Moore returns to his roots in 'Capitalism'

Incendiary documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has become so polarizing that there almost isn’t much of a point in even reviewing his films. No matter what I say about his latest film, “Capitalism: A Love Story,” I will not sway anyone's opinion on him.

Throughout his career, Moore has been accused of being one-sided, but following “Fahrenheit 9/11,” his most controversial and slanted film, he is unable to get the opposite side of the conversation simply because they won’t talk to him. People know exactly what he stands for and what he represents.

This was not always the case. In Moore’s earlier films like “Roger and Me,” “The Big One” and even “Bowling for Columbine,” he was able to get people on camera that represented his opposing view. Unfortunately, Moore has become his own worst enemy, and his reputation precedes him.

Moore has been accused of not being a true documentary filmmaker because he doesn’t take an objective view on his subjects. There is a misconception that a documentary is a representation of life as it truly is, but all documentaries have a point of view on their subjects. Moore is just more blatant about his perspective. His films are the equivalent of an opinion page editorial.

“Capitalism,” his eighth film in 20 years, is in many ways the first true sequel to his first film, “Roger and Me,” in which he desperately tried to talk to GM CEO
Roger Smith about the harm he did to his hometown of Flint, Mich.

Many of the themes explored in that film resurface in “Capitalism,” which attempt to reveal the dangers of unchecked capitalism in the United States. Moore even quotes himself by showing footage from the earlier film.

The new film presents plenty of examples of capitalism run amok that are certainly disturbing and feel less manipulated than in his previous films. Doing your own outside research wouldn’t be a bad thing, though. Moore would probably applaud that initiative. The goals of his films are to raise issues and get people talking.

Most of the final half of the film focuses on the economic crisis that came seemingly out of nowhere this time last year. Moore offers an explanation of why it happened that is perhaps an over-simplification, but that will be helpful to those who are still confused by the whole debacle.

In getting his message across, Moore is up to a lot of his old tricks including the ironically-placed music on the soundtrack, the color commentary and stagey antics — like going to all the banks that received bailout money asking for the taxpayers’ money back.

This time around the glibness and bitterness that turned many people off in “Fahrenheit 9/11” is downplayed and the film is closer in spirit to his first films. There are plenty of cheap shots and gimmicky laughs, but it feels less mean-spirited.

It is too bad that Moore almost can’t help himself from demonizing George W. Bush and lionizing Barack Obama, as it undermines his case. Moore does a good job showing that the capitalist system in America is terribly flawed, and few would refute that, but his treatment of the former and current presidents may cause some people to dismiss him as a liberal crackpot.

No matter what your political leanings are, “Capitalism” is worth a look, if only for the discussions and debates the film will stir.

Jonze's 'Wild Things' is a movie to love

Director Spike Jonze’s adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” is a small miracle. It is a big budget Hollywood film that feels intimate and personal and an adaptation that remains faithful to its source material even as it expands upon it.

A film version of “Wild Things” very easily could’ve been a disaster along the lines of the adaptations of Dr Seuss’ “How The Grinch the Stole Christmas” and “The Cat in the Hat.”

As with the Seuss books, Sendak’s story is only a few hundred words long and scant on plot. It is inevitable that paddling needs to be added to the story to fill it out to feature length. Unlike the padding added to the Seuss films, which was often in stark contrast with Seuss’ spirit and tone, the new material in “Wild Things” feels like an extension of the book.

The book and the film tell the simple story of Max (Max Records), a misbehaving boy who after a fight with his mother (Catherine Keener) escapes into an imaginary land of giant monsters that name him their king.

Within this basic framework Jonze (“Being John Malkovich”) and co-screenwriter, author Dave Eggers, create conflicts between Max and the wild things that deal with real and heavy emotions including love, anger and jealousy in a way that few family films do.

Jonze is a wildly imaginative filmmaker and is the perfect choice for this material both in terms of treating it with respect and capturing Sendak’s vision. The film is often strikingly beautiful. Shots of Max walking along a desert with his monstrous friends will linger in the mind for days.

The wild things themselves are an extraordinary achievement, a seamless blend of physical and computer generated effects. These creatures aren’t merely story devices, but fully conceived characters brought to life by great voicework from James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose and Paul Dano.

Records, as the only human character for most of the film, has a challenging role and he meets it. Most movie kids are either too precocious or too obnoxious, Records is neither. His interactions with the wild things are believable, and he keeps Max likable even as he does unlikable things.

“Wild Things” is a realistic portrayal of what it is like to be a kid. Max is shown to be a good, if mischievous kid who is dealing with emotions he doesn’t quite understand and isn’t entirely equipped to deal with yet. This is something kids, and even adults, can relate to.

Some will be quick to say that it is not a kids' movie because it is too dark, too pensive, too melancholy and too slow. That was my initial reaction too, but then I thought about the films that I watched on repeat growing up. I adored films like “The Little Prince” and “The Neverending Story,” which, like “Wild Things,” are about the power of imagination and are dark, thoughtful films.

Most films targeted at kids condescend to them and are attempts by adults to give them what we think they want, which more often than not, is slapstick foolery. Kids, of course, do eat up this kind of superficial entertainment, but they deserve better. The best kids' films will challenge them, maybe even scare them a bit, but at the same time entertain them.

“Wild Things” is full of life lessons, but in contrast to most films, even those targeted at adults, at no point does a character blatantly say what the morals are. They are simply presented and left for the audience to discover on their own.

The best example of this is a sequence in which Max decides that the wild things need to play at war to work through a conflict. There is a very clear lesson, but, as with the rest of the film, it isn’t presented in a ham-fisted or contrived way. Through and through, this is a movie that feels emotionally honest.

Not all kids are going to understand the deeper themes in “Wild Things,” but that’s OK, they will as they get older. The film is certainly not for all tastes either, but for a certain kind of kid, and adult for that matter, this is a film they will cherish and watch over and over again.

Holden's 'Capote' is a tour de force

JACKSON — I'm going to be honest: the idea of a one-man show about "In Cold Blood" author Truman Capote didn't have me jumping with joy. It sounded like the sort of vanity project that would make a good joke in a Christopher Guest movie. As the lights came up on "An Evening with Truman Capote," the return production of the recently reformed Jackson Players, I sat hoping for the best, but dreading the worst. I breathed a sigh of relief when my fears were proven to be misplaced.

"An Evening with Truman Capote," which had its world premiere at the Whitney Community Center in Jackson, N.H. Oct. 9, was written and stars Craig Holden, a local actor who will be a familiar face to regular Mount Washington Valley theater-goers.

Holden clearly spent a good deal of time researching his script, and the playbill cites several books he used during the writing process. The show appears to string together several interviews to form a narrative chronicling Capote's life from infancy to death. The play is set the day before Capote's death, with his "rational side" recounting his life directly to the audience.

Playing Capote is not easy. The danger in playing in Capote, a known homosexual, is to go over-the-top with the lisping, effeminate voice and broad hand gestures and body language. Holden obviously spent just as much time perfecting his Capote performance as he did researching Capote's life.

Holden gets the voice just right, it has the inflection, but it is effectively underplayed. The same goes for the body language. There's a fair bit of hand waving, but Holden never allows it to slip into a full-blown gay stereotype. It really is a command performance, and after a while you just accept him as Capote.

The show, directed by Gino Funicella, is less a play than an extended interview with Capote without the interviewer. Try to picture "In The Actors Studio" but without James Lipton supplying the questions. At a little over two hours, including an intermission, the show is over long and could have been tightened in places.

In the first act Holden lingers too long on gossipy subject matters like Capote's dislike of Gore Vidal. The point is made that Capote found Vidal to be a talentless writer, but then it is made again and again and each reiteration lacks the punch of the last.

There's also a lengthy section on Capote's thoughts on the Kennedys and a betrayal he felt from a member of that circle. This betrayal is the emotional end note of the first act and does deliver a powerful conclusion before the intermission, but the build-up is too lengthy and could've been even more potent with a bit of streamlining.

The second act is where the best stuff resides including the writing process of Capote's crowning achievement, "In Cold Blood." This is easily the most compelling part of the play and begins to offer some insight into Capote as a man and a writer.

The latter part of the second act shifts to Capote's downfall, a scandalous chapter of a work-in-process novel about celebrity that was published in Esquire. As with the "In Cold Blood" section, this proves to be fascinating and gripping viewing.

"An Evening with Truman Capote" may be meandering at times but it is also full of interesting tidbits such as Capote's disapproval that the film version of his novel "Breakfast at Tiffany's" starred Audrey Hepburn and not his first choice Marilyn Monroe. Capote's thoughts on Monroe are worth hearing. Portions about his childhood also add depth and power to the proceedings.

As is true with any one-man show, the success of the show falls on the shoulders of just one — and Holden's take on Capote should be seen. It is a performance that hits all the emotional notes from laughter through to tears, and he does it with no support. He is on stage alone and, at times, completely emotional exposed.

'Zombieland' is bloody good fun

“Zombieland” is so much better than any expectations you might have for a movie called “Zombieland.” Oh, it is by no means high art, but it is a rollicking good time with some of the heartiest laughs in a movie this year.

Clearly, “Zombieland” is not going to be for everyone. The title practically doubles as a disclaimer. If you walk into this film not expecting to see copious amounts of gore, blood and cartoonish violence, then you get what you deserve.

The zombie genre isn’t exactly a shining beacon of good cinema and the zombie comedy is even less so. The original zombie movie, George Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead,” is a classic that has rarely been replicated whether it is for scares or laughs.

One exception is the brilliant British comedy “Shaun of the Dead,” which “Zombieland” thankfully does indeed recall. The tone here is broader and there’s more action, but, like “Shaun,” the film takes the time to develop the characters and create relationships.

