'Year One' is a tremendous let down

There are few movie going experiences more disappointing than being let down by a film you were anticipating. With “Year One,” in spite of all the negative reviews, I was ready to laugh, but alas I have to join the majority in saying that “Year One” is a dud.

“Year One” stars Jack Black (“Tropic Thunder”) and Michael Cera (“Juno,” “Superbad”) as a couple of hapless Neanderthals who essentially start off on the first ever road trip after Black eats the forbidden fruit and gains the knowledge of good and evil.

In this case this knowledge is to make an idiot an arrogant, insufferable know-it-all even though he is no smarter. That sounds funnier on the page than it does in execution.

The characters use modern slang and language, and the juxtaposition with the setting, in theory, can be fun. Mel Brooks and Monty Python have done this well in the past. The plot jumps around the early days of Biblical history and includes run-ins with Cain and Abel and Abraham and Isaac.

Just as the film seems on the path to being a Biblical satire along the lines of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” it veers off and settles on having Black and Cera go on a rescue mission to save their potential girlfriends.

To be sure, there are a few big laughs, but they are stretched very thin. Most of the best bits are in the trailer and, in some cases (the stoning scene comes to mind) are better edited in the trailer.

The invaluable Hank Azaria, most recently seen in “A Night at the Museum 2,” is a welcomed presence in the film and squeezes every bit of humor out of his appearance as Abraham. He has a funny bit involving circumcision that recalls a similar routine in Brooks’ “Robin Hood: Men in Tights.”

The fight between Cain (David Cross) and Abel (Paul Rudd) is also amusing. Don’t worry, there will be no spoilers as to who wins. Aside from the occasional clever one-liner, that’s pretty much it in terms of laughs as the film gets bogged down by plot.

It is hard to say what went wrong here as the film has an excellent comedy pedigree. The film is directed and co-written by Harold Ramis with two of the writers of “The Office," and produced by reigning comedy king Judd Apatow.

Ramis is clearly trying to make a throwback to the films he directed and/or co-wrote in the late 1970s and early 1980s. With films like “Animal House,” “Vacation,” Caddyshack,” “Stripes” and “Ghostbusters,” Ramis helped to create the slob humor this film is trying to emulate, but there was a certain degree of sophistication to those earlier films. You have to be smart to do stupid humor well.

Too often the gags in “Year One” are simply gross and cringe inducing. This holds most true for a character played by the normally reliable Oliver Platt. His character likes to have oil rubbed into his hairy chest. If reading that sounds bad, then you don’t want to see the visual which is at least 10 times worse.

Aside from better jokes, for a comedy like this to work you need to take the
“Airplane” approach of throwing as many jokes at the screen as possible and hope more stick than don’t. Here the energy is slack and meandering and the humor relies too heavily on what could be called the four Ps: pratfalls, poop, piss and penis.

The film also leans too heavily on Black’s shtick. Black can be a very funny performer, but he needs to be reined in and be given good material. Ramis allows him to roam free far too much, and his mugging becomes more irritating than amusing.

Cera fairs better, and his deadpan, dry delivery goes a long way, but he can only create so much goodwill with the audience.

I really wanted to like “Year One,” but this is just not worth a trip to the theater. If you must see it, wait for DVD.

New 'Pelham' doesn't hold up to original

Some films get better the longer they linger in your mind. The original 1974 version of “The Taking of Pelham 123” starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw is one of those films. Other films that went down OK during viewing turn rancid bouncing around your cranium. Unfortunately that is the case for the new version of “The Taking of Pelham 123.”

I need to thank director Tony Scott for making “The Taking of Pelham 123” if only for bringing to my attention the original film, which I had not heard of or seen. It is an excellent thriller. Doing a direct comparison with this new version only further accentuates its flaws.

The remake of “Pelham 123” isn’t an awful film. It has some good qualities, largely supplied by the always interesting Denzel Washington, but it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

The premise, involving hijackers taking a subway car and giving the city one hour to get them $10 million in ransom money or they kill a passenger for every late minute, is intrinsically interesting and hard to foul up entirely.

Washington stars as Walter Garber a career transit employee who is slumming it as a dispatcher because he is suspected of taking a bribe. John Travolta, who has provided excellent villainy in films like “Face/Off,” is Ryder the mastermind behind the hijacking.

Remaking a film successfully is tricky business. Being slavishly faithful to the original – like Gus Van Sant’s ill advised shot-by-shot remake of “Psycho” – makes the new film pointless. A fresh spin to the material needs to justify the redo, but different doesn't mean better.

Scott’s version of “Pelham” adds needless back stories for Garber and Ryder and subtracts the original film’s cynical, sarcastic humor. The attempts at subtext to the plot are unnecessary. Instead of being a story of a heist it becomes the story of Garber’s redemption.

The screenplay by Brian Helgeland (“Mystic River”) tries hard to establish the tired idea that Garber and Ryder are different sides of the same coin. The cliché line: “you and I aren’t so different” is even thrown in for good measure.

The film should be focused solely on the heist, how to get the money to the hijackers and how Ryder and cohorts are going to escape unnoticed from an underground tunnel. That’s all the film needs to grip.

Scott is a talented director that in his last string of films including “Man on Fire” and “Domino” has developed his own unique, aggressive visual style, but it doesn’t fit this material. His shaky, blurred camera work and over editing is distracting as are freeze frames telling you how much time is left before the deadline lapses.

The film is at its strongest when the camera work becomes less frantic and focuses in on the back and forth between Washington and Travolta. In these scenes, Scott creates some genuine tension. There’s a taut scene in which Travolta threatens to kill someone unless Washington admits something.

Once the initial deadline passes the film doesn’t seem to know where to go and rushes through the escape. The end sequence just de-evolves into a by-the-numbers chase and the final moments of the movie send a bizarre message that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

It is the acting that carries the film over its shortcomings and at times makes the film work when it shouldn’t. Washington is just so good at playing cool and composed under pressure. Travolta is at times too manic, but as in the past he makes a good villain. There is also strong support from John Turturro as a hostage negotiator and James Gandolfini as the mayor.

My best advice would be to wait until the film comes out on DVD and do a double feature with the original. That could be a lot of fun and could stir lively debate as to what works and doesn’t work in each film.

This 'hangover' provides big raunchy laughs

Ever since “Animal House” became a huge comedy smash in the summer of 1978, the low-brow gross-out comedy has been a mainstay of the summer movie season. There have been many pale imitators, but some have been riotously funny. Luckily, “The Hangover” falls mostly in the latter category.

“The Hangover” is set in Las Vegas the morning after a bachelor party that went way over the top even by Vegas standards. The problem is no one involved can remember what happened, and the groom (Justin Bartha, “National Treasure”) is missing. In his place
are a baby and a tiger.

The film’s set-up gives it a bit of an edge over the many others films that deal in the debauchery of Vegas or trade in frat boy humor. Instead of seeing the exploits of the main characters, we are left joining them in piecing together the aftermath of what turns out to be very strange evening.

There aren’t really characters in the film so much as there are familiar archetypes: the snarky ringleader (Bradley Cooper, “Yes Man”), the uptight geek (Ed Helms, “The Office) and the lovable slob (Zach Galifianakis). It is to the actors’ credit that they find some fresh angles in which to play their roles.

Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis have a believable chemistry together. They seem like friends. Galifianakis steals the movie several times as Alan, the bride’s socially awkward, perhaps slightly deranged, childlike brother. He desperately wants to be liked, and his awkward attempts at male bonding score some of the films biggest laughs.

