Kodi Barrows thrives on trying new things

Kodi Barrows, a senior at Kennett High School in North Conway, N.H., certainly knows how to keep busy. He is in the glee club, chorus, stage band, on the dance team, works behind the scenes on plays and musicals and acts, having most recently appeared in "A Midsummer Night's Dream."

"I am really open to anything," Barrows said. "Trying something new is definitely something I love doing, which is why I've done so many different things, whether it goes to dance or theater or tech or anything like that. Something new is just what I thrive on."

Barrows started his exploration into the arts playing trumpet at Josiah Bartlett Elementary School but he drifted away from music until high school.

"We changed musical directors so many different times it was just kind of crazy and I ended up kind of dropping instrument at the time," Barrows said.

It was ultimately acting that help Barrows not only reconnect with playing an instrument, but discovering singing, dance and, what he's most passionate about, the tech side of theater.

"I want to go to school for the technical theater side," Barrows said. "I want to be the person that knows everything about the theater and just the person you go to for everything you need."

Barrows' first acting experience was "Happy Birthday Sweet 16" in eighth grade, but he "really started enjoying the theater business" working on the Arts in Motion production of "Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe." It would be on "Rent," another Arts in Motion production, that he'd get his first experience working behind the scenes.

"Our tech designer for the show was Florence Cooley and she needed someone to help her," Barrows said. "Glenn [Noble] then asked if I'd be interested in going to assist so basically there was a Saturday when I went and helped her move lights around, adjust lights, go up in the Genie or anything like that or just learn what it was to set up lights and it really piqued my interest in the technical side of theater."

He found his way back to playing an instrument through connecting with Rafe Matregrano while working on Arts in Motions' "Guys and Dolls."

"I expressed an interest in playing an instrument and he knew that the year after that the tenor section was going to be short in band."

Matregrano helped Barrows make connections to get tenor saxophone lessons, which would eventually lead to him joining stage band.

For Barrows, playing an instrument is an invaluable tool for learning discipline and has had an influence over all his artistic activities.

"It takes practice and it is a great thing to do because it teaches you a lot of determination in the arts to get good at what you do," Barrows said. "It just teaches you a lot of responsibility as a person. It can definitely help someone after high school, whether it is band or chorus. Even if you don't continue with it, it is an experience that sticks with you for the rest of your life."

It was also through "Guys and Dolls" that Barrows developed an interest in dance, which led to joining the dance team this year.

"That's probably my newest adventure," Barrows said. "It is great working with Holly [Fougere] and all the different girls on the team."

At first Barrows was the lone guy on the team, but he convinced his friend, freshman Anthony Ferrara to join as well.

"I got him to join because I knew he'd enjoy it and it would really get an interest going for him."

It was also this year that Barrows decided to join chorus. Something he wished he done earlier in his high school career, but it just never quite fit his schedule.

"When I saw the chorus perform it looked like it was a lot of fun like they were enjoying what they were doing on stage," Barrows said. "I wish I had done it my freshman through junior year. I really wish I had participated, which is actually the same thing with band. I really wish I had stuck with and kept up an instrument through elementary school."

Prior to joining the chorus, Barrows was part of the glee club that was created to enter a glee contest put on by Fox 22. The group was comprised mostly of cast members of "Shades of Gray," which was going on at the same time.

"Holly and Glenn wanted to pick some strong singers who were already close friends and knew each other really well to get in a group together. It was pretty last minute, but we got it together and we did pretty well for the competition."

The singing was something different Barrows, but one that he enjoyed explored with the group.

"I've always enjoyed singing whether it is in the shower in the morning or just in the car singing to music, the stuff you love to listen to even if you know you're singing is horrible, but you still sing it because you love it," Barrows said.

Throughout all his many artistic endeavors, Barrows has valued all the connections he's made.

"I feel like I am part of so many different families," Barrows said. "It is just everywhere I go: glee, dance team, chorus, band, my friends from different theater shows I've done because when you do a show with someone you make a connection that lasts longer than a normal friendship does. You always keep in touch with your friends from shows. It makes it easier to talk because you get to know them from spending months at a time running lines or running scenes, practicing choreography, you really get to know someone and it just makes it fun."

'Cabin in the Woods' is a clever riff on the horror genre

Just weeks before the release of Joss Whedon's much-anticipated "Avengers," the massively budgeted smash up of some of Marvel comics biggest characters, we have "Cabin in the Woods," a much smaller project from the man behind such popular TV shows as "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel," "Firefly" and "Dollhouse."

"Cabin in the Woods," co-written and produced by Whedon, is a self-reflexive horror movie somewhat in the tradition of the "Scream" franchise. Much like "Scream," the film is more black comedy and satire than goofy parody. As is true of all of Whedon's projects, the material is played straight, but doesn't take itself too seriously. Whedon's signature sharp wit is very much present.

A group of college students head to a remote cabin in the woods for the prerequisite sex, drugs and alcohol, but, naturally, encounter ghoulish company that turn their fun fatal. The twist, which is revealed early in the film, is that the cabin and surrounding area are controlled by a mysterious government agency that has chosen these rambunctious 20-somethings for slaughter.

It isn't clear what this agency is, but the why behind the cruel manipulation of the protagonists is the film's real twist. Attentive viewers should figure out what's going on around the mid-point, but the bigger implications of the twist are surprising if a bit silly.

This underground operation is headed by Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, both masters of dry, sarcastic line delivery. Through the use of chemicals and pheromones, Jenkins and Whitford have transformed the hapless group of students into horror movie stereotypes.

The brainy Curt (Chris Hemsworth, "Thor") and Jules (Anna Hutchinson) turn into dimwitted, sex fiends and Dana (Kristen Connolly) begins to think of herself as a virgin. There's also a nice guy (Jesse Williams), who actually genuinely seems to be a nice guy, and the stoner (Fran Kranz).

Outside of the invaluable Jenkins and Whitford, Kranz is a the standout of the cast. Stoner characters are usually a source of cheap laughs and when played wrong are just annoying. In this case, the script gives Kranz some of the best lines and his paranoid, wide-eyed delivery scores big laughs. He also has a travel mug that turns into a bong, which later begins a handy weapon.

This is co-writer Drew Goddard's directorial debut having previously written for numerous TV show including "Buffy" and "Angel" and J.J. Abrams' "Alias" and Lost" as well as scripting the Abrams' produced movie "Cloverfield."

"Cloverfield" was a film filled with cardboard characters and cliches that convinced people it was more interesting than it was because it was shot with handheld cameras. That gimmick didn't hide that the characters and plot were still uninteresting, but did add the bonuses of motion sickness and not being able to see anything.

Thankfully, "Cabin in the Woods" is not filmed in the oh-so-trendy "found footage" style. Even though Whedon's irreverent edge is prevalent throughout the film, Goddard does a nice job of creating atmosphere, tension and some well-placed scares.

The script for "Cabin in the Woods" is just as riddled with barely sketched characters and cliches as "Cloverfield," but, this time, that's the point. Whedon and Goddard are basically deconstructing the horror film and showing the mechanism behind it. "Cabin in the Woods" has a wicked sense of humor that was sorely lacking in "Cloverfield." If these two films are any indication, Goddard is better off working with Whedon over Abrams.