In “Zombieland,” the world is over run by zombies. Over the course of the film we meet seemingly the last five humans left in the United States. Each character is referred to by the city they came from because names lead to emotional attachments, at least according to Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson).

Tallahassee is a master at zombie killing and takes great pleasure in doing so in inventive ways. He also in search of a Twinkie and is quite willing to put his life in danger to find one.

Harrelson parlayed his popularity on the show “Cheers” into a successful film career in the 1990s with a string of lead roles in such films as “Natural Born Killers,” “White Men Can’t Jump,” Indecent Proposal” and “Kingpin.”

He hasn’t had a lead role in a decade instead taking supporting roles in a diverse cross-section of films. He certainly picked a juicy role in which to return to center stage and he’s absolutely perfect in it. His quirky line delivery and offbeat choices make Tallahassee a character worth remembering.

Tallahassee reluctantly teams with Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg, “Adventureland”), a geeky obsessive compulsive, shut-in. Oddly enough these traits make him an ideal candidate for surviving the zombie apocalypse. Columbus, the narrator of the film, has a list of survival rules, which amusingly pop up on screen throughout the film.

Eisenberg has a low-key, dead-pan persona that plays nicely off Harrelson’s more over-the-top style. Eisenberg comes across like a less neurotic, more naturalistic version of Woody Allen or Albert Brooks.

Tallahassee and Columbus meet up with Wichita (Emma Stone, “Superbad”) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin, “Little Miss Sunshine”), survivalist sisters on their way to an amusement park in California where it is rumored there are no zombies. The four form an uneasy alliance.

In the movie’s best and funniest sequence, the foursome stops off in Hollywood and decides to crash a celebrity mansion, only to discover the celebrity still lives there. I won’t reveal the actor who plays himself, but it is a hoot.

The screenplay by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick is clever and full of sharp one-liners, but also allows for a sweet relationship to develop between Wichita and Columbus. There’s also a surprisingly effective emotional moment involving Harrelson that may catch viewers off-guard.

First time director Reuben Fleischer has a keen eye for staging both action and a good sight gag. The climatic showdown at the amusement park is probably the best showcase of his talent.

Some people may have dismissed the film based upon its title alone, but if you don’t mind a bit of stomach churning imagery, you may be surprised by how much you actually enjoy this film. At around 80-minutes, the film doesn’t wear out its welcome. It is a quick, pure jolt of entertainment.

'Tenor' offers up a night of light comedy

'Lend Me a Tenor' continues its run at Your Theatre

As with its recent production of “How the Other Half Loves,” M&D Productions has decided to go for a bit of light comedy with “Lend Me a Tenor,” an effervescent throwback to the screwball comedy.

“Lend Me a Tenor,” which opened at Your Theatre in Willow Common in North Conway Oct. 8 and is play Thursday through Saturdays until Oct. 24, centers on the complications involving a performance in Cleveland by Tito
Merelli (Kevin O’Neil), a famous Italian opera singer.

Because of a string of misunderstandings, Max (Andrew Brosnan), the assistant to the opera company’s general manager (Paula Jones) must impersonate Tito, which only results in an increasingly more convoluted series of mistaken identities.

Playwright Ken Ludwig’s script, which first appeared in London in 1986 before moving to Broadway in 1989, is very much in the tradition of the screwball comedy and is even set in the decade in which they flourished: the 1930s. Screwball comedy is often used interchangeably with slapstick, but slapstick is just one of the ingredients of a successful screwball comedy.

The screwball comedy as it emerged in the 1930s was influenced by the farcical comedies of Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde. Misunderstandings, double entendres, innuendoes and rapid-fire dialogue are mixed with pratfalls and a progressively more anarchic tone. All of these elements are on display in “Lend Me a Tenor.”

There’s a misconception that drama is difficult and comedy is easy, but an exceptionally well-timed comedy is not a simple feat. As with tragedy, the tone, pacing and delivery have to be just right, especially when dealing in the fast-paced screwball genre.

Ludwig’s script ably re-creates the feel of the genre, and director Ken Martin and his cast and crew have mounted a worthy production that is laugh-out-loud funny, especially in the second act where, as is so often the case in this genre, things escalate to a whirlwind of hilarity.

The impressive set, designed by Mark DeLancey, re-creates a lavish luxury hotel and features plenty of doors for slamming as characters run around during the mounting confusion.

O’Neil as Tito and Mary Bastoni-Rebmann as Tito’s wife have a lot of fun with thick, comically over-the-top Italian accents. Bastoni-Rebmann in particular runs with the boisterous Italian stereotype to great effect, and her fights with O’Neil score some of the best laughs in the production.

Brosnan, in his first time on stage, finds his stride when the show kicks into high gear. As a man who finds himself by pretending to be someone else, Brosnan makes a congenial focal point for the insanity.

Karen Gustafson as a woman with a crush on Tito that’s so big it blinds her to the sweet and kind Max truly embraces the rat-a-tat-tat nature of her dialogue. At times she spits her dialogue out so fast it is a wonder she doesn’t pass out.

Carrie Engfer clearly relishes getting to play a vampy actress who seduces a very confused Tito in hopes of getting ahead in show business. In one of the productions best scenes the double entendres are piled on thick and Engfer and O’Neil play it just right.

Paula Jones, in a role traditionally played by a man, has a nice edge to her delivery as the tough and cynical company manager. Eric Jordan and Karen O’Neil add even more well-timed humor to the production as two more fans desperate to get face time with
Tito.

If the show has any flaw it is that in places the repartee could be delivered even faster, but, chances are, as the run of the show progresses the pace will be picked up in those rare places it does slack.

For more information visit www.yourtheatre.com or call 662-7591.

'Fame' is too tame to matter

The latest film to come up out of Hollywood’s more-productive-than-ever remake mill is “Fame,” a partially regurgitated reincarnation of the 1980 film of the same name about the New York High School of Performing Arts, a school known for being as difficult to get into as an Ivy league college.

Unfortunately, for a film about the performing arts, this new “Fame” seems to have little interest in exploring why an artist performs, what drives them, what inspires them or what their art means. We get hints of what that discussion could sound like in all too brief monologues from the veterans in the cast including Kelsey Grammer, Bebe Neuwirth and Megan Mullally.

The film is broken up into chapters: audition day, freshman year, sophomore year and so on. Things start out promisingly enough with the audition chapter full of energy, laughs and genuinely impressive performances. My admitted skepticism about the film began to melt away only to return with a vengeance as the film progressed.

I have not seen the original “Fame,” but here’s what I know without seeing it: the 1980 version of “Fame” was rated R and was two hours and 13 minutes. In 2009, “Fame” is now PG and clocks in at one hour and 47 minute. That should give you an indication of the priorities of the people behind the scenes of the 21st century edition.

The new “Fame” is as flashy as a Britney Spears concert and about as superficial as one too, which is appropriate enough given that director Kevin Tancharoen’s biggest directing credit is “Britney Spears Live from Miami.”

Tancharoen’s time with Britney did serve him well in terms of knowing how to stage elaborate dance or song numbers. Tancharoen does have an eye for vibrantly directing dance routines and the few big dance numbers scattered throughout the film are often spectacular, especially one set in a cafeteria.

It is when it comes to scenes of drama that Tancharoen falls flat. You get the sense that Tancharoen is well aware of his limitations. A scene in which a teacher informs a student that he won’t be able to make it as a performer is intercut with several girls dancing seductively. The idea is to show their talent to his lack of talent, but it merely undermines the drama of the scene.

There is also evidence of heavy editing to reach the PG rating. Either that or the characters were severely underwritten by screenwriter Allison Burnett. Only one character, Denise (Naturi Naughton), a classical pianist who must hide her desire to be an R&B singer from her parents, has a complete story arc. Other characters' stories are brought in and then left dangling.

In the most egregious example of this the character of Jenny (Kay Panabaker) is shown to be insecure and uptight early in the film, so much so it isn’t unclear how she got past the school’s stringent audition process, but by the film’s finale she is confidently belting out a solo. We have no idea how she made the transition and that transformation could’ve made for interesting drama.

Similarly, the character of Malik (Collins Pennie) is given a back story that is never fully addressed after it is brought up. There are scenes between Pennie and his drama teacher played by Charles S. Dutton that have a spark, but there’s a sense that most of their conversations were left on the cutting room floor.

It is a shame the young cast didn’t have better material and that what they did have was hacked away because there is some real talent here. Naughton and Asher Book have striking vocal abilities and Pennie is a strong actor and a good rapper.

Perhaps somewhere there’s a more complete cut of the film that doesn’t leave so many things unanswered. Would this version be a great film? Probably not as the characters and their conflicts are too clichéd. Even so, there is chance that there may be a slightly better, longer film out there.

Great animation makes '9' a must see

“9” is an extraordinary piece of animation that is simply outstanding to behold. There are certainly things to nitpick, but when seemingly every week there is another remake or sequel, it is a relief to see something unique.

Director Shane Acker has expanded his Oscar nominated 10-minute short of the same name to feature length with the help of producers Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov (“Wanted”). The dialogue-less short can easily be found on YouTube and is worth checking out. It is interesting to see how the kernel of an idea was more completely flesh out, even if not all the extra meat is necessary.

The film is set in a world that has been destroyed in a battle between man and machine. All life has been eliminated except for nine rag dolls created by the same inventor who made the first machine that set the world to its destruction.

As the movie opens we meet 9 (voiced by Elijah Wood), the newest and final doll to be created. He quickly meets up with the others and discovers them to be an assortment of new friends and foes.

The world that Acker has created and the struggle between these surprising sympathetic and emotive dolls and the animal-like machines is so compelling in itself that it overcomes the less-than-amazing screenplay that Pamela Pettler (“Monster House,” “Corpse Bride”) has written.

The arc of the story is fine. It is just that that in padding a 10-minute short to 80 minutes there’s a lot of clichés thrown into kill time. The dolls are more archetypes than full-fledge characters and the dialogue they are given hardly original.