The film is funny, but in mere description some of the better jokes probably will seem flat. The performances and the execution are what make the film work. Director Todd Philips has been one of the few directors to successful rehash this sort of frat boy humor with his films “Road Trip” and “Old School.”

The screenwriters, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, have written films like “Four Christmases” which have been amusing, but felt collared by a PG-13 rating. Here with an R rating the comedy seems less restrained, and it is all the better for it.

There is one aspect of the film that is likely to leave a nasty taste in many people’s mouths. A character played by Ken Jeong (“Knocked Up”) is both simultaneously a gay and Asian stereotype that, with the exception of the character’s surprising introduction, isn’t very funny. These sort of films are suppose to deal in political incorrectness and pushing the boundaries of good taste, but this characterization seems too broad and out of place with the rest of the film.

The above shortcoming isn’t enough to detract from the film overall. Even so, if you aren’t a fan of low-brow humor then you may want to take a pass on “The Hangover.”
This certainly isn’t a subtle film — after all, this is the sort of film that has jokes involving being tasered in the face and genitals — but the mystery aspect of the story does hold interest.

There is also a weird energy to the events unfolding, and the film goes to unexpected places. There is a celebrity cameo that has been revealed in the trailers that I won’t spoil here for those who have managed to avoid the previews. Let’s just say that that it is oddly inspired.

Pixar is 'up' to wonderous things again

“Up” is the perfect title for Pixar’s 10th feature length film because uplifted is exactly how you feel as the final credits roll. This is one of the most emotionally satisfying, engaging and funny films of this or any other year. “Up” is something truly special.

Starting in 1995 with “Toy Story,” the first entirely computer animated feature film, the Pixar animation studio has made consistently rewarding films with equal measures of heart and humor. Computer animation has since become the standard, but competing studios rarely match Pixar’s body of work in terms of character and story.

Their last three films in particular, “Ratatouille,” “WALL-E” and now “Up,” are on another level. As was true with its two direct predecessors, “Up,” is not simply a great animated feature — it is a great film.

“Up” starts by introducing two young wannabe adventurers named Carl and Ellie who worship explorer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer). Young Carl makes a promise to take Ellie to Paradise Falls, a fictional region in South America.

In a beautiful, impossibly sweet and heartbreaking montage we are shown the arc of the couple’s life including the setbacks that prevented their trip and ultimately Ellie’s death. It is an amazing few minutes and hooks you for the rest of the film. From that moment on you are deeply emotionally invested in Carl.

Carl (Ed Asner) is left a grumpy widow and retired balloon salesmen, who when threatened with a retirement home uses thousands of balloons to convert his home into a flying house and sets off on the adventure he promised to take. When that house first lifts off there’s a genuine sense of wonder and magic that is so rare in modern cinema.

Along his trip Carl keeps picking up companions. First is Russell (Jordan Nagai), a boy scout that was unwittingly on his porch during lift off. Once they arrive in Paradise Falls they are joined by a prehistoric bird dubbed Kevin and Dug (Bob Peterson), a dog that thanks to a special collar can speak. Dug is part of a pack of talking dogs, but not all of them are as nice as Dug.

Many films, both animated and live action, have had talking dogs, but what is refreshingly unique and funny about the dogs here is they still speak with dog logic. They are easily distracted by squirrels and tennis balls.

Carl and his comrades also encounter the long missing Muntz, but he isn’t what he seems. It may appear as if I’ve revealed a lot of the plot, but there’s so much more. The plot has some predictable elements, but it is in the execution and details that the film soars. Directors Pete Docter and Peterson create moments of striking imagination and surprising invention. It wouldn’t be fair to cite specific examples because they deserve to be discovered on their own.

What makes this more than just an adventure story is the characters. You will truly grow to love and care about Carl, Russell, Kevin and Dug as if they were flesh and blood characters. Your humanity is thrown into question if the film doesn’t at least make you tear up a little.

The film is by no means a total downer. The film has laughs both big and small, but the humor is mined from the story and the character rather than the pop culture references that often over populate other animated features.

The voice work, though limited, is splendid. Asner is wonderfully gruff as Carl and he allows for nice shading of the character as his inner childhood adventurer returns to the fore. The dynamic that develops between Carl and Nagai’s Russell is sweet and sincere. Plummer also provides a full bodied voice performance although he hits entirely different notes than Asner.

Some younger viewers may grow restless as this is more character driven than gag driven. I heard lots of kids asking questions in the theater I was in, but they were clearly involved. I’m sure “Up” will be a film watched repeatedly by kids on DVD and that parents will gladly and willingly watch it with them.

Worthington makes this new 'Terminator' worthy

Another week, another sequel, prequel or reboot. The cynic in me wants to dismiss “Terminator Salvation” — the fourth film in the “Terminator” franchise — but damned if the film isn’t actually pretty good.

Coming 25 years after the first “Terminator,” this is the first film in the series to not star Arnold Schwarzenegger. This is also the first in the franchise — with the exception of a brief prologue — to be set entirely in a future in which humanity is battling an army of self-aware machines known as Skynet.

Christian Bale stars as John Connor, taking over the role previously played by Nick Stahl and Edward Furlong. Connor is a leader in the resistance who has been told all his life that he will lead humanity to victory over the machines.

Another key returning character is Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). Reese was sent into the past in the first film to protect John Connor’s mother Sarah from a terminator and in the process became John Connor’s father.

In this film, Skynet has targeted Reese for termination because they somehow know this whole sordid timeline and if you kill Reese you therefore kill Connor. Confused? Just go with it.

Although Bale gets top billing and in an opening title card it is implied that Connor is the salvation of the title, the real star of the film is the relative unknown Sam Worthington as Marcus, a mysterious man from the past with no knowledge of this new terrible future.

Trailers, commercials, clips, interviews and reviews have revealed a plot development involving the Marcus character that comes about an hour into the film. If you’ve somehow managed to avoid all promotion for the film, don’t watch or read any of it as it ruins the uncertain tension of the first hour.

Worthington steals the film. He has that allusive “it” factor that draws you to him as a performer. As Marcus, a man trying to forgive himself for a dark past and understand an uncertain future, he has a compelling, introspective screen presence.

The screenplay by John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris doesn’t exactly give Worthington, or the rest of the cast for that matter, the most compelling dialogue, but he makes it count and is able to say so much more in what he doesn’t say.

Bale is good here as a hardened warrior, but unfortunately is forced to shout clunky, cliché dialogue like, “If we stay the course, we are dead! WE ARE ALL DEAD!” He is better in the quieter moments as when he is delivering radio broadcasts to the resistance.

Yelchin is having a good summer with this following on the heels of “Star Trek.” As with that film, he is very good. He is believable as a young survivalist and he brings warmth and humor to the performance.

Another standout in the cast is Moon Bloodgood who is Marcus’ love interest. She shares several key scenes with Worthington and they play off each other nicely. Bryce Dallas Howard as Connor’s wife doesn’t fare quite as well. She gives a solid enough performance, but doesn’t get much time to develop it.

At times the film tries too hard to reference the previous films. A callback to the immortal “I’ll be back” line works surprisingly well, but Schwarzenegger’ face digitally placed over a body double’s face is less effective. It is a moment meant to please the fans, but it is more of a distraction.

Directed by McG (“Charlie’s Angels”) the film has an appropriately bleak post-apocalyptic atmosphere. The tone and much of the action scenes recall the “Mad Max” films more so than the “Terminator” series, which works in the film’s advantage.