The film's conclusion goes gloriously, absurdly and gruesomely over-the-top. This is probably the first film to have a killer unicorn. Those tuned into the same weird, genre-subverting wavelength as Whedon and Goddard will be smiling widely at the insanity of it all. If you're not with them, you're likely to think the film is just plain stupid. For the record, I was totally with them.

A flawed, but funny 'Reunion'

"American Reunion," the third sequel to "American Pie," is a surprisingly pleasant experience, but, like actual reunions, some things will never be the same.

To say "American Pie" was groundbreaking is perhaps too strong, but it was something fresh and different. Teen sex comedies gained popularity in the 1980s with films like "Porky's." Those films viewed woman purely as sex objects to be ogled. The antedote for these films were John Hughes' smart and funny films about teens. By the 1990s, teen films, with few exceptions, had simply become bland, watered-down versions of Hughes' films.

So, when "American Pie" came out in summer 1999 it was quite unexpected. The humor was raunchier than anything else out at the time, but there were also actual characters and the women were equal opportunity participants in the randy activities. For a film about teen guys trying to lose their virginity, there was sincerity and even tender moments. Like a good pie, it was a perfect balance of sweet and savory.

The sweetness still remains in "American Reunion," which has our horny friends attending their high school reunion, but, disappointingly the woman are no longer equal partners in the exploits and feel sidelined to just being wives, girlfriends or things to objectify.

Former band camp girl, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), one of the most loveable characters in the series, in particular feels ignored. Hannigan also doesn't seem interested in even recreating the character. Michelle's endearing speech pattern is gone as Hannigan essentially plays the role as Lily, her character from the show "How I Met Your Mother."

Every major cast member from the first film has returned, even if only for a quick, sometimes forced, cameo. It is nice to catch up with these characters, but it is frustrating that a previous character arc for the crass Stifler (Seann William Scott) has been negated.

In "American Wedding," the womanizing, self-centered Stifler finally met a girl that he actually cared about and, for the first time in three movies, showed some humanity. Clearly, writers/directors Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, who are making their debut in the series, didn't want a neutered Stifler, but it undermines the character. Like in "American Wedding," Stifler learns to be less of a jerk. We've seen it before and it feels stale.

The only other major thing going against the film is an uncomfortable subplot involving a girl the forever awkward, and now married, Jim (Jason Biggs) used to babysit. The now 18-year-old girl admits to having a crush on Jim and that she wants to lose her virginity to him. The plot is used for cheap laughs and nudity when it could've been explored with a bit more sensitivity. I know that seems like an odd request for an "American Pie" film, but these films always had a healthy dose of heart.

All that negativity aside, there are a lot of very big laughs in the film that are worth the price of admission. The way Stifler gets revenge on a group of guys that sprayed him with Ski-Doos is hilarious.

There's also the invaluable Eugene Levy as Jim's dad, the provider of sage and always inappropriate advice. He was always the heart of these films. Now a widower, dad joins his son at their post-reunion party.

Watching Stifler get Levy drunk is priceless and results with Jim's dad meeting the infamous Stifler's mom (Jennifer Coolidge). This is the highlight of the film. The next installment of the series should be called "American Parents" and focus on Levy and Coolidge.

I realize this seems like a harsh review, but I did in fact enjoy the film. I laughed heartily throughout. It was only after the fact that my complaints arose. I didn't regret seeing it, but reunions are always going to be a mixed bag of emotions. Fans of the series should definitely see it. Others should avoid.

See 'this show'

M&D Productions production of Lanford Wilson's "Burn This" is a return of the creative team behind last year's NH Theatre Award-winning production of another Wilson play, "Talley's Folly." Best director winner Rich Russo once again takes up the direction duties and best actor winner Ken Martin returns in a supporting role.

"Burn This," which opened Thursday, April 12, at Your Theatre in North Conway, N.H. and is running Thursday through Saturday for the next three weeks, is a very different, but at the same time similar beast, to the two-person romantic dramedy, "Talley's Folly."

In the opening scene of "Burn This," a trio of friends are mourning the recent death of Robbie, a young, hard working, talented, gay dancer. Anna (Christine Thompson), his roommate and dance partner, and Larry (Ken Martin), his other roommate and a successful ad man, fill in Burton (Ryan Orlando), a screenwriter and Anna's long-time lover, about the awkwardness of the funeral. Anna and Larry lament that his family didn't truly know him.


There's is a simmering anger in Anna and Larry that never entirely erupts. Anna simply states that she is angry, but there's no sense of the emotion behind it. This could be viewed as a limitation of the performance or simply as the character attempting to keep her emotions in control.

In scene two of act one, Pale (Eric Jordan), Robbie's volatile older brother, literally bursts into the scene seething with anger and frustration. Pale's emotions are definitely not in check and he goes on an abrasive, obscenity-filled rant.

This is the best written and performed scene in the play. Just as Pale's obnoxious ramblings begin to wear thin, the writing starts to humanize him and you begin to see his genuine pain over the loss of his brother and the realization that he didn't know much about him.


Jordan is extraordinary in the scene and subtly portrays the complex emotional shifts. There's always a sense that he's struggling with an internal monologue. This marks a huge growth as an actor for Jordan, who has always been a reliable, often scene-stealing comic actor, but here, under the sure direction of Russo, he ably flexes his dramatic muscles.

As the show progresses, uncertain romantic feelings begin to develop between Anna and Pale that neither knows how to deal with and which strains Anna's relationship with Burton. There's an interesting, hesitant romantic chemistry between Jordan and Thompson that builds to a tender, ambiguous final scene.

Wilson's writing takes potentially stereotypical characters and makes them recognizably human. Larry is basically the cliche gay best friend, who adds color commentary and provides advice, but doesn't have a life outside that role. The script addresses this, though, when Burton calls Anna and Larry out on living together instead of actually seeking out true romantic connection.

Larry is a comic relief character to be sure, but Martin doesn't play Larry for cheap laughs. The characters always feels like a person, not just a type. Even when Martin is just on stage listening to the actors, you can sense that he's truly listening and processing what is being said instead of just waiting to say his line.

Orlando, on the other hand, seems slightly emotionally disconnected from his scenes. He says his lines, but without much feeling. He does have a great, and well-delivered, monologue about the worthlessness of film as an art form. Martin has a similarly cynical diatribe about the advertising world and Jordan spouts out numerous tirades on things he hates. This sardonic edge to Wilson's writing helps to break the emotional tension that builds throughout scenes.

Thompson feels, at times, emotionally removed, but, again, it is unclear if this is an acting choice or a flaw in the performance. In the second act, Anna does wall herself off emotionally from the world. It is a defense mechanism just as Pale's anger is his. Even so, Thompson may be burying the emotions too deeply.

As always, Deborah Jasien, who won best set design for "Talley's Folly, has created a fantastic set for the actors to play on. This time it is an authentic-looking loft apartment.
"Burn This" is a show that addresses griefing, but while much of it is marked by sadness, there's also a sense of hope that sometimes out of pain, there can be love.

For more information or tickets, call the box office at 662-7591.