The short was fine without dialogue and it would’ve been a bold move to go wordless for the feature length version, but also would’ve made the film a tough sell.

Credit though to an excellent voice cast that includes Christopher Plummer, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly, Crispin Glover and Martin Landau. Everyone involved gives lively voice performance that truly breath life into these characters in spite of the limitations of the script.

Although the screenplay hits familiar notes, the visuals and style of the film is enthralling. The computer animation here is truly amazing and makes the film absolutely worth seeing, especially on a big screen.

The look blends imagery that recalls the war torn ghettos of War World II with a bizarre hybrid of Soviet and Nazi iconography. It is post-apocalyptic world as we’ve seen in film before and yet at the same time something that feels new.

Once the stage is set, the film is almost non-stop action with brief interludes for the audience to catch their breath. The action sequences are impeccably well executed. There’s a certain amount of grace and genuine ingenuity to these scenes which are both clever and thrilling.

There are little moments and ideas that also raise the film above the ordinary. The way one of the dolls uses a magnet to magnetize parts of his head and give himself a high is a small detail that certainly doesn’t further the story, but helps more fully realize Acker’s world.

This may be an animated feature, but it isn’t kid stuff. The film is rated PG-13 and for good reason. For older children, “9” is fine, but the dark tone and monstrous machines will scare younger viewers.

10 more alternative songs for your Halloween party

Last year I provided a list of less-than-obvious music selections for Halloween gatherings. Well another year, equals another list.

“Black Widow” – Alice Cooper (1975)
What would Halloween be without a little Alice Cooper? There are obvious choices, but this being an alternative list, I’ve gone with this track from “Welcome to My Nightmare” if only because it features a guest appearance by B-horror movie maestro Vincent Price, seven years before making a similar cameo on Michael Jackson’s “Thriller.”

“Planet Claire” – The B-52s (1979)
Best known for their late 1980s hit “Love Shack,” The B-52’s built their career on singing about off-the-wall subject matters. This song combines a driving “Peter Gunn”-esque riff with an atmosphere that recalls 1950s creature features. The scant lyrics include such quirky lines as: “Planet Claire has pink air/All the trees are red/No one ever dies there/No one has a head.”

“Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps)” – David Bowie (1980))
Despite being the title track of an album this song isn’t as well known as other Bowie title tracks such as “Heroes,” “Let’s Dance” or “Ziggy Stardust,” but it is a prime example of Bowie’s chameleon-like ability to hop genres. The song has a distinctly heavier sound than typically associated with Bowie and appropriately dark lyrics given the title.

“Ghost Town” – The Specials (1981)
English ska group wrote this song about the sociopolitical environment of England under Margaret Thatcher, which, depending on who you talk to, is just as relevant a topic for Halloween as Dracula, ghouls and goblins. Even if you are unaware of the song’s subtext, the eerie, horn-driven atmosphere seals the deal.

“Lullaby” – The Cure (1989)
The Cure was a band known for gloomy and moody lyrics even on more musically cheery songs like “Boys Don’t Cry.” “Lullaby” is a song full of cryptic imagery. With lyrics like: “It’s much too late to get away or turn on the light/the spiderman is having you for dinner tonight” this is probably not the best song to lull a child to sleep with.

“Zombie” – The Cranberries (1994)
OK, so this song isn’t literally about the living dead, but the Irish group uses the concept of zombies as a metaphor in a song about the conflict between England and Northern Ireland. Lead singer Dolores O'Riordan’s haunting, anger-filled vocal is a perfect compliment to the song’s grungy sound.

“Walking With a Ghost” - Tegan and Sara (2004)
The song, which was covered in fine form by The White Stripes, is two verses repeated over and over again with a driving guitar and synth riff. It is simple, direct and repetitive, but damned if it isn’t more infectious than that virus from “28 Days Later.”

“Fire Coming Out of a Monkey’s Head” – Gorilaz (2005)
Buried deep on the second half of the Gorilaz’ second album, this is a brilliant spoken word parable delivered by Dennis Hooper over ominous beats. It is a story of an innocent, sheltered village invaded by greedy, destructive “shadowy figures.” It is the most resonating track of a great album.

“Monster” – The Automatic (2007)
In the spring of 2007 this song about the monster that is drug use from the Welsh band The Automatic was all over indie and alternative radio stations. As quickly as the song and band appeared they disappeared, but with its inordinately catchy chorus of “What’s that coming over the hill, is it a monster?” the song is perfect Halloween fodder.

“Werewolf Bar Mitzvah” – Tracy Morgan (2007)
Tracy Jordan, Tracy Morgan’s alter ego on NBC’s hilarious comedy “30 Rock,” scored a novelty hit (at least in the universe of the show) with this goofy song about, as the chorus states it, “boys becoming men, men becoming wolves.” Funny for Jews and goys alike.

Have I seen you somewhere before?: Hollywood's love affair with remakes

For years now Hollywood has become synonymous with unoriginality and as a place bereft of new ideas. This is perhaps an unfair generalization, but with a glut of new remakes on the docket, Hollywood is certainly making it difficult to prove otherwise.

Actually to be fair they are no longer called remakes. Hollywood has put the re- prefix in front of other words to disguise the fact that they are merely exploiting a familiar title. Now they are reboots, reimaginings and reworkings. But in most cases it is simply recycling.

It isn’t all bad. This summer we saw a rebooted “Star Trek” that was exciting, funny and emotionally satisfying. Of course this summer also had the dire “Land of the Lost” and limp redo of the obscure 1970s thriller “The Taking of Pelham 123.”

Over the next year an impressively or depressingly (depending on your outlook) long list of remakes will be released or put into production. This list includes some promising projects like director Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood” with Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchette as his Robin and Marion, writer/director Guy Ritchie’s revisionist take on “Sherlock Holmes” starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and
Watson and director Joe Johnston’s “The Wolfman” with Benico Del Toro.

Other upcoming remakes are “Predator,” “The Blob,” “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Fame,” “Footloose,” "Dune," “The Clash of the Titans,” “Excalibur,” “Red Dawn,” a comedic take on “Gulliver’s Travels,” “A Christmas Carol” and Steven Spielberg’s “Harvey.” Even the 2007 British comedy “Death at a Funeral” is getting the remake treatment by Neil LaBute, a brilliant playwright whose remake of “The Wicker Man” was an unintentionally hilarious disaster.

Why so many remakes? Two words: name recognition. As Patrick Goldstein of the Los Angeles Times recently noted “when film audiences go to the multiplex, beset by economic woes and uncertainty about the future, they want fun, familiarity and frivolity.”

Familiar titles come with instant identification of the film’s themes, characters, genre, tone and general plot. It is easier for the people with the money in Hollywood to risk millions of dollars on a movie with a built-in audience.

While most recent remakes, particularly those of horror titles, have been nothing more than shameless money grabs, the idea of a remake in of itself is not a terrible one, after all even Shakespeare did his fair share of remakes. When done well a remake can be another important word with the re- prefix: a reinvention.

A good or even great remake justifies its existence by, if not bettering the original, at least finding something new in the material. That new could be the way an actor approaches a character, a significant updating of the subject matter, flair in the direction or writing or any number of other components.

Take a film like Jonathan Demme’s version of the 1962 Frank Sinatra vehicle “The Manchurian Candidate.” The 2004 update by no means bests the classic original, but the ways in which the Cold War era themes are reconfigured for our time are compelling and surprisingly relevant.

The 1990s saw a very different kind of reinvention in the form of an unexpectedly fruitful trend of reworking classic material into a teen film. Jane Austin’s “Emma” became “Clueless,” Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew” became “10 Things I Hate About You,” Shakespeare’s “Othello” became “O” and “Les Liaisons dangereuses” became “Cruel Intentions.”

Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert often said that if you’re going to remake a movie, why not take a bad movie and make it better? Steven Soderbergh’s “Ocean’s 11” is a prime example of just that. While the rat pack original from 1960 wasn’t awful, Soberbergh and his cast took the basic parts of the original and improved upon it with seemingly effortless style.

Going back even further some film classics are actually remakes. John Huston’s “The Maltese Falcon” starring Humphrey Bogart was actually the third version of the Dashiell Hammett story made within a decade. Huston’s went down as the classic.

The delightful 1940 screwball comedy “His Girl Friday” starring Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell was a remake of 1931’s “The Front Page” which wasn’t a romantic comedy at all - in fact the two leads were male.

The Westerns “The Magnificent Seven” and “A Fist Full of Dollars” took their inspiration from the Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa’s “The Seven Samurai” and “Yojimbo the Bodyguard.”

The point is, as much as the cynic in me would like to dismiss this latest crop of remakes, the remake is a long standing and often worthy tradition. The only question that remains is in the coming months are we going to be stuck with lame carbon copies or inspired reinventions?

The verdict's in: Judge's 'Extract' delivers

“Extract” — “Beavis and Butthead” and “King of the Hill” creator Mike Judge’s latest film — is a box office dud, but given his track recorded that is almost an audience seal of approval.

Judge’s first live action film, “Office Space,” was also a box office failure but has since developed a loyal following as one of the better comedies of the last decade. His second film, "Idiocracy," was barely released theatrically, but has developed some cult cred.

It is hard to say if “Extract” is destined for a similar second life on DVD. “Extract” returns to the work place setting of “Office Space,” although this time the location is a bit more obscure: an artificial flavoring factory.

The perspective has also shifted from the disillusioned cubicle dwellers of “Office Space” to the boss, in the case of “Extract,” the hands-on small business owner Joel (Jason Bateman, “Juno,” “Hancock.”)

“Office Space” struck a cord by giving a voice to disenfranchised office workers who could smile and nod at the all too familiar scenarios. Of course there was also the vicarious pleasure of watching the characters take a bat to a malfunctioning copier.