McG has constructed some good action scenes particularly a chase involving motorcycle terminators and a wrecker. Luckily, this is more than just a special effects film. Although the film doesn’t quite have the strong character connections of the first two, it is given a real human connection thanks to Worthington’s Marcus.

There are reportedly two more “Terminator” films to come, but I was left content with this one. I really don’t need to see another. But there is more money to be made, and therefore more sequels will come.

Take a trip to 'La Mancha' with Arts in Motion

“Man of La Mancha” is a lighthearted comedic musical romp that isn’t afraid to go to dark corners and raise philosophical questions about facing reality and the necessary need for escapism.

Arts in Motion opened its energetic production of “Man of La Mancha” at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse Friday, May 22. Director Susie Mosca has mounted a handsomely produced production with a lively cast and an effective period set designed by Roger Clemons.

Based on Miguel de Cervantes’s classic 17th century novel “Don Quixote,” “Man of La Mancha” first appeared on Broadway in 1965. The show is self-reflexive with a fictionalized version of Cervantes (Craig Holden) being thrown into a prison to await trial by the Inquisition.

Cervantes’ fellow prisoners have their own trial for him and accuse him of being an idealist. To defend his case he acts out the story of Don Quixote, a simple man who has read so many tales of chivalry that he has driven himself mad and created a fantasy world in which he is a knight. Cervantes asks those around them to fill parts as needed.

This play-within-a-play conceit is a clever device that allows for book writer Dale Wasserman and lyricist Joe Darion to comment on theater and performance. We get to see Cervantes transform himself into Don Quixote with a fake beard, a bit of glue and some make up. It is also factors into the musical’s theme of fantasy versus reality and whether bursting Don Quixote’s bubble is what is truly best for him.

“Don Quixote” was originally written as a satire of chivalrous adventure stories. Written in two parts, the first was farce, but the second was more serious and bleak with Quixote seen as a madman who was cruelly ridiculed.

“Man of La Mancha” explores these two sides of Cervantes’ work, but while Quixote is still seen as a madman, his idealized view of the world is openly embraced. The message seems to be that in a world that is cruel and unfair, no one’s dream, however absurd, should be squashed.

All this makes the show sound very somber and while there are certainly darker moments, including a rape that happens off stage, there is also plenty of sly humor that is well played by the cast.

Holden is effective in the dual role of Cervantes and Quixote. As Quixote he gets the tone just right of a man happily living in a delusion. He shines brightest on the show’s most famous song “The Impossible Dream,” which is sung with great conviction.

Holden makes Quixote’s passion infectious, and when his loyal “squire” Sancho Panza (Frank Smith) sings “I Really Like Him” it is easy to see why. Smith has nice comic timing as Sancho, who puts up with the wild antics, while at the same time enjoying the absurdity of it all.

Anna Mosca, as a barmaid who Quixote believes is his lady Dulcinea, is a great foil to both Holden and Smith. She brings a forceful snarky energy to the character, especially on the song “It Is All the Same” in which she fends off several men on the prowl.

Other highlights in the large cast include Gino Funicella in the duel role of governor and the innkeeper, and Rob Owen as a barber. Both actors play their role for broad laughs and get them.

If the production has a shortcoming it is that at times it is unclear where the drama and comedy line is. There is nothing wrong with show walking the ambiguous line of humor and pathos, but some scenes that seem to be intended be dramatic are unintentionally comic or perhaps it is the other way around. These moments are few and don’t undermine the show’s overall quality.

For more information visit www.artsinmotiontheater.com or call 356-5776.

'Angels and Demon' is a bloated bore

For a movie about attempting to prevent the murder of four cardinals and the destruction of Vatican City, "Angels and Demons," the sequel to 2006's "The Da Vinci Code," is, dare I say, boring.

"Angels and Demons" is another adventure featuring author Dan Brown's symbologist Robert Langdon. The book took place before "The Da Vinci Code," but on film it takes place after. Not that it really matters either way.

"The Da Vinci Code" as a film was largely dismissed by critics, but audiences didn't seem to care as it made more than $750 million at the box office worldwide. There truly is no accounting for taste.

I enjoyed "The Da Vinci Code" as I was watching it but it didn't linger in my mind.
Three years later it is barely there. It wasn't a terrible film, but it wasn't a particularly great one either. It had middling entertainment value in unraveling the mystery, but was overlong and poorly paced. If it wasn't for the fine actors, the film would've been an ordeal to sit through. The same criticism applies for "Angels and Demons."

Tom Hanks returns as Langdon as does director Ron Howard, but they haven't learned from their mistakes from the first time around, or perhaps they are willingly repeating them, since after all you don't want to mess with a $750 million winning formula.

The plot involves a vengeful science-based organization called the Illuminati, who were terribly wronged in one of the darker corners of Catholic Church’s past. Now on the eve of the naming of a new pope, the group is back to kill the pope's four possible successors in an ancient ritual. Oh, and they're going to blow up the Vatican for good measure. Langdon, an expert on the Illuminati, is brought in to save the day.

This should be the set up for an exciting film, especially since there is a one-hour deadline to save each cardinal, but the execution is all wrong. Too much time is spent with Hanks casually explaining the various clues and the history behind them. There's no sense of the urgency of the deadlines.

Furthermore, the film sets up a formula: find a clue, figure out the clue, get to the designated location at the last minute, find the next clue, and so on. Will Langdon and his fetching female assistant (this time played by Ayelet Zurer) make it in time? It becomes repetitive and ultimately numbing.

There's little to no suspense, although a booming score from Hans Zimmer comes clamoring in during all the supposedly exciting parts to tell you it is time to be excited even though there is very little on the screen to be thrilled about.

There are things to admire about "Angels and Demons" including some well placed jabs at the media that get a laugh and help to break up the monotony. It also has a uniformly strong cast that helps keep the film watchable.

Hanks is an innately likable performer and he does his best to get through wordy monologues on par with a mediocre high school history lesson. Ewan McGregor as the former pope's aid is particularly strong as an open-minded man of God with a big heart.

Familiar faces like Stellan Skarsgård ("Pirates of the Caribbean") and Armin Mueller-Stahl ("The International," "Eastern Promises") add a necessary level of credibility to a film that is anything but.

The film does feature a thoughtful discussion of faith and science and whether they can co-exist. For all the bloody murders and pyrotechnics, this is easily the most interesting aspect of the film and so welcomed and refreshing that it almost compensates for the film's shortcomings.

The same can be said of the ending, which is the only time the film feels emotionally genuine. Unfortunately it comes two hours too late.

Fans of Dan Brown and the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" are likely to enjoy this installment, but non-believers will not be converted.

Local 'working class' band rocks Meadowbrook with Korn

It is a pretty classic scene. The Berlin-based band buRne is playing a gig in a bar in Gorham and a brawl breaks out. Pool tables are being flipped. Chairs are flying. The state police show up. And the band just keeps playing.

“Girls are fighting, guys are fighting, state troopers are fighting, they are closing the bar. We didn’t know what to do,” said the band’s lead singer Antly Horne, of Conway. “That was awesome. Interesting, I don’t know about awesome, but it was interesting.”

Last September, in a very different kind of show, the self-described working class band played the Tweeter Center in Mansfield, Mass. with Queensrÿche, Alice Cooper, Dio and Black Sabbath. On May 23 the band will join Korn and 30 other bands at the Meadowbrook U.S. Pavilion in Gilford. Not too shabby for an unsigned band from Berlin.