Fryeburg Academy student has film in Lewiston Auburn Film Festival

Jonny Tang, a foreign student at Fryeburg Academy in Fryeburg, Maine, never imagined he'd have a film in a festival, but a film he made in Michael Dana's film class is making its debut at the Lewiston Auburn Film Festival Saturday, April 14, at 12:30 p.m. at the Lyceum Gallery in Lewiston, Maine.

"As a foreign student here, to be accepted into a festival that I have never thought about seems unreal to me," Tang, who is a senior from China, said. "This is a really big encouragement to me on making films."

"The iEraser Story" is about an introspective teenager, who downloads an App for his iPad that lets him erase the things he doesn't want to deal with from his life. The responsibility leads up to an important decision that may have very serious consequences.

"Teenagers are rebellious and they don't like a lot of things," Tang said. "Most of them choose to escape or ignore these things, and after a long time, most of them will regret what they've done. So I wanted to express this idea through the movie."

The idea for the film had inauspicious origins. Dana assigned the class to come up with a theme for a film last May. When it came time to share his idea, Tang had nothing.
"I saw there was an eraser on my desk, so I said, 'Why don't we make a film about a magic eraser?'" Tang said. " I didn't expect this theme would be chosen, but it seemed people liked this idea."

There were over 400 entries and only about 80 films that were nominated for awards and will be shown. Tang is proud to be representing Fryeburg Academy at the festival.

"We hardly have students get into a big film festival," Tang said. "I hope I will be a good start. After our vocal jazz win — the first place in the nation —maybe we will have the best director in nation some day."

For more information about the Lewiston Auburn Film Festival visit www.lafilmfestival.org.

Nap time with the 'Titans'

Late in "Wrath of the Titans," the sequel to the 2010 remake of "Clash of the Titans," Liam Neeson's Zeus says "Let's have some fun." The phrase "Well, we haven't yet" crossed my mind.

I was not prepared for how bad "Wrath of the Titans" would be. "Clash of the Titans" was by no means a great film, but it was passable, if instantly forgettable, entertainment. I expected more of the same. No such luck. Director Jonathan Liebesman is lucky though that his film is so sleep inducing he'll never feel the wrath of the audience.

The plot of "Wrath" is simple enough. A decade after his heroic feats in "Clash," Perseus (Sam Worthington), the half-human son of Zeus, is trying to live as a fisherman. His tranquil existence is shattered when Zeus is taken prisoner in the underworld by Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Ares (Édgar Ramírez). Perseus must rescue his father and stop the release of Kronos, who will destroy the world. In this quest he is joined by Agenor (Toby Kebbell), Poseidon's half-human son, and the warrior queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike).

That plot is an easy formula for a popcorn movie. Throw a bunch of monsters from Greek mythology at our heroes and call it a day. Heck, you don't even need a particularly good screenplay in this case. "Clash" only had a so-so screenplay, but it got by on decent acting and a couple fun action sequences. "Wrath" can't even deliver on that modest level.

At least "Clash" director Louis Leterrier remembered a key rule of directing action: You need to be able to see what is happening. Liebesman is entirely to blame for how poorly "Wrath" came out.
His choices as director — the editing, the dim lighting, the shot composition — make for a film that is difficult to follow and see.

Liebesman frames his action sequences in tight close ups with quick edits every few seconds that make it impossible for the audience to have sense of place within a scene. Everything happens in such a whirl of images that there is never any sense of building tension or excitement. A good action scene needs to use medium and long shots so that viewers can clearly understand what is occurring.

There is a battle involving a group of cyclops, in which for the first few minutes I didn't realize there was more than one cyclops. There was never an establishing shot. Instead there was a series of seemingly random close ups. In another sequence, Perseus does a battle with a monster and, once again, it is all close ups to the point of which you barely get a look at the creature.

If you're going to spend millions of dollars on special effects — the budget was reportedly $150 million — wouldn't you want your visuals to be seen? When you do see them, they are pretty good, which makes it all the more frustrating.

The style that Liebesman utilizes is meant to seem more visceral, chaotic and put you in the action. This approach can work in the hands of a talented filmmaker like Steven Spielberg, who did create a sense of chaos in the opening of "Saving Private Ryan."

The acting on display, even from returning greats like Neeson and Fiennes, is stiff and dull. Neeson and Fiennes just seem to be waiting to go cash their paychecks. I hope a huge chunk of their wages goes to charity, medical research or, at the very least, to funding some more interesting films.

There are two bright spots in the cast. Kebbell is given some good one-liners and he delivers them well. Bill Nighy has a 10-minute sequence as Hephaestus, the god who created Zeus, Poseidon and Hades' godly weapons. Nighy has a quirky energy that infuses the film with an all-too-brief sense of fun.

Those two performances are not enough to give this film even the most marginal of recommendations. This film is an ungodly mess. You've been warned.

'Hunger Games' is blockbuster entertainment with substance

In the months leading up to the release of "The Hunger Games," it was positioned as the next huge book to movie sensation in the tradition of "Harry Potter" and "Twilight." A record number of advance tickets were sold and the movie had a massive opening weekend of $153 million. Is it worth all the hoopla?

I can say, with a sigh of relief, that, while the film is drawing the kind of numbers that the "Twilight" series has, this is not another "Twilight." Nor is it another "Harry Potter," at least not the early installments of that series. While "The Hunger Games" is based on the first of a three-part young adult series by Suzanne Collins, this is not a childish story.

"The Hunger Games" is set in a dystopian society in which the affluent and powerful live in the Capitol. Surrounding the Capitol are 12 districts that every year must offer up one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 to 18 to fight in a televised battle to the death. The survivor will be heralded and their district rewarded. This sacrifice is in penance for a years-earlier rebellion. The tradition is supposed to represent the government's mercy and the districts' respect.

The protagonist of the film is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who volunteers herself as a combatant, or tribute, for the Hunger Games in place of her little sister (Willow Shields), who she was chosen for the competition. Katniss is joined from her district by Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), who proclaims a secret love for her.

As is true with much science fiction, particularly those set in bleak futures, "The Hunger Games" is meant to reflect the issues that plague our society. It is a cautionary parable that may seem extreme, but gives pause as some things ring a bit too true.

We are a culture that has become obsessed with "reality" based TV shows that often take the form of brutal competition. "The Hunger Games" merely takes that obsession to its most logical and deplorable conclusion.

The film has an impeccable creative team behind it. Director and co-writer Gary Ross also wrote and directed "Pleasantville," a very shrewd social satire, and he brings that same eye for critique to the scenes in the Capitol whose inhabitants dress decadently and act haughty.

Co-screenwriter Billy Ray wrote and directed "Breach" and "Shattered Glass" and co-wrote "State of Play." Those were all films with tightly told, detail oriented stories juggling many characters. The same holds true of "The Hunger Games," which tells its story cleanly even when presenting a barrage of characters and ideas. Collins also receives a screenwriting credit, which should be a relief to fans of the book.

The violence in the film falls squarely under the PG-13 rating. There are a few hard visuals — a brick to a head being the worst — but the film doesn't linger on the violence. This is a premise that could've been exploitive, but Ross shows restraint. The film doesn't glamorize or glorify the killings. The characters that are shown as taking sadistic pleasure in killing are portrayed as villains.

Lawrence as Katniss gives an entirely convincing performance that has quiet grace, strength and intensity. She also shows sweetness, compassion and vulnerability in the scenes she shares with a young tribute (Amandla Stenberg) she teams up with.