“Extract” doesn’t quite resonate the same way, but it is still often a very funny film. The plot centers on an escalating series of complications involving a sultry con-artist (Mila Kunis, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”), a dim-witted gigolo (Dustin Milligan) and a Rube Goldberg-esque accident that robs one of Bateman’s employee’s (Clifton Collins Jr.) of his manhood.

Dating back to “Beavis and Butthead,” Judge has relished skewering the idiocy of (some) Americans, but he has always done it with an undercurrent of social commentary even if it is a deeply buried one.

Of his three live action films, “Extract” is probably his most straightforward comedy with the least to say. There is a theme of whether a small business owner should sell out or continue to fight the good fight. And given the state of economy, perhaps just broaching that subject is saying enough.

Bateman, who doesn’t look or seem like an inherently funny person, has an uncanny way of underplaying everything. His deadpan reaction to the craziness around him creates a nice comic tension and helps hold the film together.

But it’s the supporting characters who are the most fun and keep the film interesting. Ben Affleck is very funny as a bartender whose advice to everything is to take some sort of drug. His character is a firm believer of the healing power of Xanax. He even uses it for headaches.

It became fashionable to bash Affleck after a series of ill-advised career moves, but he is back on track having reinvented himself as a reliable supporting player in a series of strong performance in “Hollywoodland,” “State of Play” and now “Extract.”

There’s also nice supporting work from J.K. Simmons (“Juno,” “Burn After Reading”) and Kristen Wiig (“Saturday Night Live”). Both actors have a way of popping into a movie for one or two scenes and stealing the show.

The film’s best character is an obnoxious neighbor played by David Koechner (“Anchorman”). Koechner nails that kind of person who seems to come out of nowhere to talk your ear off about nothing no matter how much of a hurry you are in. A final confrontation with this character is the film’s biggest and most unexpected laugh and one of the funniest moments of any film this year.

“Extract” is a low-key comedy punctuated with several laugh-out-loud moments and a plot that isn’t easy to predict. Things are tidied up a bit too neatly toward the end, but overall this is an enjoyable little comedy.

A lovely 'summer' movie

If “(500) Days of Summer” had to be given a label it would be romantic comedy, but that doesn’t really fit and implies all sorts of things that the film is not. Romantic comedies have a clear formula and expectations, but as the film’s narrator notes early on: “This is a story of boy meets girl. But you should know up front, this is not a love story.”

“(500) Days of Summer” is funny and it is romantic, but it is more thoughtful and realistic about relationships than the average assembly-line romantic comedy. The film shows both the highs and lows of being in a relationship. It will warm your heart, but it may also break it a little along the way.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel star as Tom and Summer. Tom falls for Summer almost instantly. Summer does not feel the same way about Tom. Tom believes in love. Summer does not. She does like Tom, though, and for all intents and purposes they become a couple even though Summer continues to claim she doesn’t want or need a boyfriend.

Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel may not be household names, but they should be familiar faces. Deschanel is the quirky actress who has brought her unique approach to such films as “Almost Famous,” “Elf” and “Yes Man.”

She has an innate likability that is crucial to this role as Summer does things that are unlikable. Deschanel makes it easy, though, to see why someone could fall for her even with her faults. As an on-screen couple, Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt are both charming and believable.

Gordon-Levitt got his start as a child actor appearing most notably in “Angels in the Outfield” before landing one of the leads in the TV show “3rd Rock from the Sun.” In the years following the cancellation of “3rd Rock,” he focused on developing his dramatic chops giving solid, brooding performances in such films as “Brick” and “The Lookout.”

It is nice to see Gordon-Levitt hasn’t lost his touch for comedy. Oh, he gets to brood when he is spurned by Summer, but he also has many funny scenes including a fantasy dance number that represents his sheer joy the night after he first has sex with Summer.

There’s also a very funny scene set at an Ikea with Tom and Summer running around all the store’s various home displays and pretending at being a couple. This scene represents their whole relationship because for Summer she was always playing at it. The problem is, for Tom it was real.

The film shuffles the order of the relationship with a counter appearing to indicate what day of the relationship we are seeing. This means a scene showing the early gleeful stages of the relationship is placed in direct contrast with a more painful scene from later in the relationship.

This approach may sound off-putting but it works, allowing the film to emulate the experience of looking back over a relationship. Memory doesn’t follow the rules of chronology and neither does this film.

In terms of structure, the movie calls to mind Woody Allen’s “Annie Hall.” Both films recall a relationship told out of order, use fantasy elements and experiment with film form.

“Annie Hall” had an animated sequence and characters from the present walking around in memories. “(500) Days of Summer” has the aforementioned dance number and Tom imagining himself in Ingmar Bergman films.

Where “Annie Hall” has a subtitled sequence revealing what characters were really saying instead of what they were actually saying, “(500) Days of Summer” has a split screen scene that shows the expectations of an event next to the reality.

These unreal moments don’t distract for the realistic approach the film has toward relationships. The dialogue by screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber is sharp and witty and approximates what real human beings might say.

First-time feature director Mark Webb gets the tone just right while effectively juggling the fantasy elements of the script. His touch is light, but not too fluffy. He allows the dark elements of the relationship to seep in, but doesn’t let them sink the film.

“(500) Days of Summer” is far more imaginative and genuine than the summer’s other romantic comedy fare such as “The Proposal” or “The Ugly Truth.” If you enjoyed those films, but thought they were lacking something more, you’ll find what was missing here.

Get nostalgic with 'Forever Plaid'

As Labor Day weekend approaches The Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company has one final show, “Forever Plaid,” which has been playing on Mondays throughout their season, but is getting a proper run Sept. 3 to Sept. 6 at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse in North Conway, N.H.

After a season of big productions, this is a stripped-down, intimate four-piece production that is more of a concert than a musical. This is a quickie: just an hour and 20 minutes of musical nostalgia.

The premise of this off-Broadway show written by Stuart Ross is that the spirits of a harmony guy group tragically killed in 1964 have returned 45 years later to perform the one big show they never got to play.

This is all explained by Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company board of director member Rich Gray, who delivers the Rod Sterling-esque opening voice over. But this isn’t a trip into “The Twilight Zone.” It is a walk down memory lane.

The back from the afterlife set up allows for some cute between-song banter between the four leads, but it is really just an excuse to present a collection of songs from the 1950s and 1960s.

The fictional group of the title is tailored after such groups as The Four Aces and
The Four Freshman. Singing in a harmony group is not an easy feat, but the production’s four leads, James Erickson, Steve Codling, Paul Lange and Evan Smith, more than pull it off. They perform well and believably as a group. Although all their between-song conversation is scripted, they present it in a way that feels natural and spontaneous.

The intimate nature of the production makes this a good show to get tickets in the first few rows. There is audience participation in the form of a sing-a-long during the lively medley “Caribbean Plaid,” led by Smith’s Jinx.

Other highlights include “Crazy ‘Bout Ya Baby,” which features some amusing choreography involving plungers. On “Heart and Soul,” an audience member is pulled on stage to play keyboard and do some dancing.

Each performer gets at least one song to take lead, but as is the nature of a harmony group the work is evenly distributed and the ensemble works as a whole with no one trying to steal the spotlight.

The premise is never allowed to get too heavy and is mostly played for laughs. In one of the more serious moments, Erickson delivers a great monologue about the power of being in the moment as a group and feeding off one another until greatness is captured, if only briefly.

Although younger generations may not be familiar with such songs as “Three Coins in the Fountain,” “Love is a Many Splendored Thing” and “Shangri-La,” they are performed so well and with such energy that this production should have broad appeal to all age groups.

For more information and tickets, call the box office at 356-5776 or visit www.mwvtheatre.org.

'Basterds' is a mess, but it is a glorious one

Writer/director Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds,” a revisionist riff on World War II that plays like the ultimate revenge fantasy against Nazis, is a mishmash of tones, styles and ideas, which is practically the definition of a Tarantino movie. This time his penchant for pastiche slightly gets away from him, but even Tarantino not at his best is still better than most movies.

The advertising focuses, not surprisingly, on the film’s biggest star, Brad Pitt, but this is misleading as this is very much an ensemble piece. Pitt’s Lt. Aldo Raine is the leader of the titular group of (mostly) Jewish-American soldiers. Raine has ordered each of his men to kill and scalp 100 Nazi soldiers.

Although the film bears their group’s name, the Basterds are almost incidental for large parts of the film as if they are supporting players in their own movie. Half of the Basterds don’t even have dialogue. It seems like Tarantino became distracted by other characters and plot lines and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

The film opens with a brilliant sequence set in German occupied France. This first segment, the film is broken up into chapters, centers on Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), a German officer nicknamed the Jew Hunter, interrogating a French dairy farmer (Denis Menochet) about whether he is hiding a Jewish family.

Landa has a deceptively jovial way about him that is unsettling. He is like a cat gleefully pawing at his prey deciding whether and how to go in for the kill. Waltz, who won the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival, is astounding in this scene and throughout the film.

Waltz steals the film with his effortless charm. Some have claimed it is in poor taste to make a Nazi so charismatic, but his allure is lethal. The way Waltz switches from a pleasant grin to a deadly grimace is disturbing. It is an inspired characterization that reminds that sometimes evil comes with a smile.

This opening is largely played straight with Tarantino creating an atmosphere of taut suspense. The next chapter shifts gears and gives a first taste of the flamboyantly gory exploits of the Basterds.

The film switches back and forth between the two tones, and it is jarring. The conclusion morphs into an over-the-top caricature that is in stark contrast to the opening. The film is still hugely entertaining for large sections, but the tonal issues mar it from greatness.

Each of the film’s chapters work as self-contained pieces, but as a whole the film feels disjointed even when the plot threads presented in each segment come together in the final act involving the screening of a German propaganda film at a French cinema run by a vengeful Jew (the luminous Mélanie Laurent).

