I expected a lot more from the movie “Taking Woodstock.”  I actually have talked to people who were at the original Woodstock in 1969 and I’ve heard all the mud stories, the hippie/love/flowers stories, the ambulance stories, the rain stories. Somehow, the real essence of Woodstock did not come to life for me in this movie. I know, perhaps I expected too much. But, for one, it is directed by Ang Lee, who is known for his brilliant direction in the movies, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” and “Brokeback Mountain.” (So, naturally, I expected a lot!)

Lee falls flat with his work in this movie. He tells the story of Elliot Teichberg. Based on a memoir by writer Elliot Tiber (whose name was Teichberg when the events in the film occurred), the film celebrates one lone little man who helped make Woodstock happen. Without Teichberg, there might not have been a Woodstock — as simple as that.

In the movie, Lee focuses on the townsfolk and organizers who try to get rich from this music festival, billed as “An Aquarian Exposition: 3 Days of Peace & Music,” which was held at Max Yasgur’s (played effectively by Eugene Levy) 600-acre dairy farm near the hamlet of White Lake in the town of Bethel, New York, from August 15 to August 18, 1969. Bethel, in Sullivan County, is 43 miles (69 km) southwest of the town of Woodstock, New York,  in adjoining Ulster County. Tiber’s family’s property is adjacent to Yasgur’s property and they set up accommodations for many of the festival goers in their dilapidated El Monaco Motel in White Lake, which becomes a hub of the craziness.

During the real Woodstock, during the sometimes rainy weekend, thirty-two acts performed outdoors in front of 500,000 concert-goers, awash in weed and acid. It is widely regarded as one of the greatest and most pivotal moments in popular music history and was listed on Rolling Stone’s 50 Moments That Changed the History of Rock and Roll.

The event was captured in the successful 1970 documentary movie Woodstock, an accompanying soundtrack album, and Joni Mitchell’s song, “Woodstock” which commemorated the event and became a major hit for Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. 

Lee would have made a much more interesting film if he had interspersed these kinds of stories about the musicians and the festival, as well as the concertgoers who trekked to rural New York in August 1969. Instead, Lee tried to tell Elliot Tiber’s story and meandered down a zig-zag plot of “going nowhere.” I was very bored about mid-way and almost walked out.  Lee is known for creating and exploring rich, multilayered characters in his movies. In this movie, however, Tiber’s character is only mildly interesting. Not enough is revealed to really care about him.

As for the groovy tunes, we never glimpse Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin or The Who, or actors playing them. The actual stage remains a distant dot of muffled guitars, and there are only a few Woodstock songs on the soundtrack.

Lee assembled a terrific cast, including Emile Hirsch, Liev Schreiber, Imelda Staunton, Eugene Levy and Paul Dano. But the script doesn’t give them much to work with.  Liev Schreiber gives one of the best performances as Vilma, a cross-dressing, former Marine turned security guerilla soldier. He is priceless.  Hirsch is stuck in the exceedingly underwritten, cliche role of a frazzled Vietnam vet and got on my nerves; I saw nothing of value in this character or in Hirsch’s performance. Imelda Staunton plays a hard-edged Russian immigrant, who is severe and unlovable. Even when she gets stoned on brownies, she isn’t much more likable. Another favorite of mine was Jonathan Groff who portrayed Michael Lang, one of the festival organizers; he reminded me a curly haired young Jim Morrison. Henry Goodman plays Elliot’s father, Jake, and he was wonderful in his role.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan, another one of my favorite actors, plays Dan, a townsperson. He had so few lines in the movie, I wondered why he even bothered with it.  Richard Thomas (John Boy from The Waltons TV show) played Reverend Dan and had a very small role also.

Our hero is Elliot, played nicely by the likable stand-up comedian Demetri Martin. Elliot is an artist of sorts who is struggling with being openly gay (although this fact takes a long time to unwind in the movie) and feels compelled to help his parents save the El Monaco from foreclosure. Although he tries to stay focused on the exploding tourism, Elliot can’t help being drawn into the intoxicating vibe of drugs and sex of the weekend.

There were funny moments in “Taking Woodstock” and it had a lot of potential. It just didn’t have enough of those layers and emotions to engage the viewer in a full experience of the ‘60s. The screenplay was written by James Schamus, and maybe this is part of the fault. Lee didn’t have a lot to work with regarding the script. However, Lee and his crew deserve high praise for achievement in production design and costumes. Lee does capture the fractious, joyful, monstrously evolving mass of the festival.  But, that’s about all. Lee could have used the 60’s music to move this movie forward, but he didn’t, which is a real shame. It could have rocked!