“We all have jobs outside of this, but this is just something we never let go of,” said Horne. “It is a side lifestyle, is what it is really. We’re playing and writing and trying our best to do what we can and trying to stay unique to other bands and it has been going good so far.”

buRne started out as a two-piece band about seven years, but started getting more serious three years ago —and things been on the rise ever since. The band recently released its self-produced first album, “Surface.”

Horne describes the band’s sound as grunge based, but not “scream-rip-your-head-off music.” The band is not above playing a ballad, and in fact intends on playing one at the Meadowbrook show.

“We weren’t sure we were going to do it because we are playing with all these heavy bands, but you know that’s the sort of stuff that makes us stick out,” said Horne. “We are not afraid to be ourselves, and that’s what we’re going to do be: ourselves. That’s what got us to where we are now and we’re not going to stray away from that.”

Horne says that the band's diverse influences, which include Alice in Chains, Jethro Tull, Dave Matthews and Megadeath, are what keeps the band’s sound unique.

“Everyone puts their own style into it and nobody critiques each other,” said Horne. “You want to do something one way, then do it. That’s what is going to stick out.”

And that’s the theme that keeps surfacing when talking with Horne: Try to find a way to stand out and be original. That’s the same advice he gives to aspiring musicians.

“Everybody starts at the bottom,” said Horne. “Some people are just a little bit more fortunate than others. The chances of making it are slim to none, but if you make it in your own mind that’s all you need. You got to keep that in mind. You don’t have to please anybody but yourself.”

Bands playing the Meadowbrook show must sell tickets using a special unique code in order to climb their way higher on the main stage. Currently buRne is high on that list and hopes to stay there.

For more information about the band visit www.myspace.com/burnethelifestyle.

'Star Trek': A summer movie at its best

I am by no means a Trekkie, or a Trekker — the preferred term these days — but I have no qualms saying I loved the new “Star Trek” film. This is exactly what a summer movie should be: smart, fast and fun.

Director J.J. Abrams (creator of “Lost” and “Alias”) wastes no time with an opening that features George Kirk sacrificing himself in a space battle to save the crew of his ship. He does this all while his son, the future Captain James T. Kirk, is being born in an escape pod. This opening has more thrills and emotion than some whole movies and is one helluva hook.

Like “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” this is an origin story where we get to see young versions of Captain Kirk, Spock, Dr. Bones McCoy and all the rest. This origin work is so much more than “Wolverine” because of how inclusive it is to fans and non-fans alike.

This new “Star Trek” is accessible to even those who have never watched a single episode of the original “Star Trek” series or any of the films, because Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have taken the time to create their own world while honoring what came before and to flesh out even the secondary characters.

Abrams has wisely not stuffed his cast with big names, but instead cast actors that perfectly fit their roles regardless of the size of their Hollywood star. It would be an overstatement to say it is a cast of unknowns as there are several familiar faces, but these actors aren’t household names.

Fans were concerned by the casting of Chris Pine as Kirk because his sparse resume featured a couple unremarkable teen films (“Princess Diaries 2” and “Just My Luck”), but Pine is excellent as Kirk. He emulates William Shatner cockiness, but without going the easy route of doing a direct impression. He’s a dynamic and charismatic lead.

Zackary Quinto of “Heroes” as Spock is equally well cast. Spock is half human and half Vulcan, an emotionless alien race. The emotions his human side gives him are seen as a disability by other Vulcans.

Spock’s human side has been touched upon before, but never quite to the extent here. Quinto captures the stoic, logical mind of Spock, but also hints at the emotions he is struggling to repress. They have a tendency of showing through in caustic remarks or subtle facial expressions.

Kirk and Spock’s relationship was always the center of the “Star Trek” movies, and here we get to see an alternate take where they aren’t the close friends that they will later become. There is a rivalry that is well played.

The plot of the film involves a vengeful Romulan named Nero (a fantastically creepy, but underused Eric Bana) who has come from the future to destroy Spock’s home planet because he wrongly believes Spock destroyed his.

This time-travel device allows for Leonard Nimoy, the original Spock, to reprise his role and play scenes against the young versions of Kirk and himself. Nimoy has much more than a mere wink-wink cameo, and his appearance adds a certain gravitas to the proceedings.

Other highlight of the cast include Simon Pegg (“Shaun of the Dead, “Hot Fuzz”) doing a hilarious scene-stealing turn as Scotty; Anton Yelchin (“Charlie Bartlett”) sporting an over-the-top Russian accent and youthful enthusiasm as genius whiz kid Pavel Chekov; Karl Urban doing a spot-on impersonation of DeForest Kelley's Dr. McCoy; and John Cho (“Harold and Kumar”) taking Sulu out of his seat for some fencing action.

Abrams keeps the film moving, and there are some spectacular action sequences, especially one involving a fight on a laser drill, and the digital effects are top notch. The visuals have a sense of place and base in reality that was lacking in George Lucas’ overly glossy and artificial looking “Star Wars” prequels.

As a director, Abrams is fond of shaky cam, quick editing and close-ups. This style of action is getting a bit tiresome, but Abrams does it better than most.

Above all else, the new “Star Trek” is funny — and that’s crucial to the film’s success. It is smart enough to take its characters and universe serious, but also realizes not to take itself too seriously. The humor and pitch-perfect cast make this a great time at the movies.

'Facing' the truth

M&D's 'Facing East' offers rewarding night of theater

Faith can be a beautiful, uplifting thing with the power to wrap people in a comforting love. But faith can also have an ugly, destructive side, and M&D’s production of Carol Lynn Pearson’s “Facing East” confronts that darker side head on.

“Facing East,” which opens Thursday, May 14, at Your Theatre in Willow Common in North Conway, is set at the grave of Andy, following his funeral. His parents, Ruth and Alex (Karen O’Neil and Kevin O’Neil), have stayed behind because Alex believes the funeral was a lie and wants to do it right even if it is only the surrounding trees that hear it.

The lie was ignoring that Andy was gay, something that went directly against his Mormon upbringing. That conflict between his true identity and a faith that deemed it a sin led to a self loathing that would drive him to suicide.

Ruth clings to her faith, even using it justify the death as a blessing in disguise, but Alex can no longer take solace in his faith. When Andy’s partner Marcus (Jeff Warach) joins Ruth and Alex at the grave, there are revelations that challenge Ruth’s views of her faith.

“Facing East” is similar in tone and theme to John Patrick Shanley’s play-turned-movie “Doubt.” The play doesn’t condemn religion, whatever denomination someone may be, but instead it explores the dangers of following the dogma of a church blindly and with an unremitting rigidness.

It is not humanity’s job to judge who is damned, and yet so many do. That is the theme at the center of Pearson’s play. Pearson is an advocate of forgiveness and acceptance.

Both leads are effective at showing the grief on their faces. Even without a line of dialogue, we know that they are grappling with heavy emotions. Much of the dialogue is delivered directly to the audience, giving the show an intimacy and intensity that is hard to ignore.

There are flashbacks, with Karen O’Neil and Kevin O’Neil alternating playing Andy. This is an effective device that is enhanced by moody blue lighting.

Kevin O’Neil is quite affecting portraying Alex’s struggle with his son’s death and the guilt he feels for not being understanding enough of his son.