Tarantino has become increasingly in love with his words and his ideas so much so that he has a hard time sacrificing any of it, and this has become a liability. In “Kill Bill” he had so much material that the film was broken up into two separate volumes, which turned out to be a master stroke.

As one film, “Kill Bill” would have suffered from the same problems in tone that “Inglourious Basterds” does, but Tarantino’s two impulses were split with the most outrageous stuff going into “Vol. 1” while the more dialogue driven material went into “Vol. 2.” The same approach could’ve aided “Inglourious Basterds,” which was originally developed as a mini-series thus explaining the episodic nature of the film.

Even with its faults, when it is works, it works extremely well. Tarantino has an undeniably keen ear for dialogue. No one working today can write quite like he does. There is a gem of scene set in a tavern that is as good as anything in “Pulp Fiction” or “Reservoir Dogs.”

Mike Myers makes a great cameo appearance as a British general, and there’s a good performance from Diane Kruger showing more depth than she was afford the opportunity in the “National Treasure” movies.

Pitt continues to reveal himself as an astute comic character actor, and his Aldo Raine is another vivid and very funny characterization similar to, but completely different from, his work in “Snatch” and “Burn After Reading.” His introductory monologue is classic.

“Inglourious Basterds” is an overly ambitious film, but I’ll take a film with too many ideas over one with none any day. What Tarantino does here is certainly not for everyone, but for people on his same often warped wavelength there is much entertainment to be had.

Make a point to say hello to this 'Dolly'

Every year the Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company presents at least one classic old favorite and this year it is “Hello, Dolly,” which opened Tuesday at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse in North Conway, N.H. and will be performed daily, except Monday, through Aug. 30.

Having not seen “Holly, Dolly” in any form, I came to this production a newbie not really sure what to expect and, admittedly, a bit skeptical. I was ultimately won over by the big, bright, buoyant production.

“Hello, Dolly” is based on the play “The Matchmaker,” which itself was based on the play “Merchant of Yonkers,” the source material of which can be traced back to an 1835 English play titled “A Day Well Spent.”

That’s a lot of reworking, and you’d think by the time it became “Hello, Dolly” the material would’ve been become overly diluted. That was not the case, and the 1964 production of “Hello, Dolly” starring Carol Channing went on to win 10 Tony Awards.

The role of Dolly Levi, a matchmaker and self-proclaimed meddler with a business card for every possible need, has been played by such greats as Ginger Rogers, Betty Grable, Pearl Bailey, Phyllis Diller, Ethel Merman and Barbara Streisand in the 1969 film version. Elyse Wolf, who takes on the role on the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse stage, makes a first-rate addition to that list.

Wolf has a commanding stage presence and an easy rapport with the audience, which she addresses on several occasions. Her dry, rapid fire delivery of the show's many one liners is impeccable. Wolf has a powerhouse voice that is showcased throughout the production, but most prominently on the showstopping title song.

Set in New York in 1890, the story focuses on Dolly’s elaborate schemes to wed the half-a-millionaire Horace Vandergelder (Wolf’s real-life husband, Scott Davidson, who proposed to her on the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse stage in 1996). This takes some juggling, with Dolly presenting other options first in an attempt to make herself look all the more luminous.

Davidson recalls Walter Matthau, who played the role in the film, in terms of presence, inflection and attitude. His gruff interaction with the more cheery ensemble around him creates a nice comedic tension. Wolf and Davidson’s real-life chemistry transfers onto the stage well and has the audience rooting for them to get together.

Into the mix are added Cornelius Hackl (Chris Handley) and Barnaby Tucker (Matthew Patrick), clerks in Horace’s shop who sneak into the city instead of minding the shop. There they meet two hat shop girls, Irene Malloy (Alison Rose Munn) and Minnie Fay (Anna Malone). Confusion ensues in a hilarious scene when Horace visits the same shop to court Miss Malloy.

The Cornelius and Irene romantic subplot is one of the most charming aspects of this production. After watching the film version, I can honestly say Handley is vastly superior in the role than Michael Crawford, who was too broad and hammy to be taken seriously in the more tender moments.

Handley, as he proved in “The Producers,” is a fine comic actor who knows how far to push it without going over the top. Handley has a tangible chemistry with Munn who is charming as Irene. Their duet “It Only Takes a Moment” is surprisingly sweet and affecting. Patrick and Malone are essentially sidekicks in this subplot and ably provide support and comic relief.

The choreography by director Andrew Glant-Linden is truly spectacular. A dance of waiters at a club, including fencing with skewers, is a show highlight. All the choreography has underlining graceful comedy to it. The visual punchline to the song and dance routine “Elegance” is priceless.

“Hello, Dolly” is light, fluffy entertainment done very well. This cast and this production really makes the material shine, making for a thoroughly enjoyable night of theater.

For more information and tickets, call the box office at 356-5776 or visit www.mwvtheatre.org.

'District 9' is a piece of great science fiction

“District 9” is about aliens. If you read that sentence and your knee-jerk response was to dismiss the film, please keep reading because “District 9” is so much more than your average action-packed creature feature.

Great science fiction is about an idea and can be used to make statements about the world we live in. That isn’t to say something like “Star Wars” isn’t great entertainment, but that is more of an adventure story in space dealing in a traditional story of good versus evil than true science fiction.

“District 9” is set in South Africa where a spaceship hovers over Johannesburg. The aliens inside mean no threat, their ship has simply broken down. They are found starving and in a humanitarian act are brought down to Earth and put in a refugee camp that keeps them separate from humanity. The camp quickly turns into a slum.

The plot is driven forward by a plan to relocate the aliens, who are given the derogatory nickname of prawns because of their appearance, to a supposedly new and safer location.

This move is facilitated by a bumbling bureaucrat (Sharlto Copley) who got the job simply because he’s the son-in-law of the head of the organization in charge of the move. This organization could care less about the prawns and is far more interested in their weaponry, which only the prawns can operate.

That is all just the set up, and to say anymore would ruin the experience of watching how this story unfolds. This is a movie that is full of surprises and the advertising for the film has bucked the recent trend in movie trailers of revealing key plot twists. Unfortunately, a lot of critics have been loose in their plot descriptions and do reveal developments involving Copley’s character.

Copley, in his acting debut, gives a strong and layered performance. His character goes through a complete character arc. He is the film’s protagonist, but the film, co-written and directed by Neill Blomkamp, is willing to make him do loathsome things.

The material is taken seriously, and the way the film is set up is about as realistic as possible. If a scenario like this occurred, this is probably what would really happen.

The film adopts a faux documentary style that is mixed with a traditional narrative. Everything blends together seamlessly. The fake news footage feels genuine and gives an intense authenticity to the film.

Then there are the aliens, which if they looked phony or cheap could turn a serious film into something unintentionally hilarious. Blomkamp, who has done special effects for such TV shows as “Stargate SG1” and “Smallville,” has created unique looking CGI creatures that are completely believable.

So often films addressing the arrival of aliens have them making contact with Americans, so it is refreshing to have aliens arrive somewhere else. The fact that it is South Africa adds a whole other layer of subtext to the film.

The film becomes an allegory for the now defunct apartheid system in South Africa and deals with themes of racism. This is ultimately what the film is really about.

The final third of the film transitions into a more traditional action film. Viewers taken in by the more credible, thoughtful approach to the subject matter may be disappointed by the more Hollywood-style ending. On the other hand, filmgoers who were perhaps made antsy by what could be perceived as a slow opening should be thrilled by the bombastic ending.

On an action level, the conclusion does deliver the goods and does so in a way that is an extension of the story and furthers the development of the characters. The final shot of the film is surprisingly poignant.

Warning: There is some graphic violence and imagery that squeamish moviegoers should be prepared for.

John Hughes: Don't you forget about him

Last Thursday, filmmaker John Hughes died in New York following a heart attack. Hughes was one of the more prolific filmmakers of the 1980s. From 1983 to 1994, Hughes, on average, wrote two films a year.

My first introduction to Hughes would come late in that cycle with 1989’s “Uncle Buck” and 1990’s “Home Alone.” For a 7-year-old kid, “Home Alone” was the be-all-end-all of movies. It was the ultimate kid fantasy: home alone with no one to tell you what to do and when baddies come around you get to beat them up like they are characters in a cartoon.

The Hughes formula was to balance slapstick humor with clever dialogue and a sense of pathos, the zenith of which was “Home Alone,” his most financially successful film and still the highest grossing live action comedy of all time. But even though it made him the most money, Hughes legacy will not be “Home Alone,” but rather a series of perennial teen films in the 1980s.

When I outgrew “Home Alone,” I discovered such teen classics as “The Breakfast Club” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” both of which should be required viewing upon turning 13. These movies helped me through my formative years as I’m sure they will for future generations.

Hughes got his start as advertising writer in Chicago in the 1970s before trying his hand as a comedy writer. He landed a job at National Lampoon magazine, which led to writing the 1983 hit “National Lampoon’s Vacation.” A year later he would make “Sixteen Candles” — his first film as writer and director and his first foray into the teen film genre.

Up to this point teen films had been either sex comedies or slasher movies and were not much more than exploitation films. Although there were a few bright spots including “WarGames,” “Risky Business” and “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” for the most part the teen movie was bottom of the barrel junk.

Hughes changed that by writing dialogue that sounded real and by creating characters and situations that were relatable and recognizable. He had an ear for how teens spoke and he spoke to teens in a way that rang true to them.

Although he was in his mid-30s, Hughes seemed to have a clear recollection of what it was like to be an adolescent. He was able to accurately depict all the insecurities, the awkwardness and newly discovered desires for love and lust. Through his film, he was able to offer a bit of escapism and let teenagers know they weren’t alone in the how they felt.