The film is scored by Danny Elfman, and there are tracks from 60’s heavyweights The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, The Doors, Crosby, Stills & Nash, folk legend Arlo Guthrie, The Band, and Steve Winwood. There are also some choice cuts from Joan Baez, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Tim Hardin, Country Joe and the Fish, Sweetwater Group, Canned Heat, Ultimate Spinach, and Fraternity of Men whose song “Don’t Bogart Me” is featured in a classic scene from “Easy Rider.” However, you don’t hear these songs in the movie, which would have made the movie much more interesting.

I think Ang Lee should stick to directing his passionate dramas (remember “Lust, Caution?”) and leave the comedies for other directors.  His attempt to tell a story about the 1969 Woodstock just didn’t do the festival justice.

I loved the movie, Adam, but would have rewritten the ending. But, that’s just me. I often want to rewrite the endings to make them more perfect. You know – live and love happily ever after. That kind of thing. However, this is a sweet, quirky romantic comedy that is worth seeing and the ending was fine and happy. 

Director Max Mayer struck a resonant chord at Sundance with this prize winning tale of love.  Hugh Dancy, who was nominated for an Emmy for his work in Elizabeth I on TV and also played Doc Schmid in Black Hawk Down in 2001, plays the lead role of Adam Raki, a man in his late twenties suffering from Asberger’s Syndrome, which is a high-functioning form of autism, a disorder that affects as many as three out of 1,000 people, reports a 2005 study in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. Some of the characteristics are the inability to read what other people are thinking and feeling, being obsessive-compulsive when it comes to the structure of one’s life, (like eating macaroni and cheese every night for dinner), being socially awkward and introverted, and becoming easily overwhelmed and anxious if there’s too much noise or too many people around. (I actually know people with this disorder although they don’t know it themselves.) He depends on order to maintain his life. His father’s war buddy, Harlan, is played by Frankie Faison of The Wire. He was one of my favorite people in the movie and served as a substitute father figure for Adam.

Dancy is brilliant in the role of Adam. He plays the role with great sensitivity and heart and could even win an Academy Award for his role. In the movie, Adam, a shy, socially sheltered, yet extremely bright man has to go on with his life after his father dies, who he has been living with.  He is a genius when it comes to electronics and astronomy. He meets his new neighbor Beth, played by Rose Byrne, a young, aspiring children’s book author who moves in next door. Byrne won the Australian Film Institute’s Best Actress prize for the current TV series Damages and was nominated for a Golden Globe for the same series. She and Dancy have a great chemistry onscreen.

When Beth meets Adam, she is intrigued because he’s nothing like the bankers and other “normal” guys she has dated before. She is drawn to Adam because of his charm, his askew way of looking at the world and his frank, open honesty. When she mentions not being able to see the night sky from her apartment, he creates a virtual solar system in his apartment for her. Then, he shows her a family of raccoons living in Central Park, unbeknownst to the world around them. Beth begins to teach Adam the ways of the world. He’s fired from his job as a toy maker and has to face going on interviews for a new job. She coaches him all the way. He becomes dependent on her to help him manage the social skills of everyday life. But, during this time, they fall in love. This presents a whole new world for Adam, along with challenges, as well.

Peter Gallagher (from TV’s The O.C. and How to Deal, to name a few) is excellent as Beth’s father and Amy Irving is wonderful as her wise mother.  While romance blossoms between Adam and Beth, Beth faces family pressure thanks to her “angled” (her mother’s description of him) father being under indictment. The secondary plot involving Beth’s father and mother, along with Beth’s emotional reaction, offers some outside tension in the story, but also reiterates that love is difficult and always making the right choices in life even more difficult.

This is not a cookie-cutter romance flick. It is not a “chick-flick,” but rather a sensitive look at how people with disorders might manage their lives, the world, and romance. Adam is a breath of fresh air in which its focus on a disorder that many suffer from, coupled with an amazing performance by Hugh Dancy and Rose Byrne is film-making you can appreciate and savor, long after you’ve stepped out the theater, wiped your eyes from the tears, and thrown away your popcorn.

By the way, the soundtrack is awesome, especially Joshua Radin’s song, “When You Find Me.” I’ve listed it below for your convenience.