The book was told through Katniss' first-person narration. The film, wisely, doesn't rely on the crutch of voice-over narration. It is a testament to the power of Lawrence's performance that she doesn't need to say what she's thinking. Her expressive face says everything and we perfectly understand the emotions she is grappling with from scene to scene.

Hutcherson, recently seen in "Journey 2" and more or less giving the same performance, is merely adequate and struggles to hold his own with Lawrence. He is likeable enough, but there just isn't much there with him.

Lawrence and Hutcherson are surrounded by a top-notch supporting cast including Donald Sutherland as the president, Wes Bentley as the game's producer, and Elizabeth Banks as the woman that selects and manages Katniss and Peeta.

Everyone is on top of their game, but the standouts are Stanley Tucci as a flamboyant talk show host, Woody Harrelson as Katniss and Peeta's alcoholic mentor and, most surprising of all, singer Lenny Kravitz as the stylist that helps Katniss and Peeta make an impression before heading into battle.

Outside of Katniss and Peeta, the other tributes are not given much screen time before being killed off. A lack of character development for these other characters is probably the film's only major weakness.

I haven't read the book, but I am sure the other tributes were more fleshed out. It points to the strength of the film that I want to read the book to discover more about these characters and this world.

Comedy spin on '21 Jump Street' surprises

The world wasn't clamouring for a comedy version of "21 Jump Street," the late 1980s drama about cops undercover in high school, but now that it exists, it's a pleasant surprise.

A slimmed down, but not exactly toned Jonah Hill, is teamed up with the muscular Channing Tatum. It is a match up that works unexpectedly well as Tatum reveals comedic abilities that had, until now, not been utilized. In previous films, Tatum has often come across as stiff and dull, so here he is a bit of a revelation. He is funny, charming and has genuine chemistry with Hill.

The film starts with a brief prologue in which we get to see Hill and Tatum in high school. Hill is the teased geek and Tatum the bullying jock. Fast forward several years and the two have become friends at police academy with Tatum helping Hill with the physical stuff and Hill helping Tatum with the mental stuff.

After botching their first arrest by failing to read the Miranda rights, the duo are transferred to 21 Jump Street and sent back to high school to find the source of a new potentially deadly drug. The duo accidentally swap their undercover identities, so the shy Hill is now in drama and on the track team and the dim Tatum is in AP chemistry.

The screenplay by Hill and Michael Bacall is shrewd in its observations of how high school has changed in just a few years. The popular kids are now ecologically and socially aware and a jock like Tatum doesn't automatically float to the top of high school hierarchy. Instead the more geeky Hill becomes top dog.

While the film certainly isn't a realistic reflection of modern high school — jocks are always likely to have a place in the upper crust of the high school social spheres — there seems to be a kernel of truth in the shift of what is seen as cool. Things like comic books, video games and, thanks to "Glee," even chorus have become acceptable in the mainstream. Showing that shift instead of just perpetuating the usual teen movie cliques was a smart move.

The script also has a lot of fun playing around with the conventions of action movies. There are some very big laughs involving audience expectations not being met. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller spoof over-stylized action films by showing a bicycle chase in action-movie mode juxtaposed to what is really happening.

Lord and Miller, whose previous film was the animated feature "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs," have a lively, but not pushy style, particularly when showing the different "stages" the drug takes its users to.

The directors keep things moving at a brisk pace, but also allow for the characters to breathe. The film takes its time to develop a sweet dynamic between Hill and Brie Larson as the head drug dealer's semi-girlfriend. Similarly, the script also allows Tatum to bond with the nerdy outcasts in chemistry.

Hill and Tatum are surrounded by solid supporting players including Rob Riggle, Chris Parnell and, best of all, Ice Cube, as the foul-mouthed captain. Former rapper Ice Cube, who has been doing a lot of kids movies of late, reminds us that he has a very funny way with profane language.

Co-screenwriter Bacall also co-wrote "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World" with Edgar Wright, who co-wrote and directed the cop comedy "Hot Fuzz." "21 Jump Street" is a cruder and more tightly-paced film, but in terms of overall tone and story arc the film is close to "Hot Fuzz."

Both films are not jam packed with action and take the time to develop their characters before exploding into humorously over-the-top action endings. Hill and Tatum's character get to grow. This isn't exactly deep or even subtle stuff, but it is nice to see an attention to characters alongside the crass, goofball humor.

Disney's bloated 'John Carter' doesn't deliver

Disney's latest attempt at kicking off a live-action adventure series that could be its new "Pirates of the Caribbean" is "John Carter," a film following the exploits of a Civil War veteran magically transported to a very different Civil War on Mars.

"John Carter" is a flashy $250 million adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars," the first in a series of Mars adventures. Written in the early years of the 20th century, this series was one of the inspirations of "Star Wars" and was hugely influential on the sci-fi genre.

Much like Tarzan, Burroughs' other iconic character, John Carter spends most of the film showing off his rippling muscles. Taylor Kitsch, who plays Carter, has the well toned body, but perhaps should've spent a bit more time work on his acting chops. He is more than able in the action scene, but lacks charisma, depth or chemistry with his love interest, Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins).

For the most part, the film seems faithful to the source material with the introductions of the multiple armed green martians named Tharks and the feuding humanoid martians from the rival cities of Helium and Zodanga. To end the feud, Helium princess Dejah Thoris must marry Sab Than (Dominic West).

This adaptation by director Andrew Stanton and co-writers Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon also adds the Therns, which appeared in the later novels "Warlords of Mars" and "Gods of Mars." Therns present themselves as Gods and hold sway over the races of Mars. Mark Strong, seemingly forever typecast as a villain, is seen throughout the film manipulating the sides supposedly to keep balance.

On the level of story, this is all fine and well, but the execution is clunky and riddled with cliches. The most painful of which is the use of the monologuing villain, in which the bad guy, instead of simply killing the hero when he has the chance, explains his plans in very specific detail. It is a groan-inducing device that makes the scenes following it predictable and dull.

In movies like this we clearly know the final outcome: The hero will save the day and get the girl, so it is how you get there that counts. In "John Carter" that journey is rather pedestrian although there are a few saving graces.

There are some decent action scenes, but there's nothing that really lingers in the mind. John Carter, because of the differences in gravity between Earth and Mars, has super-human strength and the ability to leap really, really far. The scene in which he first discovers this is funny and entertaining. After that though his ability to leap becomes ho-hum.

The acting is also rather bland. Not bad per se, just, again, nothing that sticks in the memory. Collins is the exception. She takes the largely thankless role of a princess and adds at least some flashes of humanity to an underwritten character.

The best character in "John Carter" is Woola, a martian dog who becomes the title character's loyal companion. He is a fantastically rendered computer-generated creature (for that matter all the CG characters are first rate). Woola provides comic relief and is a genuinely fun character in a movie that otherwise takes itself too seriously. It also says something that a computer-generated martian dog with no dialogue has more personality than any other character.

Outside of Woola, the best thing about "John Carter" is a story frame in which the seemingly dead Carter wills his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara), his journal chronicling his adventures. These scenes are better handled than anything on Mars and feature a genuinely clever twist.