“Sixteen Candles” introduced the world to Molly Ringwald as the girl whose family forgets her birthday and Anthony Michael Hall as the definitive geek. Ringwald and Hall would appear together again in Hughes' next film as writer and director, “The Breakfast Club.” Where “Sixteen Candles” was a broad comedy, “The Breakfast Club” was a more thoughtful film with teens from different high school cliques bonding over Saturday detention.

“The Breakfast Club” was quickly followed by “Weird Science,” easily Hughes silliest, strangest and least effective teen movie, but its goofball charm still makes it more endearing than most teen films.

“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” followed, and it represents a teen dream come true: being able to get away with skipping school for a day of fun in the city. It is a film that is full of classic scenes and lines and with Matthew Broderick at his most charismatic in the title role.

Hughes would also write winning the teen romances “Pretty in Pink” and “Some Kind of Wonderful.” In the late 1980s, Hughes shifted away from teens and made “Trains, Planes and Automobiles,” the comic teaming of John Candy and Steve Martin. Hughes proved to be just as assured at writing observant, funny dialogue for adults.

Hughes became disillusioned with Hollywood in the mid-1990s and slowed his output substantially, only writing the occasional kids movie including “Dennis the Menace,” “Beethoven,” “101 Dalmatians” and "Flubber."

Hughes’ best films will remain timeless. Sure, many are dated by their 1980s music and their now quaint references to computers, but they tapped into universal feelings in a way few films can. Hughes was more than just a voice of a generation. He was the voice of the adolescent experience.

Teen angst gets a twist in M&D's 'Kimberly Akimbo'

Dysfunctional families and teen angst have always been great fodder for stories whether in movies, on TV, on the page or on stage, but Pulitzer Prize winning playwright David Lindsay-Abraire offers a new twist on familiar formulas in “Kimberly Akimbo,” which opened Thursday night at M&D Productions’ Your Theatre at Willow Commons in North Conway, N.H.

The title character is your average 16-year-old girl in attitude and personality, but not in appearance. Kimberly (Stacy Sand) has a disease that causes her to age four and a half times faster than a normal person, giving her the appearance and the aliments of a 72-year-old woman.

If the premise sounds familiar that’s because it was also the basis of the 1996 Robin Williams movie “Jack,” but the treatment of the scenario is handled with a lot more care and sincerity by Lindsay-Abraire.

The late 1980s were full of body switch movies with a teen inhabiting an adult body, the best of which was “Big.” In some respects “Kimberly Akimbo” recalls these movies, but there’s more at stake: The average life expectancy of someone with Kimberly’s disease is 16.

The success or failure of the show falls squarely on whether Sand is believable as a teenager in an older body, and she is. Sand captures that angst-ridden teen whine, the awkwardness and the sarcastic attitude. She has the look right too, with slumped shoulders and shoveled feet.

Kimberly’s family is quirky to say the least. Dad (Ken Martin) is an alcoholic, but a lovable one at least. Mom (Dawn Marra) is a pregnant hypochondriac who thinks she’s dying of cancer and is dealing with bandaged hands following a surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Then there’s Debra (Shana Myers), Kimberly’s drifter/grifter aunt, who comes crashing back into her life from a past that the family has not fully addressed and would care to leave alone.

Into Kimberly’s chaotic life enters Jeff (Andrew Clark), a curious fellow classmate who shows interest in Kimberly initially for a school project, but then as more.

All this reads as fairly standard stuff until you add Kimberly’s disease into the mix, but Lindsay-Abraire’s script and director Dan Tetrealt never use it as a gimmick. Instead it is used to look at what it means to age and our perceptions of young and old.

Kimberly’s appearance is simply accepted. It is too painful for Kimberly’s family to directly address the fact that she could die very soon. But that fact, even when ignored, is always lingering.

Lindsay-Abraire has an astute way of finding humor in tragic situations. In this case there is some very broad humor, but even when the antics border on madcap, Lindsay-Abraire’s dialogue has a realistic rhythm.

The family conversations at the dinner table feel authentic as does the sweet “Harold and Maude”-esque relationship that develops between Kimberly and Jeff. Clark is very good as Jeff who is able to see Kimberly as the 16-year-old girl she is rather than the older woman she appears to be.

Kimberly’s mom and especially her sister are big, boisterous personalities played to the hilt by Marra and Myers. Martin as the blue collar father is less broadly comedic, but gets laughs with his dry deliver of obscenity laced dialogue.

Set design by Mark Delancey emulates the panels of a black-on-white comic strip and in its odd way this perfectly encapsulates the tone of the material, which is indeed a comedy in spite of the bleaker implications of the premise.

This is the second play penned by Lindsay-Abraire that M&D has produced following last year’s production of “Rabbit Hole,” and it is no surprise that the company is drawn to the author’s materials. He presents recognizable characters in a fresh, naturalistic way that is thoughtful, moving and at times very funny. What more could you want in a piece of theater?

For more information call 662-7591 or visit www.yourtheatre.com.

'Hurt Locker' is a taut, powerful war movie

Edge of your seat is a rather tired and overused description for a movie, but if ever a film deserved that description, “The Hurt Locker” is definitely it.

“The Hurt Locker” in a nearly unremittingly intense film set during the Iraq War circa 2004. To call it an action film or a thriller would be accurate on a visceral level, but somehow given the content that seems to sell the material short.

The film wastes no time and drops the audience in the middle of a situation involving a bomb on a street and the bomb squad preparing to disarm it. This opening establishes an anything-is-possible tone that leaves the viewer off balance.
From the opening to the closing credits there are only fleeting moments of relief.

There is one suspenseful sequence after another as the bomb squad the film follows is called out again and again. A sniper shoot out is a particularly taut sequence. It would seem the film’s intention is to approximate the sensation of being in war: You are always on edge.

This is by no means a gung-ho war movie. It respects soldiers, but does not glorify the things they have to do. This is a film about the effect war has on its warriors. The film opens with the quotation, “War is a drug" — and that’s the primary theme.

The film’s lead character, Sgt. James (Jeremy Renner, “S.W.A.T,” “28 Weeks Later”), is a bomb specialist who is exceptionally good at his job, but he is also reckless and cocky. He is addicted to the adrenaline of war to the point of which he’ll put his men in danger.

This is not a new characterization for a war movie, but here it is a little different. Renner’s Sgt. James is arrogant, at times frustratingly so, but has moments, especially involving a young Iraqi boy, that reveal him to be a good guy.

Too often adrenaline junky characters are portrayed as sociopaths, and, while that type absolutely exists, it is nice to see a variation of that persona.

Other soldiers we get to know include Specialist Eldridge (Brian Geraghty, “We Are Marshall”), who is convinced he’s going to die in Iraq, and Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, “Notorious”), a by-the-book soldier who butts heads with James.

Sanborn is a good soldier, who in one of the film's hardest scenes to watch, breaks down realizing he can’t handle being at war any more. It is a powerful scene that is exceptionally well acted by Mackie.

The whole cast, including a couple familiar bigger name actors in smaller roles, is excellent, but the real star of the film is director Kathryn Bigelow. Every once in a while a director will make a movie that you didn’t know they had in them. This is definitely one of those cases.

Bigelow has been a reliable action director for nearly 30 years, with at least one cult classic in the form of “Point Break” on her resume, but nothing she’s done hinted that she had this in her. Perhaps the subject matter focused her film making, which is assured, well paced and never slackens its tension.

This is not an easy film to watch, but it is rewarding one. It is a non-stop action film, but one with a purpose and meaning — and that is something rare. “The Hurt Locker” will stay with you long after you leave the theater.

Full 'blood'ed entertainment

'Blood Brothers' continues run at Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse

“Blood Brothers,” which opened Tuesday, Aug. 4, at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse in North Conway, N.H. and will be running through Aug. 15, is a rich and complex musical that mixes comedy, tragedy and class conflict into an entertaining and deeply moving social parable.

This is another high-quality production from the Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company. Director Andrew Glant-Linden ably balances the shifts in tone and stages engaging music numbers with musical director Chris Tilley.

The show, which has been playing in London’s West End for 21 years, opens with the gun shots killing fraternal twin brothers, who were separated at birth only to become friends later in life never knowing the truth. Things rewind back to before their birth and slowly builds back to the opening.

Their lower-class English mother Mrs. Johnston (Alison Rose Munn) already had a litter of kids when she was left by her husband with two more buns in the oven. With her new job as a cleaning lady for high-class Mrs. Lyons (Liz Clark-Golson) she could make ends meet with just one more child but not two. Mrs. Lyons offers to take one of the children, but due to certain circumstances, no one could ever know the truth.

Mickey (Matt Kacergris), the lower-class brother, and Edward (Matthew Patrick), the higher-class brother, meet at age 7 playing in the streets and become instant friends despite the protests of their mothers. When they discover they were born on the same day they make a pact to be blood brothers and always be there for each other.

A third musketeer throughout the years is Linda (Eben Logan) who both boys fall in love with, but who seems destined to be with Mickey because they share the same social standing. Class and how it can determine your life is the issue that the show, written by Willy Russell, skillfully tackles.

As Mickey and Edward enter their teen years it seems that the strength of their friendship will transcend the roles that their backgrounds set for them, but even in the brightest moments the tragedy the show is building toward looms.

Lest you forget the tragic implications of the opening, a narrator (Dennis O’Neil) reminds us of the pending doom with the reoccurring song “Shoes Upon the Table,” which preys on the superstitions of the two mothers.

O’Neil, a local literature teacher, musician and actor, acts as both narrator and as a one-man Greek chorus commenting on the events. In one of the show's best sequences he provides a wistful commentary for Mickey, Edward and Linda’s carefree summers as teens.

The same actors play the characters from age 7 to 23, which may seem like a gimmick except that the leads are so good. Kacergis, Patrick and Logan all capture the happy-go-lucky energy of childhood. This particularly holds true in the lively ensemble number, “Kids Game.”

