of the characters running across the Paris skyline are beautiful.  What the film lacks in plotline, it makes up in humor and visual beauty.  It’s a good, family film.

3 stars out of 5

En la Cama (In the Bed, 2005) ***½

In America, when you see a movie poster featuring people in their underwear, you can probably count on some partial nudity in the film.  In Chile, it apparently means full-on sex.  Like a Richard Linklater (“Before Sunrise”) soft-core porno, “En la Cama” blends graphic sex with long sessions of conversation.
This Spanish-language film by Chilean director Matias Bize is filmed entirely in a motel room, where two strangers are engaging in a 1-night-stand.  Bruno (Gonzalo Valenzuela) and Daniela (Blanca Lewin), it seems, have met at a party and wound up here, making the walls shake.  When they aren’t going at it, they talk, gingerly at first, then more intimately as the night wears on, until their talk becomes even more intimate than their sex.  In the confines of their motel bed (hence the title “In the Bed”), they in one night go through the ups and downs of a relationship that would normally take weeks or months.
They also look pretty good naked.  I wasn’t joking when I called this a soft-core porno.  It’s a thinking-man’s porno, though.  The actors are excellent, and much as in talky, American movies like “Before Sunrise,” the film makes conversation seem action-packed.  “En la Cama” won’t be everyone’s cup of tea.  Those who don’t like talky movies will be bored, as will those simply looking for a sex movie.  Of course, the film is in Spanish, and Chilean Spanish at that, which is quite hard to understand for me.  But relax, the subtitles are in regular English, and sex looks the same in every language!

3.5 stars out of 5

Marriage Italian Style (Matrimonio all’ italiana 1964) ****

I had always thought of Sophia Loren as this legendary beauty, but not as a serious actress.  Pardon my ignorance.  In “Marriage Italian Style,” Loren shows tremendous acting chops as she teams with the great Marcello Mastroianni to create a tour de force of a satire on sexual politics.
In Vittorio de Sicca’s masterpiece, Loren plays Filumena, a young Italian prostitute who falls for the handsome, wealthy Don Domenico (Mastroianni).  He makes her his mistress, keeping her for years, but is never willing to commit to her emotionally or legally.  We learn all this through flashbacks.  The film actually starts with Filumena apparently dying, and Domenico finally consenting to marry her on her deathbed.  With the marriage complete, Filumena makes a miraculous recovery, and Domenico realizes he has been duped.  Thus resumes the pair’s lifelong game of emotional blackmail and bribery, exemplifying the saying, “All’s fair in love and war.”
Marcello Mastroianni is as good as always here, but it was Sophia Loren who really impressed me.  She wears too much eye makeup, but still lights up the screen.  She beautifully portrays the pathos and dignity of her character.  The story itself is worthwhile, too.  At first I thought it would be an old-fashioned tale of a woman getting some rogue to marry her and then civilizing him; sort of a reverse “The Taming of the Shrew.”  If the film had been made in the U.S. in the early ‘60’s, that’s what it would have been, but the Italians apparently don’t go in for that sort of thing.  “Marriage Italian Style” casts a pragmatic eye on the character of Filumena, a female survivor of WWII and its aftermath who does what she has to.
It would be possible to take a look at this film’s title and movie poster and come into it expecting a comedy. Don’t make that mistake.  This is a serious human drama.  There is some comic relief, but it is no farce.  Still, Filumena is so inventive in getting what she needs from a world and a man intent on denying her, that rooting for her is ultimately a triumphant act.  This one is highly recommended for those who like foreign films.

4 stars out of 5

The Hunger Games (2012) ****

After seeing a lot of movies lately that were just “alright,” it was nice to finally see something amazing!  “The Hunger Games” is sheer delight!  Having never read the book, I came to the movie with no expectations, and I was blown away.
For the other four people in the free world who haven’t already seen the movie, read the books, and gotten the T-shirt, “The Hunger Games” tells the story of Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a girl from a future dystopia.  In this version of the future, civil war has led to the division of the planet, or at least Katniss’s country, into districts.  The poorer, outer districts are pretty much exploited to provide energy and other resources for the lavish lifestyles of those in the rich districts.  (Not all that different from the current system, really.)  To remind the outer districts of the failure of their past rebellion, a Hunger Games is held every year.  Each district has to hand over one teenage boy and girl who will enter the game and fight to the death like gladiators, for the entertainment of a television audience.  It’s completely sick, and it feels eerily reminiscent of our own reality tv shows.
Katniss is a total badass.  With her dad dead in a mining accident, and her mom unable to deal with life, Katniss is left to raise her younger sister.  She also has to feed the family, which she does by sneaking into the restricted forest and hunting with her bow.  When her sister’s name gets drawn for the Hunger Games, Katniss volunteers to take her place.  She is whisked off to her fate, along with a local boy, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson).  In the Capitol, Kat and Peeta are given some cursory training, mostly in how to appeal to the wealthy judges who influence the games by sponsoring care packages to help players they like.  Then the gladiators are turned into the arena, and the underage bloodbath begins.
Like all good dystopian fiction, “The Hunger Games” holds a dark mirror up to our own world.  From its critique of economic exploitation to the depiction of what reality TV could become, the film has a lot to say, even if its messages are rather uncomplicated.  Fortunately, the film works equally well as an action movie.  There’s really nothing negative to say about the movie.  Anyone who saw Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter’s Bone” will not be surprised at how good she is in this role.  This actress knows how to cook a squirrel on a stick!  The rest of the cast is excellent as well.  Woody Harrelson, in particular, is riveting as Haymitch, the alcoholic coach and former Hunger Games competitor.  There’s also a surprise performance by Lenny Kravitz.
The sequel, “Catching Fire” comes out this year, and I can‘t wait.  I’m hungry for more.