The problem with the film is that in the century since the John Carter character was created we've had "Star Wars," "Star Trek" and other space adventures that had more style, wit and substance than this adaptation of Burroughs' character has to offer.

Had "John Carter" tightened the slack pacing and added some sharper writing, the film would've been greatly improved. As is, it is an instantly forgettable two-hour distraction.

What makes a movie a favorite?

This week marked the one-year anniversary of “Lost in Movies,” my show on Valley Vision Channel 3 in the Mount Washington Valley of New Hampshire. In honor of the occasion, I led a discussion about favorite movies. This begs the question: What makes a film a favorite rather than just a film that one really likes?

For a film to reach the stature of being a favorite it must speak to the viewer in a way that feels personal. Perhaps the movie states your world view better than you ever could, or maybe a film simply reminds you of what it is like to hang with your friends.

A favorite film doesn’t need to be a good or even a great film. It can just be a movie that when you first saw it made you laugh so hard that now, whenever you feel down, it is the film you watch to lift your spirits. Then there’s always the nostalgia factor associated with films. The films we watched over and over again in our youth tend to stay with us forever.

Often films, like any art, help us figure out who we are. Those films that make that kind of impact become signifiers of a time and place. This is part of the reason we become offended when someone dismisses a film we adore. The film in question is more than just another movie — it is a part of you, so in a way it feels like you are also being dismissed.

As a kid, I primarily watched sci-fi, fantasy and adventure films. The films I watched on loop were “Back to the Future,” “Ghostbusters,” “Indiana Jones,” “The Neverending Story,” Labyrinth,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Star Wars.” These films stirred my imagination.

I used to run around my yard pretending I was in a Delorean traveling through time. My first day of kindergarten was made less scary when I found two kids playing “Ghostbusters” and they let me join them. Sure, they made me be the geeky Egon, but at least I had been accepted. It is these sorts of memories that make a film a lifelong favorite.

In my teen years, I entered my Mel Brooks phase. Things started off with more recent films like “Spaceballs” and “Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” but then that led to exploration of his earlier work. It was also around this time that my love of films started to become more substantial and I started making deeper connections and observations.

As I watched more Brooks films, I noticed a drop off in quality. I’ll always cherish “Men in Tights” and “Spaceballs,” but they pale in comparison to “Young Frankenstein” and “Blazing Saddles.” Brooks stumbled upon a film parody formula that worked for him and he continued to repeat it, but with less originality each time. This became my first assessment of a director's body of work and every time I watch Brooks it is a reminder of why I love to analyze film.

In college, my love of Brooks led me to harder stuff: Woody Allen. Allen’s earlier films such as “Take the Money and Run,” “Bananas” and “Sleeper” were in the broader tone of Brooks’ films, so it was a natural transition from one filmmaker to another. The difference is that Allen grew out of his slapstick era and I was able to grow with him.

Allen’s more mature comedies such as “Annie Hall,” “Manhattan” and “Hannah and Her Sisters” explored relationships, faith and art in ways that were smart, funny and sophisticated. These films made me laugh, think and feel. While I’m certainly not a neurotic Jew from New York, I could relate to many of the plights of Allen’s characters.

With films like “Annie Hall,” Allen basically created the modern romantic comedy. Without Allen, we wouldn’t have films like “When Harry Met Sally,” basically any Hugh Grant movie, or TV shows like “Friends” or “Seinfeld.” I’ve always had a love for romantic comedies, so much so that I was branded by a family friend as only liking “light and fluffy” films. In a way, that all ties back to Allen.

As I look back on my favorite films, it is clear how they each helped shape who I am today. I highly doubt I’d have become the quirky, goofy, analytical guy I am today if it wasn’t for the likes of people like Brooks and Allen, Cameron Crowe, John Hughes, Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith. So, thanks guys. We should hang out soon.

A goofy 'journey' worth taking

The weekend of the Academy Awards ceremony honoring the best of 2011, I saw “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island.” This time next year, “Journey 2” will not be winning any awards nor will it be appearing on any best of 2012 lists, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a fun time at the movies.

“Journey 2” is a loose sequel to 2008’s “Journey to the Center of the Earth.” The only returning character is Josh Hutcherson, who played Brendan Fraser’s nephew in the first film. Fraser is now out and Dwayne Johnson and Michael Caine are now in as Hutcherson’s stepdad and grandfather, respectively. That’s a pretty substantial upgrade.

Hutherson’s Sean gets a coded message from his grandfather that includes the coordinates for Jules Verne’s “Mysterious Island.” Johnson’s Hank, wanting to bond with the sullen Sean, agrees to take him to the coordinates.

To get there they get a helicopter ride from a bumbling pilot (Luis Guzman) and his gorgeous daughter (Vanessa Hudgens), who is, conveniently enough, age appropriate for Sean. They crash on the island, find grandpa and then search for a way off the island as it begins sinking.

The film goes on the premise that everything Verne wrote is true, so therefore the obvious way off the island is Captain Nemo’s Nautilus. Part of the film’s charm is how gleefully preposterous it is. This means when the Nautilus' battery is dead the natural answer is a jump start from an electric eel.

In keeping with that fanciful tone, it turns out the island also was the basis for “Treasure Island” and “Gulliver’s Travels.” This is an interesting idea that doesn’t get explored enough, but we do get Lilliputian elephants, which could replace ponies as what all little girls want.

In addition to tiny elephants, there are giant bees, which our heroes ride while being chased by giant birds. This includes a game of chicken that concludes in an absurd laugh-out-loud moment.

Logically, if there are giant bees, there are also giant lizards. This leads to the line: “Lizards, why did it have it be lizards,” a nod to “Indiana Jones,” the zenith of adventure films. “Journey 2,” while it pays homage to that series, doesn’t attempt to match it. It is content being bright, silly and teaching a lesson or two.

Johnson and Caine are immensely likable actors and their charms make the sometimes clunky, barbed banter actually work. Hutcherson and Hudgens are just fine, but aren’t required to do much more than inevitably fall in love. Guzman is funny, but is a bit too cartoonishly hammy and a few times comes across as trying too hard.

There are two reasons to see this film though: Johnson’s pec pop of love and Johnson playing ukulele and singing “It’s a Wonderful World,” which is honestly quite good. Seriously.

'The Artist' is a charming tribute to the silent era

“The Artist,” the odds on favorite to win best picture at this year’s Academy Awards, is a tough sell to mainstream audiences. Not only is it black and white, but it is also a largely silent film and many modern moviegoers assume that such a film would be boring. Those who are hesitant, though, should take the leap because “The Artist” is an engaging, accessible and charming film.


Set during the late 1920s into the early 1930s, “The Artist” marks the transition from silent film to talkies. George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), like many silent actors of the time, goes from being a huge star to unemployed once talkies gain popularity. In his place, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), an actress he helped get her first job, rises to fame. George struggles with his pride as Peppy offers to help him.

Of course, silent films aren’t truly silent as they have music. What they lack is spoken dialogue and realistic sound effects. This means that silent actors had to be very expressive and that the film score was even more important in getting across a sense of tone and mood. “The Artist” has an excellent score by Ludovic Bource that alternates from light-hearted whimsy to wistful melancholy. The score even quotes Bernard Hermann’s score for “Vertigo” to interesting effect.