The three leads have a great chemistry together and genuinely seem to be friends. They transition well into the awkwardness of teen years and then the harsher realities of adulthood and manage to keep the same character thread throughout.

Munn and Clark-Golson are also exceptional as the mothers. Clark-Golson, in a very different performance from those who saw her as Ulla in “The Producers,” is full of insecurities and paranoia about her adopted son. It is a brave performance because Mrs. Lyons is at times a very unlikable person.

Munn has the warmer, more outwardly motherly character to play. She brings a quiet pain to scenes she shares with Patrick’s Edward. At times, like O’Neil, she provides commentary through the song “Marilyn Monroe,” which compares the unfolding events to the looks and life of Marilyn Monroe.

Despite the tragic opening and closing that bookend the show, this isn’t full of despair. There are many moments of comedy and an affectionate sense of nostalgia for childhood and adolescence.

When things turn dark, it isn’t forced, but a natural extension of the characters and plot and all the more painful because we’ve shared moments of joy and laughter with the characters.

For more information call the box office at 356-5776 or visit www.mwvtheatre.org.

'Ugly Truth' is a thoroughly average romantic comedy

“The Ugly Truth,” the new romantic comedy starring Katherine Heigl and Gerald Butler, is thoroughly average. It isn’t an awful experience and it is pleasant enough, but it certainly doesn’t fill one with the desire to tell people, “Oh, you’ve got to see this one.”

The romantic comedy by its nature is formulaic, so it isn’t fair to throw that criticism at entries in the genre. Opposites meet and bicker at first, but slowly grow to like each other and eventually fall in love.

In a way, the predictability of the romantic comedy is part of its appeal. It is comforting that love always prevails. As is true with any story, even if the outcome is known, it is the journey to reach that conclusion that makes it a story worth telling.

The better romantic comedies mask their formula with fresh characters and sharp dialogue. “The Ugly Truth” has no original characters and limited supply of memorable dialogue.

The premise here is Abby (Heigl, “27 Dresses”), an uptight producer of a TV morning show, is saddled with Mike (Butler, “300”), a new guest commentator who claims to speak the truth about men and women. Mike is a chauvinist that oozes testosterone and Abby finds his point of view on women degrading.

In their early scenes together, Heigl and Butler have some nice barbed exchanges and it seems like the film will be a biting look at the way men and women see love. Instead the film has Abby cave very quickly and basically accept Mike’s view point as he coaches her on how to win over a cute doctor that has moved into her apartment complex.

There’s a lot of vulgar dialogue in the film. It is clear that the film is trying to emulate the appeal of the Judd Apatow produced films. For the most part the use of profanities is supposed to be funny unto itself. Very few jokes are actually written. If you giggle when someone says a naughty word then you’ll find much of the film’s dialogue hilarious.

This isn’t to say there aren’t some genuinely funny scenes. Abby bringing a printout of an online profile and background check on a date is good for a quick laugh as is her rant about how tap water is the same as bottled water. Heigl gets the film’s biggest laugh in a scene that recalls a certain scene from “When Harry Met Sally.”

Things move along well enough, but the film just never quite builds much energy or has anything to say. Romantic comedies don’t need to be profoundly deep, but “The Ugly Truth” stays in the kiddie pool.

The script views gender in the most basic and board stereotypes ultimately concluding that deep down all men only care about sex and want a woman that will never question or criticize them, which is unfortunate since all women are really controlling, judgmental harpies. This is certainly ugly, but not necessarily the truth.

It’s the appeal of the two leads that holds attention. They are likeable together. Butler, who is known more as an action guy, showcases an assured ability to deliver a comedic line. Heigl is cute, perhaps not the highest praise, but it is the word that fits. She does an adorable little happy dance.

As far as a date movie goes, you can do far worse. There are some smiles and laughs, but nothing special. It is safe to say you could wait for DVD on this one. If for some reason it becomes necessary for you to see it in theaters, make sure it is a matinee.

Errol Flynn: The definitive Robin Hood

Last night just as I was about to go to bed, I got pulled into watching a movie on TV, 1938’s “The Adventures of Robin Hood” starring Errol Flynn. I decided reviewing that film would be a far more pleasurable endeavor than what I had originally intended to write about.

From time to time, I think I’ll forgo reviewing a new movie and point people to a classic. I was going to write about “Bruno” this week. I’ll sum up for you what I would’ve said: skip it. Even if you liked “Borat” I can’t guarantee you’d like “Bruno,” so better to save your money.

Now back to last night and my adventures with Robin Hood. Watching Flynn in all his swashbuckling glory reminded me of my childhood. No, I wasn’t a swashbuckler, but as a boy I had a Flynn phase.

I loved him in such films as “Captain Blood” and “The Sea Hawks,” but it was “Robin Hood” that had the most profound effect on me. I’d take walks in the forest with friends and family pretending to be merry men. When we came to bridges crossing streams staff battles would inevitably ensue.

It was around this time that 1991’s “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” came out, a fine film, but even at 8 years old I knew Kevin Costner was no Errol Flynn. Flynn’s Robin Hood, with his jovial laugh, mischievous grin and sharp tongue, is the defining image of the iconic hero from Sherwood Forest.

Flynn was a true movie star and too often they get dismissed as not being genuine actors. What Flynn did was hardly easy. He had believable physicality to his fight scenes, but wasn’t a stiff bore when it came to line delivery. Far from it. He was a charmer who could deliver a one-liner with the precision of a great comic and who could sweep any girl off her feet.

“The Adventures of Robin Hood” was release in Technicolor more than a year before “The Wizard of Oz,” the film that generally gets acknowledged as the first color film. Technicolor makes colors seem brighter and more brilliant than they are in reality and helps the films it is employed in seem as if they come from a magical other world.

It is clear that the producers of “Robin Hood” were excited to use color and grabbed every color they could find. The film is populated with bright greens, reds, blues and purples.

In addition to Flynn's charismatic portrayal of Robin, the film is populated with great actors. Claude Rains as Prince John and Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy of Gisbourne provide excellent villainy. Rathbone and Flynn’s climatic sword fight is the stuff of film legend.

Olivia de Havilland is a lovely Maid Marion, who holds her own against the saucy Robin. Flynn’s frequent sidekick Alan Hale is a delightful Little John as is Eugene Pallette’s Friar Tuck. Flynn’s initial encounters with both these characters are classic scenes as is the archery contest.

There is an idea that kids won’t like or watch old movies. I say poppycock, that’s right you heard me, poppycock. “The Adventures of Robin Hood” captured my imagination as a kid and how could it not? It has adventure, humor and romance, but not too much of that icky kissing stuff. No matter your age, if you haven’t seen this timeless piece of cinema than seek it out. If you have seen it, perhaps the time has come to revisit it.

Brooks' 'Producers' provides big, bawdy laughs

After eight long years, the Mount Washington Valley is finally getting the opportunity to see Mel Brooks’ gloriously goofy musical “The Producers” as it should be seen: live.

The Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company’s production of “The Producers” will continue its run at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse in North Conway, N.H. through Aug. 1.

Brooks’ “Producers” first showed up as his debut film as a writer/director in 1968.
It starred Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder and would go on to win an Oscar for best original screenplay. In 2001, Brooks’ musical version starring Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick made its Broadway debut and would later win a record-breaking 12 Tony Awards

The premise, the same in both the movie and musical, is inspired: a down and out Broadway producer teams up with a meek accountant to cook up a scheme to raise more money than is needed to produce a surefire flop and take the extra money and run.

I saw “The Producers” in London’s Broadway, The West End, and this production absolutely holds up to that big city version, which is impressive given the size of the theater and budget restraints. The show is full of several big, bawdy numbers including the infamous showstopper “Springtime for Hitler” and director Clay James and his cast pull it off.

Throughout his career as a film critic Roger Ebert has shared the following anecdote about Mel Brooks many times. Ebert was sharing an elevator with Brooks a few months after the original “The Producers” film was released. A woman got onto the elevator, recognized Brooks and said, “I have to tell you, Mr. Brooks, that your movie is vulgar.” Brooks smiled and replied “Lady, it rose below vulgarity.”

It is a clever line that perfectly encapsulates the experience of seeing the original film as well as the musical. Sure, “The Producers” is crude and in bad taste but is presented with a certain level of sophistication and wit that allows it to transcend low brow even as it trades in it.

It also helps that it is all delivered with good cheer. The humor, which includes sex jokes, gay jokes, Jew jokes and, naturally, Nazi jokes, is never mean spirited. It is hard to be offended by even the potentially offensive because it is all so amicable.

This cast is absolutely spot-on in getting the tone of the material right. George Piehl, so good last year as Tevye in the Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company’s “Fiddler on the Roof,” is ideally cast as the scheming, boisterous Max Bialystock. Piehl has to be a larger-than-life personality and he is just that. He manages to channel both Mostel and Lane.

Chris Handley is very much Piehl’s equal as timid, high strung Leo Bloom who slowly comes out of his shell under the tutelage of Max. Falling in love with their sexy secretary Ulla (Liz Clark-Golson) certainly helps too. Handley is hilarious in the classic “I’m hysterical” scene. Piehl and Handley have great chemistry.


Grant Golson gets to ham it up in a big way as the gay director turned star of “Springtime for Hitler” as does Thomas Schario as the author of “Springtime” and Ryan Fitzgerald as Golson’s “assistant.” These actors take their supporting roles and run with them stealing scenes whenever they are on stage.

The show is full of great songs that all slightly skewer the traditional musical. Even ballads like “That Face” and “Til Him” are given twists.

Every number is well mounted, but easy highlights include “I Wanna Be a Producer,” “If You’ve Got it Flaunt It,” “Along Came Bialy,” “Der Guten Tag Hop Clop,” “Betrayed” and “Prisoners of Love.” Heck that’s half the show right there.