4 stars out of 5

Munich (2005) ***

At the 1972 Munich Olympics, Palestinian terrorists kidnapped members of the Israeli Olympic delegation, ultimately killing all of them.  Some of the terrorists were captured, then later released by the German government when another Palestinian group hijacked a German plane to use as a bargaining chip.  Meanwhile, several of the men thought responsible for planning and supporting the Munich attack were free, some of them living openly in various European countries.  Disgusted by this state of affairs, the Israeli government secretly enlisted Mossad agents for a protracted program of vengeance, hunting down and killing the men behind the attack.  “Munich” is the fictionalized story of those men and their fraught search for justice.
At least that’s my take.  Others would say “Munich” is a story about the futility of revenge, or about the self-destructive nature of meeting violence with violence.  Some might say it is about the duplicity of governments (one terrorist supposedly receives money and protection from the CIA.)  I suppose it is about all of those things.
The thing about “Munich” is that it is exactly what I originally thought it would be.  In 2005, I didn’t see it, because it seemed like it would be a downer.  I figured a movie that got all those award nominations could never be simplistic enough to make a satisfying revenge movie.  I figured it must be dark, slow, complex, and unsatisfying (and I was right.)  Then I saw the characters in the movie “Knocked Up” talking about how badass “Munich” made Jews look, and I figured maybe I should give it a chance.
“Munich” does NOT make these guys look like badasses.  It does make Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir look pretty tough, but agent Avner (Eric Bana) and his team are the worst assassins EVER!  After shooting their first target, they inexplicably switch to using bombs, and they are terrible at it.  I don’t know if this is actually how it happened, but in any event, I found it frustrating to watch.
If “Munich” is less-than-satisfying to watch, I suppose that is director Steven Spielberg’s intent.  He is trying to show that violence, which is a simple solution, is not ultimately effective at solving complex problems.  Fair enough.  I just feel that there is a taut thriller in there somewhere, and I’m disappointed I didn’t get to see it.

3 stars out of 5

Hysteria (2011) ***

If it seems hard to believe that a wide variety of physical and psychic complaints in women were once attributed to the uterus “migrating” around the body, then consider that that is what happens when all the knowledge of women’s bodies is generated by men.  Considering how long it took male doctors just to figure out that they should wash their hands before examining a woman in labor, one wonders if things would have moved along a bit faster if the women had been allowed to chime in.
In the 1880’s England of “Hysteria,” the women are still not encouraged to chime in, and the Old Guard is still largely in control of medicine.  Dr. Mortimer Granville (Hugh Dancy), with his skepticism about leeching and his newfangled ideas about germs, finds it difficult to maintain employment.  Then he meets Dr. Dalrymple, who has a highly lucrative practice providing a type of intimate massage to women with “hysteria.”  Apparently the “paroxysms” brought on by the massage cause the uterus to return to its normal position.  He assures Mortimer that the procedure is purely clinical, with no pleasure involved, since it is well-known that women cannot derive sexual pleasure without penile penetration.  The female patients seem happy enough to go along with this story, and they never miss their appointments.
Mortimer bends to his new task mightily, but while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak.  His patients are delighted to have a handsome, young, new doctor applying the “procedure,” but Mortimer develops a repetitive-use injury of his hand.  His promising new career in jeopardy, he, in a stroke of genius, conceives of a new use for his friend’s electric feather duster.  The new, vibrating device induces “paroxysms” in record time, while saving wear and tear on the doctor’s hands.
Meanwhile, Dr Dalrymple has two lovely daughters.  Emily (Felicity Jones) is a perfect, Victorian lady, and seems destined to marry Mortimer.  Charlotte (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is a liberated woman and a social reformer, spending her days running a community center for the poor and preaching about the rights of women.  You can see where all this is going.
In fact, you can pretty much create the entire film in your own mind just from what I have told you.  “Hysteria” is fun and naughty, but it really couldn’t be more predictable.  The invention of the “vibrating massager” is a titillating and interesting theme, and I wish the film had explored it in a more creative and historically expansive way.  The subject of women’s “hysterical” medical complaints, too, could have been more richly depicted.  Still, I suppose I shouldn’t judge a film based on what it could have been.  As it is, “Hysteria” is a fun, silly roast of Victorian England.  With realistic expectations, it is, much like the device that is its subject matter, a guaranteed good time.

3 stars out of 5