Karen O’Neil has a tricky job as she manages to make Ruth empathetic even though she is often insufferable and infuriating. All Ruth has ever known is her faith, and so in this time of mourning she holds it tightly and refuses to let go.

Warach’s appearance comes late in the play, but injects new life into the proceedings.
He is good at balancing Marcus’ anger toward Ruth and Alex with his anguish.

The sparse set of an open grave surrounded by bare trees on a slanted stage is evocative and never lets the audience forget what was lost.

“Facing East” is an emotionally charged play that isn’t easy viewing, but it raises important issues and as an acting showcase is a strong piece of theater that is well worth the effort.

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

'Wolverine' is overstuffed

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is a tough one to review. It isn’t a mind-blowing movie-going experience, but isn’t an unmitigated disaster either. There are large stretches that are entertaining, but it is too unfocused to be fully satisfying.

Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), also known as Logan, is a mutant with powerful healing abilities, heightened animal-like senses and who ages slowly. He also has retractable metal claws, and in this film we see how and why he gets them.

His origin story is a pretty straightforward revenge tale involving his half brother Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber, “The Manchurian Candidate”), also known as Victor Creed. Victor has similar abilities to Logan, but where Logan attempts to suppress his animal instincts, Victor embraces them.

Their brotherly bond is severed when Victor kills Logan’s love interest. With the help of William Stryker (Danny Huston, filling in for Brian Cox from “X2”), Logan gets those oh, so shiny claws and becomes Wolverine.

The film opens with a great title sequence showing the brothers fighting alongside each other from the Civil War through to the Vietnam War. I would’ve liked more of that and to see these characters interacting throughout the ages. What was Logan like during the roaring '20s or during The Depression?

Jackman and Schreiber’s dynamic is the best thing in the film. They are fantastic together. Schreiber, who has never played a role quite like this, is completely convincing. He is oddly charismatic and menacing at the same time.

This is Jackman’s fourth time playing Wolverine, the role that put him on the map. He has the role down cold as he ably tosses out dry one-liners, is believable in the elaborate action scenes and hints at deeper emotions hidden just below the surface.

Unfortunately, the emotion of the Wolverine/Sabretooth plot line gets lost. As with the third “X-Men” film, that human element is largely missing as the focus in “Wolverine” has been placed on action and the screen is overpopulated with too many underdeveloped characters.

Several secondary characters are given five to 15 minutes of screen time and then are killed off or just dropped. We don’t get enough time to get to know these characters and they just take away from the real star of the film.

One such character, Wade Wilson, also known as Deadpool, is particularly under-utilized. Deadpool is a wisecracking mercenary who is ideally played by Ryan Reynolds at the beginning of the film, but he returns so drastically altered at the end of the film that fans of the comic won’t even recognize the character they love. For the average moviegoer, the character works within the context of the film, but for fans it is sure to be a sticking point.

Another popular “X-Men” character that finally makes his long-awaited appearance in the series is Gambit (Taylor Kitsch, “Friday Night Lights”). His few scenes are flashy and he seems interesting, but his appearance in the film has little to do with making the film better, but rather appeasing fans.

There is a lot to like about “Wolverine,” including a great action sequence involving Jackman taking down a helicopter, but it could’ve been so much more. What made the first two films in the series work was that even though the films were action-packed there was a thoughtfulness at the core. Mutants were used as an allegory for social prejudices and to explore moral ambiguities.

“Wolverine” is simply a summer action movie with some decent acting and some fun scenes. Fans of the series should see it, but don’t expect it to be this year’s “Iron Man” or “The Dark Knight.”

Nothing to 'obsess' over

If you want a laugh, check out “Obsessed,” not that the film is a comedy. You’ll be laughing, but at the film, not with it.

“Obsessed” stars Idris Elba (currently on “The Office”) as a successful asset manager with a beautiful wife (Beyoncé Knowles) and baby who is fending off the pursuits of an attractive, but delusional office temp (Ali Larter, “Heroes”). This is a “Fatal Attraction” rip off without a single original moment in it.

The minute Larter’s temptress comes on screen it is clear exactly where this movie is going. A movie being formulaic isn’t necessarily a problem. We watch romantic comedies because we know in the end the couple will get together. It is the journey that is key, not the destination. In “Obsessed” that journey is pedestrian and at times boring.

Ultimately, the film’s raison d'être is the inevitable throw down between Larter and Knowles and it is one heck of a fight, but it is a 90-minute wait before you get there. The fight also seems out of tone with the rest of the film. Suddenly, Knowles' character seems like something out of a blaxploitation film.

The film is riddled with cheesy dialogue, but unlike something like the “Scream” movies, it is clear this isn’t meant to be a self-satire. Until the final fight scene where the film gives over to total camp it is evident that the film was attempting to be a serious drama and it fails at that. The inconsistent tone is just one of its problems.

The acting in the film ranges from good to adequate. Elba is quite strong in the lead. He has a definite screen presence and gives more credibility to his lines than they deserve. With a better film he could really shine.

Larter is good at playing crazy, but her performance is fairly one note. Knowles, who also was a producer, is fine, but it seems like she took the role solely for that final fight because she doesn’t truly come alive until those scenes.

The direction by Steve Shill is workman like, but he does create some suspense in places, even if it isn’t sustained for long. With a better script this could’ve been a decent thriller, so if we must put the blame for this film on someone it is screenwriter David Loughrey.

Loughrey writes script by the numbers, if you have any doubt compare “Obsessed” to last year’s “Lakeview Terrace,” which he also scripted. Both films center on a married couple being terrorized by someone who is mentally unstable and ends up in a confrontation that would seem more appropriate for a slasher movie.

As with his script for “Lakeview Terrace,” Loughrey had an intriguing premise with the potential to raise serious issues, in this case that men have to fight harder to prove sexual harassment. Loughrey’s script flirts with the issue, but settles for ham-fisted exploitation dialogue and cliché scenes.

This is a bad film, but for some people it will be so bad it is good. Let me be perfectly clear, don’t waste your money seeing it in theaters. Once it is on DVD and you’ve got nothing better to do on a rainy afternoon, perhaps lower your standards and rent it. You will laugh for all the wrong reasons.

'State of Play' is a top notch thriller

“State of Play,” a political thriller centered on the murder of a congressman’s aid, is a top-notch piece of intelligent filmmaking made for adults. This is a film that respects its viewer’s intelligence instead of spoon feeding them mindless swill.

Russell Crowe stars as a slovenly, but efficient investigative journalist in Washington, D.C. who begins finding connections between two seemingly unrelated murders, one involving his former roommate turned congressman’s (Ben Affleck) research aid. Slowly an elaborate and ever shifting conspiracy is unraveled.

On the level of plot not much else can be revealed as it would undermine the film’s best surprises. There are twists upon twists in this film, but each new turn is so carefully placed that the film never feels cheap or eye-rolling.

The film has an excellent pedigree. Director Kevin McDonald’s first film was the first rate “Last King of Scotland” and the cast is populated with some of the best and brightest actors working today.

The cast is so strong that even minor roles are populated by the likes of Jeff Daniels, Robin Wright Penn and Jason Bateman ("Hancock"), who appears late in the film to provide some comic relief, but also reveals some serious acting.

Helen Mirren (“The Queen”) is completely believable as Crowe's editor. Rachel McAdams (“The Notebook,” “Red Eye”) is a blogger that Crowe teams up with to research and write the story.

McAdams is one of the more underrated actresses in her generation and she and Crowe have a nice dynamic. The film thankfully never attempts to force a romantic subplot between the two. They are simply colleagues who learn to respect and trust each other.