Those who have seen the flat 2005 film version of the musical may feel they can safely skip this, but they’d be mistaken. Live is the best way to the splendid silliness of this musical comedy gem.

For more information visit www.mwvtheatre.org or call 356-5776.

Saying goodbye to Nikki Martinez

Magic 104 morning show host heads back to Texas for a new job

CONWAY, N.H. — The valley is losing a key member of its community. Nikki Martinez, the morning show co-host at Magic 104, is moving back to her home state for a position at a radio station in McAllen, Texas. Martinez moved to the Mount Washington Valley in September 2007 and quickly became more than just a radio personality. She joined the Mount Washington Choral Society as well as the Young Professionals and acted in two M&D Production musicals. She was the emcee for this year’s Miss Mount Washington Valley Teen and Pre-Teen and most recently organized a Locks of Love event in which she personally donated 18 inches of hair. On a personal level, she was my friend and collaborator for youtube shenanigans. She will be missed.

Alec Kerr: All right. We’ve come to the exciting part now. I’ve always wanted to do this. I’m going to do the questions that James Lipton uses to close out the “In the Actor’s Studio,” so here we go. What is your least favorite word?

Nikki Martinez: There are some curse words that are my least favorite words, but hate. It is a four-letter word, it is a simple word, but it has a lot of meaning to it if someone really means it. So "hate" would probably have to be my least favorite word.

AK: And what is your favorite word.

NM: Scrumtrilescent. (Laughs) No. I can’t do that.

AK: Oh, it is done. It is done.

NM: Oh OK, scrumtrilescent has to be my favorite word.

AK: What turns you on?

NM: That’s one of the questions?

AK: It is not a dirty question. It is just what gets you going?

NM: What I’m passionate about?

AK: Yes.

NM: Oh this is so hard. Thank you James Lipton. Music. Music has always been my thing.

AK: What turns you off?

NM: There are so many things. I’d say frozen fish sticks.

AK: What sound do you love?

NM: A baby’s laugh.

AK: Oh that’s a good one. What sound do you hate?

NM: Oh, nails on a chalkboard. That is my worst. Oh! And I think about it now. Oh! Next question!

AK: What is your favorite curse word, but of course in this case it is going to be the TV edited version of your favorite curse word.

NM: I personally usually say: “What the…” and that’s where I stop. I do that a lot because I don’t curse a lot.

AK: And I know you’re fond of holy schnike.

NM: Holy schnikes. I totally forgot about that, yes, holy schnikes probably would be my favorite.

AK: What profession other than yours would you like to attempt?

NM: I would love, love, love to go to culinary school and be a chef. I love Food Network. I am not even going to lie: I love Food Network and I could be the next Food Network star if I had those skills. I can cook, but it is definitely not like them because they’re awesome.

AK: What profession would you not like to do?

NM: I give them a lot of respect because they do this, but I could never be a garbage collector. I could never do it. I give them respect for doing it. Props to them.

AK: OK, here’s the big one. If heaven exists, what would you like God to say when you arrive at the pearly gates?

NM: Welcome my child. It is simple, easy, but that’s what I’d love to hear him say and I think I will. No, I know I will, what am I saying, I know will.

'Potter' series still full 'blood'ed entertainment

The time has come for another “Harry Potter” film, which is something I say with great joy versus a heavy sigh. “Harry Potter” is not only the most financially successful franchise of all time — it is one of the most consistently entertaining.

The “Harry Potter” series may have completed its seven book arc two year ago, but the film series has a few more laps to go. With the release of “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince,” the count is at six with book seven being split into two films.

By the time of the final film’s release in 2011, it’ll be a full decade of J.K. Rowling’s beloved characters on the silver screen. We’ve seen the young wizards Harry, Ron and Hermione grow up, and the actors that bring them to life, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emily Watson, grow into fine actors.

This installment focuses on Professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) recruiting Harry to extract a memory regarding Voldemort from the eccentric returning potions professor Slughorn (Jim Broadbent). This memory is the key to the undoing of the all powerful evil that is Voldemort.

The film also involves an assassination plot of a key central character. That someone dies in this film is no surprise to the followers of the book series, but you’ll see no spoilers here for those who haven’t read the book.

Speaking of those who haven’t read the book, I fall into that group. This allows me to look at the films on their own merits. The key to their success has been a willingness to explore the dark corners of the story and to not simply make a dumbed-down version for the masses.

I can’t say what has or hasn’t been changed, but obviously there has been condensing. It has been my understanding that, though details have been changed or removed, the series has largely been faithful to its source material.

The films themselves have been getting better the more willing the filmmakers have been to create their own vision instead of simply trying to mimic line for line what is on the page.

After going through several directors ranging from the workman-like Chris Columbus to the visionary Alfonso Cuarón, the series has settled on David Yates to finish the job. He directed the previous installment and is directing the concluding films.

As with “Order of the Phoenix,” Yates brings a foreboding tone to the proceedings.
This time he creates sequences that are tense and suspenseful. Even with a two and a half hour running time, the film moves briskly, yet takes enough to time to give room for the characters to breathe.

At one point Harry remarks he never noticed how beautiful The Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry was. The same holds true of the films set there. It is easy to become immersed in this world and take for granted the painstaking craft that went into creating the look and feel of the film.

“Half Blood Prince” in particular is beautiful to behold with gorgeous cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel (“Amélie”) that uses defused earthy tones crucial in creating the film’s uncertain atmosphere.

The proceedings aren’t all gloom and doom; there’s plenty of low-key comedy as the three young leads deal with adolescent crushes. Grint, who was always reliable comic relief and has increasingly developed into a fine comic actor, is particularly good in these scenes.

There’s also the first sparks of romance between Harry and Ron’s sister Ginny (Bonnie Wright). These scenes are handled delicately and Yates proves to be a director who is assured in both the small moments and the more elaborate set pieces such as the stunning opening destruction of London’s Millennium Bridge.

It is impossible to name check the entire cast of veteran British actors. Alan Rickman’s Professor Snape as always remains a standout. Rickman has brought an ambiguous sinister edge to the role that becomes even murkier as his true intentions seem to finally come to the fore.

Gambon, who had the unfortunate task of taking over the role of Dumbledore from the late Richard Harris, gives his best performance the fourth time out — perhaps because Dumbledore has a more active role in the plot this time around. He imbues the performance with humor, wisdom and heart.

For those who haven’t followed either the books or the films, entering the series now would probably be a confusing endeavor. That being said, this is such a visually rich and well told installment that maybe even the uninitiated should give it a try.

M&D offers change of pace

'How the Other Half Loves' delivers big laughs

M&D Productions has a reputation of doing provocative, challenging material that can be difficult and emotionally draining to watch. This is by no means a bad thing, it very often makes for excellent theater, but some may breathe a sigh of relief that the theater company has taken a turn into farce for its latest production, “How the Other Half Loves.”

“How the Other Half Loves,” which opens at Your Theatre at Willow Common in North Conway, N.H. Thursday July 9, first appeared on Broadway in 1971 and deals with an increasing level of confusion between three sets of couples.

The play’s staging and set is quite ingenious. The households of the middle class Philipses and the upper class Fosters share the stage with half being dedicated to each home. Scenes of the two couples play out simultaneously with criss-crossing dialogue often creating amusing juxtapositions. It sounds confusing in description, but on stage works beautifully.

As the play opens it is the morning after Bob Philips (David Freedman) and Fiona Foster (Paula S. Jones) have come home from late nights and their spouses, Theresa (Janette Kondrat) and Frank (Richard Russo) are not pleased, although they show it in drastically different ways.

Theresa is a door slammer with a sharp tongue. Frank is chronically absent minded, maybe even a bit senile, so it is hard to tell if his approach with his wife is passive aggressive or just blissful aloofness.

Bob and Fiona both claim to have spent the night consoling one half of another couple, William and Mary Detweiler (Eric Jordan and Katie Gustafson), each claiming that one member of the couple is cheating on the other.

This little lie leads to layers of mix-ups and misunderstandings that pile higher and higher especially when the Detweilers are invited to dinners at both of the other couples’ homes. Although the dinners happen a night apart they take place at the same time on stage like a movie cutting between two different scenes.

Jordan and Gustafson come in about half way through the first act and inject the show with a new vigor. Up to this point the humor has been largely verbal, but Jordan and Gustafson as the nervous, socially awkward Detweilers bring a physicality to the humor that accentuates the dialogue.

Both Jordan and Gustafson show sharp comedic timing and a wide range of hilarious facial expression and body language in reaction to the unfolding events.

The rest of the cast should not be shortchanged though. Russo absolutely nails a very particular sort of scatterbrained person. The way he attempts to recount a story and gets hung up on the names of people rings all too true. Russo’s spot-on line delivery recalls Alan Alda or Woody Allen.

Kondrat is great at fuming. When she catches Freedman in a lie her anger is palpable, but it is always played for laughs and never turns sour. Her drunken serenading of the Detweilers is one of the show’s bigger laughs.

Freedman’s Bob is probably the least likable character. There are some nasty misogynistic notes to the character that Freedman is able to dull some so he isn’t a completely unsavory person.

The show is structured in such a way that the show continues to build. Grins become broad smiles then give way to chuckles and conclude with guffaws. This holds most true of the dinner scenes in which the comedic energy builds to a fever pitch.

English playwright Alan Ayckbourn’s script is approaching 40 years in age, but it still feels fresh and only lines referencing a percolator and getting together for cocktails show any signs of dating.

Even though the show borders on madcap, this isn’t just a bunch of silliness and barbed one-liners. Ayckbourn gets in some truths about relationships that with a switch of tone could be quite painful. Instead “How the Other Half Loves” reminds that life is a tragedy until you laugh at it.

For more information visit www.yourtheatre.com or call 662-7591.