Dujardin is an actor who seems like he was born in the wrong era. He seamlessly fits into the silent film format. He makes George part Charlie Chaplin, part Douglas Fairbanks and part Gene Kelly. With a broad smile and expressive face, he is effortlessly charismatic. He is paired with an adorable dog named Uggie who, excuse the cliche, will melt hearts.


Dujardin is an actor who seems like he was born in the wrong era. He seamlessly fits into the silent film format. He makes George part Charlie Chaplin, part Douglas Fairbanks and part Gene Kelly. With a broad smile and expressive face, he is effortlessly charismatic. He is paired with an adorable dog named Uggie who, excuse the cliche, will melt hearts.

Bejo, who like Dujardin has a bright smile and the ability to say everything with just a look, also seems made for silent film. John Goodman, who plays a movie studio head, is clearly relishing the opportunity to be broadly expressive. He has a great moment when he begrudgingly concedes to one of Peppy’s wishes.


“The Artist” does an excellent job of emulating the style of the silent film era, but some critics of the film have claimed that you’d be better off watching the classic work of Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and others.


It is true that “The Artist” doesn’t best classic silent film, but it is a good entry point. Writer/director Michel Hazanavicius is also using the silent film format to comment on silent film in a way that the originals could not.


There is a dream sequence in which Dujardin’s George can’t speak, but suddenly the world around him does have sound. It is brilliant allegory for the transition from silent to sound movies. Many actors could no longer work because they had terrible speaking voices. Ironically talkies silenced them.


“The Artist” also gets to add more modern acting techniques to the silent format. While the actors do perform broadly in many cases, there also moments of quiet introspection that seem to be more a reflection of today’s acting styles. It is fascinating to see the two acting styles working so well next to each other.


One of the other joys of “The Artist” is a dance sequence that recalls the work of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. Modern dance scenes are highly edited, but Hazanavicius shoots his dance number like they used to: one long take with the actors in full frame so you can see their every move uninterpreted. Dujardin and Bejo aren’t flawless dancers, but it is a wonderful sequence because, like the rest of the film, it is a reminder of a time not quite forgotten.

Taking a look at this year's Best Picture nominees

The 84th annual Academy Awards, air next Sunday, Feb. 26, at 7 p.m. on ABC, so let’s take a rundown of the nominees.

Two years ago the Academy upped the limit of films nominated in the best picture category from five to 10 to allow for a better mix of art films with more popular films. This year they changed the rule so that the final list can be between five to 10. The Academy made this change to assure that the final list didn’t have unworthy films padding out the list to 10. This year the complicated process in which votes are counted only deemed nine films worthy.

The new process seems strange because surely in any given year there are at least 10 great films. Film critics across the nation come up with such lists every year and none of which have needless space fillers.

Surely, there was a 10th film that could’ve filled out the list. At the very least the final “Harry Potter” film should have been there if only as the culmination of one of the most consistently solid film series in film history.

Of the films there were nominated, “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is definitely the odd duck. The film is neither particularly popular with audiences or critics. On the review-gathering website Rotten Tomatoes, only 45 percent of critics gave it a positive review. So, how did it make the cut?

Studios save the films they feel can get Oscar nominations until the end of the year. Academy voters are notorious for having short memories. This is why most of the films nominated are from the last few months of the year.

“Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” is a patented Oscar bait movie. It has big stars and even bigger emotions. The Academy loves a good, or even a bad, weepie. The film is about a child dealing with the death of his father in the 9/11 attacks and an adventure centered around what is perceived as a final clue from the father.

This is essentially the same plot as Martin Scorese’s “Hugo” albeit that film is set in France in the 1930s. Both films are nominated for best picture, but Scorese’s film, which is full of wonder, magic, humor and heart, only points out of the deficits of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.”

Terrence Malick’s “Tree of Life” is the sort of dense drama that the Academy is known for honoring, but, it is also the weirdest film on the list. It is a film made as art rather than entertainment and it is beautiful to behold, often moving and thought provoking, and one of the more impenetrable films in recent years.

Steven Spielberg’s “War Horse” is the kind of melodramatic epic that the Academy loves. The film follows a horse as it trades hands and sides during World War I. It is a well crafted anti-war film that is very good at hitting emotional buttons.

Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” is a whimsical, intelligent fantasy about a writer (Owen Wilson) who magically gets transported to Paris in the 1920s every midnight. The film becomes an exploration of how nostalgia has a way of blinding us to the good things right in front of us. It is not only of Allen’s best and funniest films in recent years, but of his whole career.

“The Artist,” the odds on favorite to win best picture, is a black and white (largely) silent film set during the 1920s and 1930s. A silent film made today is a tough sell and some have complained that it is a good emulation of the silent film era, but that you’re better off just watching classic silent films. Even so it is charming and sweet film powered by the immensely likable Jean Dujardin.

“The Help” is a crowd favorite exploring the civil artist movement through the maids that worked in Southern homes. It is an imperfect film, but it hits all its emotional bases with big laughs and big tears. It is an excellent showcase for some great actresses and it is likely to pick up some acting awards.

“Moneyball” stars Brad Pitt as the general manager of the Oakland A’s who, with the guidance of a young economist (Jonah Hill), buys a team based on statistics rather than traditional scouting techniques. On the surface, it is a movie about baseball, but, even if you know little about the game, it is still an engrossing, well acted drama with elements of light comedy.

“The Descendants” stars George Clooney as a father of two daughters simultaneously dealing with the imminent death of his wife and the knowledge that she was cheating on him. Co-writer/director Alexander Payne finds surprising moments of humor and emotional truth and in a film that feels honest and genuine.

M&D wins big at N.H. Theatre Awards

It was a good night for M&D Productions last Saturday at the 10th annual N.H. Theatre Awards at the Palace Theatre in Manchester, N.H. The company took home three awards and placed in the top three in four other categories.

For community theater, M&D’s “Talley’s Folly” won best set designer (Deborah Jasien), best director (Richard Russo) and best actor (Ken Martin as Matt Friedman).

When reading the finalist for best actor, the presenter joked, “Wow, that’s a lot of lines Ken, good for you.” Indeed it was a lot of lines. “Talley’s Folly” is a two-person romantic comedy/drama, in which Martin had the lion’s share of the dialogue. The show opens with Martin delivering a lengthy monologue directly to the audience.

Back in June I wrote this of Martin’s performance: “Challenged with an accent that could potentially sink his whole performance, Martin overcomes this would-be shortcoming and gives a solid performance. He makes Matt awkward, a bit goofy, but completely sincere and lovable.”

Jasien, who consistently does extraordinary work with the limited space at Your Theatre, really outdid herself for “Talley’s Folly.” In my review of the show I wrote: “The boathouse is yet another astounding bit of set design by Deborah Jasien.

The stage is entirely transformed complete with vegetation and flora. The authenticity of the set makes it easy to disappear into this story for 90 minutes.”

The N.H. Theatre Awards aren’t decided by votes, but rather an adjudication process with representatives for each company scoring the other companies. Each show will be scored in various categories by numerous adjudicators. The highest average score is the show that wins the award.

Through this process making it top three is also an honor. “Talley’s Folly” was top three for best actress (Heather Hamilton as Sally Talley), best production, best lighting designer (Mark DeLancey) and best sound designer (Ken Martin).