Affleck, who after several years of bad career moves, is back on track. As he did in “Hollywoodland,” he has taken a supporting role in an ensemble film and proves he can act when he isn’t in a big dumb action movie.

The screenplay is written by Tony Gilroy, the writer and director of “Michael Clayton” and “Duplicity,” Billy Ray, who wrote and directed “Breach” and “Shattered Glass” and Matthew Michael Carnahan who wrote “The Kingdom" and “Lions for Lambs.” These are writers that write smart films that aren’t clear cut or black and white.

“State of Play” is based on a six hour BBC mini-series and the screenwriters deserve a lot of credit for finding a way to cut the screen time in third and still have a film that is coherent. The timeline of events is perhaps too condensed, especially towards the resolution, but things are never confusing. McDonald keeps the film moving briskly, but not at the expense of character development.

Given that newspapers are going bankrupt and shutting their doors across the country, many are wondering if this will be the last newspaper film. The film is aware of the current state of print journalism and authentically comments on it. Mirren has several scenes in which she struggles with whether to be gossip hounds or hold the story until it is accurate and solid.

“State of Play” is very much in the tradition of “All the President’s Men” and while that film may have more of a dramatic edge since it was based on true event, "State of Play" is in many ways its equal. This is compelling, surprising drama that is well worth your time and money.

Owen and Roberts shine in 'Duplicity'

Julia Roberts and Clive Owen bring their considerable star power and charm to writer/director Tony Gilroy’s light-as-a-feather but largely satisfying comic thriller “Duplicity.”

“Duplicity” feels like a lighter reworking of Gilroy’s terrific debut “Michael Clayton” with corporate intrigue replacing legal intrigue. Where “Michael Clayton” created a complex web and gripping drama, “Duplicity” creates a just as intricate web, but plays things for low-key laughs.

Roberts and Owen play former spies turned lovers who set up shop in opposing corporate companies in hopes of playing the companies against each other and in the process steal an idea that they can sell to the highest bidder.

The rival companies are headed up by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson, who in a fabulously funny opening scene fight it out on an airport runaway while their handlers look on in shock. Giamatti and Wilkinson are always reliable character actors, and they give fantastic supporting performances here.

“Duplicity” is a throwback to light comic thrillers like “Charade,” or more recently the “Ocean’s” movies, where the film is more about the stars’ chemistry, charisma and banter than the plot itself.

These are films that create elaborate plots with so many twists and switcheroos that the audience just has to go along for the ride and smile at the filmmaker’s audacity. These are films that intentionally play with the audience.

As a screenwriter Gilroy is probably best know for his work on the “Bourne” franchise, but his work here is closer in spirit to his script for 1992’s “The Cutting Edge,” about a hockey player paired with a figure skater. That film had the same sort of clever, combative dialogue-masking attraction that is on display in “Duplicity.”

Gilroy has the comic dialogue down cold, but when he has to switch to the straight romantic scenes he loses his edge and goes cliché. This held true in "The Cutting Edge," and it remains true today.

There’s a scene where Owen and Roberts proclaim their love for each other that goes on for far too long with dialogue that didn’t need to be spoken. Gilroy should’ve trusted that the audience got that they were in love.

Roberts and Owen, who worked together previously in “Closer,” have a palpable chemistry together and play Gilroy’s dialogue just right. While their scenes together in “Closer” were comprised of acidic barbed banter meant to devastate, here the repartee is just as sharp and quick, but is now playful and affectionate.

Owen has been in a lot of heavy thrillers and gritty action pictures recently, and it is nice to see him dial down the intensity and play up the charm. He reveals a fine comedic touch and slides nicely into a Cary Grant mode.

Roberts is simply required to be Roberts, and she still does it well. It is also nice to see that she is allowing herself to age gracefully. It doesn’t appear that, as with so many of her colleagues, she has started to nip, tuck and pull.

“Duplicity” is not a demanding or challenging film, but it is fun. And with locations such as Italy and the Bahamas as the backdrop for several scenes, it is pretty to look at. It is a soufflé — light, fluffy and delicious, but not very substantial. It goes down easy and offers quick pleasure.

'Fast & Furious' is running on fumes

“Fast & Furious,” the fourth installment in the street-racing franchise, isn’t an awful movie, but it is so inconsequential that it is hard to even be bothered to write anything about it. But I have already wasted 90 minutes watching it, so I guess I’ll waste more time.

The film made $72.5 million its opening weekend, the highest opening of a film released in April. It would appear that fans were eager for the return of the four principle leads from 2001’s “The Fast and the Furious” after only Paul Walker returned for two and Vin Diesel made a cameo in three.

Diesel, Walker, Michelle Rodriquez and Jordana Brewster all return this time, but the film’s “New Model, Original Parts” tagline is a misnomer. Fans excited to see the dynamic of the four leads again will be disappointed because the female leads get substantially shortchanged. Rodriquez’ appearance is not much more than a cameo, and Brewster only fairs marginally better.

Then again, “The Fast and the Furious” was always more about Diesel and Walker’s relationship than their love interests. In fact, if you want a quick laugh, search “The Fast and the Curious” on youtube for an amusing reworking of the trailer for the first film.

Seeing Diesel and Walker’s chemistry together again may be enough for fans to give the film pass, but for anyone else it is a messy bore.

The plot has something to do with drug trafficking, and naturally street racing factors into the mix. Diesel is wanted for various nefarious deeds and Walker is now working for the FBI, but both have motivations for taking down the drug kingpin, and they make an uneasy alliance to do so.

There are two worthy sequences in the film. The best is the film’s opening featuring Diesel and his crew attempting to steal gas tankers as a trucker makes his way up a winding road. It is pretty spectacular and offers something different for the series, but after that it is back to more of the same.

The other noteworthy scene is the inevitable Diesel and Walker street race, which despite being undermined by an annoying GPS gimmick that makes much of the sequence look like a cheap video game, does excite. It is a well directed, if completely ludicrous race.

Unfortunately, the rest of the car sequences rely too heavily on mediocre and obvious CGI. One setting, tunnels through a mountain, is used twice. The first time through it is mildly interesting; the second time it is mind-numbingly dull.

This is nothing more than a shameless cash-in. All the careers of the four leads aren’t doing too well, and this was a guaranteed hit. Unsurprisingly, the door was left open for a sequel, which chances are we’ll get. The producers already removed “the” from the title; maybe next time they can get rid of “and” too and simply call it “Fast Furious."

Rudd and Segel a comedic duo to 'love'

Paul Rudd, a reliable supporting comedic actor for more than a decade, continues his transition to leading man in the very funny “I Love You, Man.”

“I Love You, Man” is the latest in the recent trend of films being termed bromances. These are films that take the outrageous frat boy humor of films like “Old School” and “Anchorman” and graft it on to a romantic comedy structure. Just as much, if not more, time is spent with the male lead hanging with his guy friends as courting the female lead.

Writer, director and producer Judd Apatow (“Knocked Up”) is responsible in some way for the vast majority of these movies, which play to a large cross-section of moviegoers because the sweetness and positive values buried at their core counterbalances the coarser, low-brow humor.

“I Love You, Man” takes the concept of a bromance and runs with it. This time the central relationship is the male one. Rudd stars as Peter, who after proposing to his finance (Rashida Jones, “The Office”) realizes he has always only had female friends and begins a quest to find a guy friend to be his best man.

Peter goes on a series of failed man-dates until he meets Sydney (Jason Segel, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”) and they instantly hit it off despite, or because of, the fact that they are opposites. Peter is repressed and painfully awkward while Sydney is the sort of free spirit who justifies not cleaning up after his dog because it is good for the environment.

The film has their relationship go through all the romantic comedy clichés: the meet cute, the first few dates, and the inevitable break up over a misunderstanding followed by the even more inevitable reconciliation. Some may complain this makes the film predictable, but having the platonic male relationship play as a romantic one yields laughs as familiar conventions are tweaked.

John Hamburg, the writer of “Meet the Parents” and “Meet the Fockers,” co-wrote and directed the film. After being stuck in PG-13 world, Hamburg seems to be liberated now that he is in the R-rated realm.

Hamburg is dealing with the same sort of humor that made the “Meet” films popular, but here it seems less forced and more sincere. A lot of that has to do with Rudd and Segel, who both have a natural ease on screen and an inherent likability.

Rudd makes Peter’s awkwardness sublimely funny, but never to the point of being annoying. Watching him desperately try to be nonchalant and cool by making up nonsensical nicknames and expressions gets big laughs, but it is a credit to Rudd’s performance that he has the audience rooting for him.

Segel is also very good here. His Sydney could have come up off as obnoxious or grating, but like Rudd’s performance, he emanates a sweetness. Segel and Rudd have a great comedic chemistry together that is easygoing and fun. Much of the film is them just hanging out, which could drag except we enjoy spending time with these guys.

It isn’t just their show. The film is populated by a good supporting cast including Jon Favreau (“Four Christmases”) and Jamie Pressly (“My Name is Earl”) as a bickering couple, and J.K. Simmons (“Juno”) and Jane Curtin (“3rd Rock from the Sun”) underused as Peter’s parents.

Andy Samburg (“Saturday Night Live”) amuses in a low-key performance as Peter’s gay brother that busts all the gay stereotypes. Then there is Lou “The Hulk” Ferrigno playing himself. He is worked into the movie because Peter is a Realtor selling Ferrigno’s house, but whatever the excuse it is cameo that could’ve been gimmick that turns out to work.

Rashida Jones’ finance character is underwritten, but she’s very good here and thankfully isn’t written or played shrill. We like her and want Peter to be with her. Jones, in her first major film role, is funny and warm, and it will be interesting to see what she does with a bigger role.

“I Love You, Man” offers further prove that its leads are two of the funniest comic actors working today, and that should be enough to warrant seeing it. Thankfully, the movie holds together quite nicely as a whole.

'Warmth of the Cold' hits close to home

M&D's latest production set in Berlin, N.H.

M&D Productions’ latest show opened Thursday at Your Theatre in Willow Common in North Conway, and it hits close to home. “The Warmth of the Cold” is a family drama set in Berlin, New Hampshire during the year’s worst snowstorm.

The play, directed by Neil Pankhurst of the Winnipesaukee Playhouse, deals with issues perhaps all too familiar: the closing of a mill and the devastating effect it can have on a family. The press materials released for the show quoted the Tennessee Williams’ expression, “the thundercloud of a common crisis.”

The evocation of Williams’ work is an accurate one as New Hampshire playwright Lowell Williams’ script deals with a dysfunctional family very much in the same way Tennessee Williams did in such works as “The Glass Menagerie,” “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” and “A Streetcar Named Desire.”

Each member of the family has a different reaction to the mill closing. Hal (Dan Tetreault), the husband and father, takes to the road as a truck driver to support his family. Carol (Rae McCarey), the mother and wife, becomes mentally unstable, forever clinging to the idea that the mill will reopen.

Daughter Samantha (Katie Gustafson) retreats into her studies in hopes of earning a college scholarship. Son Robbie (Kyle Mulcahy) feels the pressure to be the man of the house in his father’s absence and takes a path of easy money to help support his family.

There is a major plot point and reoccurring theme that wouldn’t be fair to reveal here because its discovery within the play is something the audience should not be robbed of. It does make discussing some of the finer details of the play more difficult.

The dynamic between the two siblings is an interesting one, which is a polite way of saying their relationship will make people ill at ease. Robbie is very emotionally dependent on Samantha, and the idea of her leaving leads to some vehement arguments.

Although her children are in their teens, Carol is far more childlike than they are, in think in a complete role reversal they often send her to her room. Carol’s mental state has good days and bad days and Robbie placates and feeds into his mother’s fantasies, which becomes another point of confrontation with Samantha.

All the performances are first rate. These actors are dealing with heavy emotions and are involved in intense scenes that leave them exposed and vulnerable. There is a good deal of shouting in the play, and there is a danger of actors coming off as shrill or simply yelling instead of getting at the emotion behind the screaming, but that is definitely not the case here.

McCarey does a good job portraying Carol’s mental instability in a way that doesn’t become cheap, over-the-top or insincere. It is a sympathetic portrayal that should make audiences care about her.

Mulcahy plays Robbie’s struggle to keep his family together well. You can sense the pressure to stay strong for his family tearing at him until, in a pair of climatic scenes in the second act, he can no longer hold it together.

Gustafson’s Samantha is the play’s most stable character, but even she struggles with insecurities that she won’t be able to get into college. Samantha fears she will be stuck in town working at Wal-Mart for the rest of her life. Gustafson registers these fears in subtle ways such as a facial expression or the way she carries herself.

Tetreault’s Hal is romanticized for much of the play as being a great husband and father, but it is revealed in a flashback with Mulcahy that he was far from perfect. His ideas of how men and women should interact were outmoded. Tetreault is effective at hinting at Hal’s darker side behind a seemingly ideal façade.

“The Warmth of the Cold” is a challenging night of theater, but one with rewards for those that accept the challenge. For tickets or information call 662-7591 or e-mail info@yourtheatre.com.

Rourke is astounding in 'The Wrestler'

Mickey Rourke may not have won the Oscar for Best Actor for his astounding performance in “The Wrestler” but he won nearly every other major film award including the BAFTA, the Golden Globe and the Independent Spirit Award and deservedly so. Don’t miss this performance.

Rourke was a promising young actor in the 1980s who became a star with performances in such films as “Diner” and “The Pope of Greenwich Village,” but several bad career moves and a detour into professional boxing left him on the outs in the film industry.

In recent years he has slowly been making a comeback with strong supporting roles in films such as “Sin City” and “Domino.” “The Wrestler” marks his return as a great actor.

In “The Wrestler,” Rourke plays a washed up professional wrestler named Randy “The Ram” Robinson, who is barely staying afloat and desperately trying to make a comeback. It is easy to see why Rourke was drawn to this material and he taps into raw emotions that few actors do. There’s a speech toward the end of the film where he could easily be talking about himself.

Randy has a strained relationship with the daughter (Evan Rachel Wood, “Across the Universe”) he walked out on years ago. This is familiar material, but rarely are scenes like this written with such honesty and performed with so much intense, seemly real emotion. Wood and Rourke share scenes that could make even the toughest tough guy shed a tear.

The other relationship in Randy’s life is with Cassidy, a striper (Marisa Tomei, “My Cousin Vinnie”) at a club he frequents. They have a rapport that could be more than simply her being nice to him because he’s a costumer and he would like to create a real relationship. She’s guarded about this, but slowly let’s herself become involved.