On the professional side of things, the Mount Washington Valley Theatre Company didn’t take any awards away, but left a mark on the ceremony. The company placed in the top three with “Hairspray” in the categories of best choreographer (Nataniel Shaw), best actress (Amber Coartney as Tracy) and best actor (Richard Sabellico as Edna).

As for the ceremony itself, it was a bloated affair clocking in at four hours. Most of that run time was padded with scenes from some of the shows up for awards. The quality of scenes ranged for shrill so-called comedy with M&M Productions’ “The Good Doctor” to a well performed bad idea with the Majestic Theatre’s “Frankenstein: A New Musical” to joyful, buoyant entertainment with the Peacock Players’ “Dinosaurs: The Musical” and the Community Players of Concord’s “The Drowsy Chaperon.”

Even with the over length of the evening, it is a worthy night that showcases how much amazing theater talent New Hampshire has to offer.

'Descendants' rings true

“The Descendants” is up for five Academy Awards this year including best picture and best actor for George Clooney. Is it really that good? I’d say yes, but this is a film that is dividing audiences.

I’ve heard several anecdotes of people coming out of this movie underwhelmed or even saying it was awful. Not everyone needs to love a certain film. There is no right answer in what makes a film, or any piece of art, good or bad, but, I can’t help but wonder what it was that turned people off from a film that I found to be so funny, honest, moving and genuine.

The answer could lie in what a person’s expectations are when they go to see a film. For some, watching a film is meant to be pure escapism and they don’t want reality reflected back at them.

“The Descendants” is a film that feels real from the way characters interact to their emotions. It is an entertaining film that includes moments with the power to move as well as some big laughs. This is a film that may hit too close too home for some viewers and this may be what causes a disconnect from the picture.

Set in Hawaii, the film centers on Clooney’s Matt King, a distant, but loving husband and father of two daughters, dealing with a wife in a coma who will die if taken off life support. He now must inform friends and family about his wife’s inevitable death, but that’s not all that is on his plate.

Matt’s eldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) informs him that his wife was cheating on him. This creates deeply mixed emotions in both father and daughter. They are both grieving the loss, but at the same time are full of anger toward her.

Father and daughter set out to find the man (Matthew Lillard) that was seeing their wife/mother. Along for the ride is Sid (Nick Krause), Alexandra’s boyfriend. She wants him there for moral support. At first he seems like nothing more than a dimwitted punk, but as the film progresses it becomes clear why Alexandra wants him there.

Oh, but there’s more. The title refers to Matt and his many cousins being the descendants of former Hawaiian kings. It is up to Matt to decide what to do with the last bit of land still entrusted to them.

This may seem like an overly busy plot or fodder for a harried screwball comedy, but director and co-writer Alexander Payne finds a delicate balance. Life can be like this. Tragedy can strike at the most inconvenient times and you must deal with it all.

As was true with his other films “Election,” “Sideways” and “About Schmidt,” Payne has a way of writing dialogue that feels authentic. His characters are intelligent and well spoken, but don’t speak in forced movie dialogue. The story never becomes schmaltzy, trite or overly manipulative.

As a director he gets performances that are grounded in real emotion. With material like this it could be easy to have big, over-the-top performance. That isn’t the case here. The performances are balanced, controlled and well measured.

Clooney gives a quiet, subtle performance. Some may unjustly hold Clooney’s looks against him as if a man in Matt’s position couldn’t look like Clooney. The performance speaks for itself, though. There are several moments in the film that simply focus on Clooney's face and he says more in silence than he could with a whole monologue. He captures Matt’s emotional turmoil and struggle to connect with his daughters

Woodley, who stars in the TV show “The Secret Life of the American Teen,” brings depth that her TV work never even hinted at. Like Clooney she must juggle complex shifting emotions of hurt and anger and she handles it gracefully.

The rest of the cast is also superb. Amara Miller, in her first acting job, as the youngest daughter holds her own with Clooney and Woodley and gives a believable and complete performance. Lillard, who is known for goofy comic performances, gives a surprisingly effective dramatic turn. Judy Greer, Robert Forrester and Beau Bridges do solid work as Lillard's wife, a grandfather and cousin respectively.

This may seem like a downer of a movie, but it isn’t. There is sadness in this story to be true, but it also finds laughs that are never exploitative. It may not be for everyone, but for those who get on its wavelength, it is a film that is warm, tender, funny and thoughtful.

Great acting brings Mamet's words to life in 'Glengarry'

Following an award-winning 2007 production of “Glengarry Glen Ross,” M&D Productions is taking another crack at David Mamet’s play with the same director, Dennis O’Neil, and largely the same cast.

“The reason we want to do it again is because we want to do it at our [Your Theatre] space,” Mark DeLancey, the executive director of M&D, said. Their 2007 production was done at the less intimate stage at the Eastern Slope Inn Playhouse.

This new production, which opens Feb. 9 and is running Thursday through Saturday for the next three weeks, takes advantage of the intimacy of the theater to help create the claustrophobic atmosphere of Mamet’s look at the dark side of real estate salesmen.

The new production also adds the opening scene that Mamet wrote for the 1992 film that wasn’t in the original play. This scene, the film’s most famous and oft-referenced, featured Alec Baldwin as a big shot brought in by the unseen owners of the shady real estate office to motivate the salesmen. He presents them with a cruel sales contest, the losers of which are rewarded with a pink slip.

In writing the screen version of the play it was as if Mamet saw a way to improve his own show. It is a heck of an opening scene that helps clarify everything that follows. It ups the stakes for the characters and gives the reason for their desperation. Director O’Neil takes on the Baldwin role himself and delivers the iconic monologue with vigor.

Mamet’s dialogue is laden with profanity, but it is also very sharp and observant of human nature, particularly the way men interact. He writes the way everyone wishes they could speak. Those clever things you think of saying hours after a conversation, Mamet has his characters think of in the moment.

The characters of “Glengarry Glen Ross” are more akin to con artists than real estate agents. They present the land they sell as the American dream, but the land is rotten and so is the dream. The way Ricky Roma (Kevin O’Neil) manipulates a possible client (Dan Phelps) is slimy and deplorable and yet, at the same time, you see the tremendous pressure put on these men as personified by the character Shelly Levene (Ken Martin).

Levene, a former hot-shot salesman, hasn’t had a sale in months and holds onto past glories to justify his existence. In the first scene following the prologue he desperately begs office manager John Williamson (Tom O’Reilly) for some good leads. Martin does fine work portraying a man who is barely holding onto his dignity.

The structure of the show is interesting, too. The first act is broken up into three separate scenes each with two men interacting. Each scene is forcefully driven by one of the actors, with the other taking a reactive role.

This give-and-take dynamic is most amusing in the scene between Scott Katrycz as the loud- mouth schemer Dave Moss and Andrew Brosnan as the mousy George Aaronow. Aaronow can barely get a word in, but Moss keeps saying “You’re right!” more or less to his own statements. The scene takes an unexpected dark turn that Katrycz and Brosnan play nicely.

The second act of the show shifts to an office setting and becomes an ensemble piece that pays off on everything set up in the previous one-on-one scenes. There’s very often two or three conversations going on at once and the dense overlapping dialogue is performed with precision by the entire cast.