Tomei does strip in the film, and not just typical “movie striping” this is the real, nasty deal. The amazing thing about her performance is that she makes Cassidy a full character. She’s a tender, compassionate person with a daughter. She stripes as a means to an end. Again, this may sound familiar, but the script by Robert Siegel instills all these scenes with authenticity.

The film is a departure for director Darren Aronofsky whose previous films “Pi,”
“Requiem for a Dream” and “The Fountain” were full of visual trickery. The filmmaking here is more simplistic, restrained and less showy. Aronofsky simply trusts the story and character instead of the visual gimmicks that while effective in his other films would’ve been distracting here.

This is not a wrestling movie although there are scenes in the ring and for those who are wrestling fans there are scenes that show some of the tricks of the trade and post-show clean up that are fascinating. Those who aren’t wrestling fans should not dismiss the film because of the occupation of its title character.

"The Wrestler" is a study of someone who is broken by life and just struggling to make it through each day. Rourke’s Randy is a man who is desperately reaching out for some sort of emotional connection whether it is with his daughter or a striper turned potential girlfriend. It is a movie about how much a person can take before they just give up.

Spread the word

Arts in Motion Youth Players and the Kennett Drama Club present 'Grease'

There is a great debate over what the word is. The Beatles said it was love. The Trashmen claimed it was bird. For the next two weeks at Kennett High School’s Loynd Auditorium in North Conway there is no question that the word is “Grease.”

“Grease,” a collaboration between the Arts in Motion Youth Players and the Kennett Drama Club, opened Thursday and will be performed March 19-21 as well as March 26-28.

The 1950s-set musical first appeared on Broadway in 1971, and, thanks to the 1978 film adaptation starring John Travolta and Olivia Newton John, has had staying power. “Grease" has slipped into our greater cultural consciousness and, whether they like it or not, most people are at least familiar with some of the songs.

For those who have managed to avoid “Grease,” it tells the story of Danny (senior Ged Owen) and Sandy (senior Molly Paven) who meet over the summer and fall in love only to find that when school starts they run in different social circles. Danny is a greaser with a reputation to protect, and Sandy is a goody-two-shoes who doesn’t fit in with the tough, fun-loving Pink Ladies.

Three new songs were written for the film including the popular “You’re the One That I Want.” In Broadway revivals of the show, these songs are often included — and that’s also the case with the production at Kennett.

In the film as well as on stage, the roles have almost always been played by adults, so one plus that a high school production of “Grease” has is that all the actors are age appropriate for their roles.

This production directed by Glenn Noble is bright and lively with some spectacular choreography by junior Rebecca Sciola.

“Born to Hand Jive” features some nicely incorporated swing dance moves that are well performed by the cast. “Greased Lightning,” featuring choreography by junior Shannon Reville, is a show highlight with many of the guys doing some impressive flips.

All the show’s most popular songs are presented and performed here well. “Summer Nights,” with Danny and Sandy telling contradictory version of their summer romance to their gossip-hungry cliques, starts the show off with high energy and the right tone of humor.

Senior Casper Van Coesant is a standout as Teen Angel serenading the ditsy Frenchie (freshman Shelby Noble) on the cheeky “Beauty School Dropout.”

The two leads, Owen and Paven, carry the show nicely, with Owen effective as a greaser with a softer side and Paven playing uptight and love sick just right. Owen and Paven are particularly strong in their big final number, “You’re the One That I Want.” Paven, who was forced to play prude for most of the show, has fun unleashing Sandy’s repressed bad girl and helps to end the show on a high note.

Part of the fun of a high school production is for students and parents to see their classmates and children on stage. The environment in the audience is less reserved than the traditional theater experience as parents and friends hoot, holler and cheer when the person they’ve come to see graces the stage.

“Grease” is successful on that level and should leave students plenty to talk about in the school halls.

For more information visit www.artsinmotiontheater.com.

You should be watching the 'Watchmen'

After years of claims of being un-filmable, director Zack Synder (“300”) has found a way to bring Alan Moore’s acclaimed graphic novel “Watchmen” to the screen and retain most of the scope, humor and message.

“Watchmen” is perhaps the most highly regarded graphic novel ever written, so much so it is respected as a piece of literature. It won the Hugo Award and was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 best English language novels since 1923 and has had such heavyweight directors at Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky and Peter Greengrass attached to it.

The film, like the source material, is set in an alternative 1985 in which the
United States won the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon is still president. A group of masked heroes known as the Watchmen were outlawed in 1977, but when one of these retired heroes is brutally murdered the team is reunited and a complex plot involving possible nuclear war is unraveled.

A team of superheroes is hardly an original concept, but those expecting the Fantastic Four or the X-Men are in for a rude awakening. The heroes in “Watchmen” have some serious issues. Moore structured “Watchmen” not only as an indictment of the political environment of the 1980s, but as a satire of comic book heroes.

If you thought Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne had their demons, just wait until you meet Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley, “Little Children”) and Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan, “Grey’s Anatomy”) and their alter-egos Rorschach and The Comedian.

Rorschach and The Comedian are borderline sociopaths that sometimes cross the line. In this world the heroes are a very fine thread away from being villains. “The Dark Knight” played in this playground last year too, but “Watchmen” takes the question of how far do you go to protect humanity from itself much further than "The Dark Knight" did.

The film is often brutally violent. Synder doesn’t shy away from the book's more unsavory visuals, but the violence isn’t without purpose. The disturbing images on display force the audience to ask serious questions about human nature and morality.

The characters are well cast. Patrick Wilson (“Hard Candy”) brings a nice weariness and reluctant heroism to Nite Owl II, perhaps the most normal of the bunch, but even he has his problems that bring a whole new twist to role playing in bed. Matthew Goode (“Match Point”) plays Adrian Veidt, the world’s smartest man, with an appropriate level of arrogance.

The cast’s standouts though are Haley and Billy Crudup (“Almost Famous,” “Big Fish”) as Dr. Manhattan, who after a freak accident becomes a demigod with the power to manipulate matter, space and time. Crudup spends most of the film as a computer-enhanced creation, but he brings a lot of depth to Dr. Manhattan’s struggle with a humanity he is becoming further disconnected from.

Haley is nothing short of fantastic. He delivers the majority of the movie’s film noir-esque narration to sheer perfection. Although his face covered in an ever-shifting inkblot mask for the majority of his screen time, his presence is undeniable.

The only weak link in the cast is Malin Akerman (“The Heartbreak Kid”) as Silk Spectre II. Michael Philips of the Chicago Tribune called her “possibly the worst actress in Hollywood.” I wouldn’t go that far, but there are certainly more talented actresses that could have filled the role. She does look great in a skin-tight outfit as well as her birthday suit. My more cynical side thinks that’s where her audition ended.

Synder has done a good job of distilling the book into a cohesive film. It clocks in at nearly three hours, but Synder keeps the film moving briskly with compelling visuals that effectively recreate the graphic novel. There’s a lot going on here, and the film is just as much several character studies as an action film.

Some of the harsher reviews of the film have claimed the film is incoherent and confusing. Even some fans of the film are claiming those unfamiliar with the graphic novel will get lost. At the time I saw the film I hadn’t read the book and I had no problem following it.

While the film is told in a non-linear fashion with a lot of flashback, I would question the ability of someone to follow any story if they are unable to keep up with “Watchmen” as this is pretty clear storytelling. Yes, it is at times puzzling, but that is to be expected. After all, the film is structured as a mystery. In the end when things are explained, everything clicks in a way that doesn’t feel like a cheat.