Set designer Deborah Jasien, once again, creates not one, but two, impressive sets. Act one has a rotating Chinese restaurant set that spins around between scenes to reveal the next pair of actors. When the curtain comes up for act two, the restaurant is gone and an entirely believable office set is in its place.

Since director O’Neil and his cast are returning to this material, it is clear they’re very comfortable with it. There are complex shifts in tones going on here, but the show always feels focused and well paced. It is testament to the caliber of Mamet’s writing that suspense is created through dialogue alone. These actors match that writing and create characters that we both detest and empathize with at the same time.

For more information or tickets call the box office at 662-7591.

'The Grey' is more than Liam Neeson vs. wolves

“The Grey” is being advertised as Liam Neeson versus killer wolves, which does a disservice to the film. This is a intense, emotional journey of a group of men trying to survive in the harsh Alaskan wilderness.

The film opens with Neeson’s Ottway writing a letter to his wife who for reasons unknown has left him. Knowing anything about Neeson’s personal life adds extra weight to this scene. Neeson’s wife Natasha Richardson died in 2009.

You can hear the genuine pain in Neeson’s voice discussing his fictional wife. Images of the character’s wife haunt him throughout the movie building to a heartbreaking revelation that makes you wonder if the wife aspect of the script was the reason Neeson took the role in the first place.

The film centers on a group of seven roughneck oil-rig workers who survive a horrific plane crash, but are left in dire weather conditions and with ticked off wolves after them.

This premise of wolves actively hunting humans stretches credibility, but if you are able to look past that, the film is handled in a way that is thoughtful and, within the context of the film, believable.

Co-written and directed by Joe Carnahan, who made the bombastic “Smoking Aces” and “A Team,” “The Grey” has a measured pace that allows for character development. The film isn’t essentially character study of men and what it truly means to be a man.

The film was shot in British Columbia and the actors very often seem to battling against real snow storms. The authenticity of these scenes in the wilderness helps create tension. There are tautly suspenseful scenes, particularly one involving how the men will cross a ravine.

Those expecting a lot of action are going to be disappointed. The film is more interested in quiet moments rather than big action scenes. There are surprisingly philosophical conversations on faith and fear.

We don’t learn much about these characters' back stories. “The Grey” is in a long-standing tradition of movies about men. Much like a lot of war movies, the characters each represent an archetype: There’s the family man (Dermot Mulroney), the obnoxious loud mouth (Joe Anderson), the tough guy who is more bark than bite (Frank Grillo), the smart, rational guy (Dallas Roberts) and, of course, the reluctant leader (Neeson).

In “The Grey,” the group dynamic is also meant to run parallel with the wolf pack that is tracking and killing them for intruding on their territory. Neeson’s character is the alpha of the group. His authority is challenged by Grillo, who is very easily put in his place.

Each actor gets a moment or two to stand out. Mulroney has a touching monologue about his daughter. Outside of Neeson, Grillo has the most interesting character. For the most of the movie he a detestable jerk, but he slowly begins to redeem himself until finally you find yourself surprised by how much you actually care about him.

Then there is Neeson, who as he approaches his 60th birthday, has reinvented himself as the thinking man’s action star. Neeson does tortured hero better than just about anyone. His low, soothing voice can easily burst in a booming snarl that would make even the most vicious wolf cower.

Don’t be fooled by the trailers. “The Grey” is a well crafted, intelligent piece of filmmaking. Those anticipating brutal man on wolf battles will be greatly letdown. This is an emotionally draining film, but one worth watching.

Student artist profile: Erinn Reville finds her voice

Erinn Reville, a senior at Kennett High School, is the daughter of singer Holly Reville and sister of theater regular Shannon Reville. She has appeared in Arts in Motion’s “Disco Inferno” and “Guys and Dolls.” She will be joining Rafe Matregrano as the opening act for The Mild Revolution at The Starving Artist in Keene March 2. For more information visit thestarvingartistcollective.com and themildrevolution.tumblr.com.

You grew up in a musical household, what was that like?

Well, as a child, I’ve always liked to sleep a lot and my mother would always wake me up in the morning with music and so I sort of grew accustomed to that at a young age of always being around music. She was in a band, so I was around that a lot as well and that kind of formed how I am today with how I perform I think.

When did you first start singing?

I sang ever since I was a baby actually. I used to go in the shower with my mom and just sing notes. I was kind of shy with it when I was younger. Then I just blossomed and didn’t mind other people listening to me.

What was your first public performance?

Well, I guess in a play, “Guys and Dolls” and I was in “Disco Inferno.” In those I just sang along with others who had done plays a lot more and that opened me up a little more. My first time just singing alone was in “Guys and Dolls.” I had a solo part, which was interesting to sing.

Having an older sister that also performs, did you feel any pressure following in her footsteps?

Sometimes it was like that because everyone was like “Oh, Shannon is such a great singer. Shannon performers and she does so well.” I wanted to be like her, but then I realized that we are two different people. We both flourish in what we do and like to do what we do in different categories, so I think I came to terms with the fact that we are different in the things that we do. We just complement each other for what we do.

How long have you been performing with Rafe?

I’ve known Rafe since I was in seventh grade. I always looked up to him. He always brought around a guitar. We were friends, but we really didn’t sing together. Over the past probably year or two we’ve been getting together to sing a little bit, but it has been a lot more just this year getting together and performing. We write our songs together, too. That’s nice. Stay up all night.

How did this performance at Keene come about?

Over the summer I started working at Pac Sun and I met a friend of mine, John Remmetter, and he went to Kingswood. He introduced me to this band that he knows personally, which is The Mild Revolution. I did a cover of one of their songs with Rafe not knowing if they'd see it or not. The lead singer, Morgan Little, contacted me and we’ve been in contact now for a few months and he was like “Hey, I want you guys to come open for us. Just come down and we’ll make sure you get a 45 minute set.” So, Rafe and I are just pumping songs out just making sure we have enough to perform with.

Would that be a mix of originals and covers or is it all originals?

We are trying to hope for more originals than covers. We don’t want to just be that band that shows up and just plays other people’s songs. We will play one or two covers, ones that we like to make our own, like really unique, nothing that just sounds the same because we want everything to sound like us.

What would you say your influences are in terms of music and songwriting styles?

We really like The Civil Wars. They have that sound that we are going for of more like folky, airy, but at the same time dramatic, so I’d say that one is a pretty big influence. The Deer Hunter, we have been doing a lot of covers of those lately, which has really helped as a lot with our song writing at least because we have this little image going on.

What are your plans after high school?

I still want to perform, but I want to be a surgeon some day, so keeping everything that is performance-wise on the side, but keeping the dream in mind as well. That’s my goal in the end, but I am always going to have time to sing and if something comes up that way, matters well go for that, too.

Do you have any final thoughts of why you perform and what it brings to you and your life?

Performing for me is something that is almost indescribable in the fact that I just get to let out so much and express myself in a way that could be interpreted differently from other people like some people might take a lyric that I sing as something that is sad, while another person will be like “Wow, that is really inspirational.” That’s kind of what I go for. I don’t want just one meaning to a song or I don’t want just one meaning to what I say on the stage. It is how I feel and it doesn’t really matter who is watching either because I know that in the end I am making myself happy by doing it.