Here’s the track-list.
1. Lucy Schwartz “Gone Away”
2. Joshua Radin “Someone Else’s Life”
3. The Hiders “Plastic Flowers”
4. The Alexandria Quartet “Into The Light”
5. Miranda Lee Richards “Beautiful Day” – (Previously Unreleased)
6. Joshua Radin f/t Maria Taylor “When You Find Me” – (Previously Unreleased)
7. The Weepies “Can’t Go Back Now”
8. Christopher Lennertz “Prologue Main Theme”
9. Christopher Lennertz “Planeterium Suite”
10. Christopher Lennertz “Courtroom Suite”
11. Christopher Lennertz “Adam’s Journey”
12. Christopher Lennertz “Reflection”

I loved this movie. I identified a lot with Julie Powell who wants to be a writer, but doesn’t know what to write. I think many writers are continually looking for their niche; some find it, some don’t.  I also loved the relationships between Julia Child and her husband, Paul and between Julie Powell and her husband, Eric. I loved the way they loved each other.

In parallel story lines, about a half century apart, the movie skillfully combines the true story of an unknown blogger from Queens, NY, with the adaptation of Julia Child’s memoir, My Life in France.  The blog led to the memoir that provided Nora Ephron’s movie with its title and the lesser half of its narrative.

Amy Adams plays real-life Julie Powell, a bored, unmotivated temp secretary. Amy is married to Eric, played by Chris Messina. They live in a 900 sq. ft. apartment over a pizzeria. The one thing she loves to do after a boring day at work is cook up delicious meals at night. This leads to a year-long culinary quest to cook all 524 recipes in Julia Child’s bestseller, Mastering the Art of French Cooking. She chronicles her trials and tribulations in a blog that catches on with the food crowd. The film simultaneously covers the years Julia Child, played wonderfully by Meryl Streep and her husband Paul, played by Stanley Tucci, spent in Paris during the 1940s and 1950s. Paul was a foreign diplomat who was eventually investigated by Senator Joseph McCarthy for alleged communist ties. This brought out an interesting part of history in the movie; many people have forgotten about that dark period in American history. Paul was cleared and all was well, but it’s a scary commentary on that time in U.S. history.

Screenwriter Nora Ephron blends the memoirs of Child and Powell together and I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the two. Amy Adams always delivers a sweet, memorable performance. In fact, she’s so sweet that when she declares to a friend in the movie that she’s a “bitch,” I thought, No, you’re not a bitch at all. What are you talking about? You’re sweet and cute – always.  

I loved watching both stories and I thought it was brilliant to add Julia Child’s story about the way she began her career.  There’s a lot going on in this movie. It’s a rich portrait of the beloved chef before she was famous, including a wonderful love story that shows us the incredibly poignant relationship between Julia and her husband, Paul. It’s a foodie movie with lots of mouth-watering food scenes and heaping piles of butter. They made the 5’6” Meryl Streep appear as a huge, Amazonian woman. Julia Child was a big-boned 6’2” woman. I imagine they used many stools for Meryl to stand on. I noticed that you never saw her feet in the movie. She dwarfed the other women. Meryl Streep plays Julia spot on –  incredibly charming, friendly, smiling – enjoying the world and food. Jane Lynch shows up as Dorothy, Julia’s sister, and was delightful. I would have enjoyed a bit more of these two together. They were giddy and wonderful.

Julia and her husband, Paul, move to Paris in 1949. She’s in her early 40s and apparently can’t have children. To give herself something to do, she enrolls at the Cordon Bleu in spite of the French headmistress’s disdain. In doing so, she fearlessly changed modern American cooking.  

I admit I didn’t know much about Julia Child before seeing this movie. Now, I’m eager to research her life and read her memoir.

Julia’s classic recipe, Beef Bourguignon, plays a prominent role in the movie. Watching Julie prepare this dish made me want to run to the nearest bookstore and buy Julia’s book and make the recipe. It looked absolutely mouth-watering.

In essence, this is a movie about discovering your passion and fulfilling your dreams. It’s about breaking stereotypes and crossing barriers to achieve your goals. Julia Child did it in the 1940s and Julie Powell did it to some degree in the 21^st century. This movie is not about trying to find a guy. It is not a “chick flick.” It is not about trying to be anorexic-thin and big boob sexy.  Rather, both women gained weight in their pursuit of cooking and good food and didn’t seem to mind, even though Julie mentioned it a few times. I loved the way Julia laughed to her husband and made fun of her “growing girth” because she loved food so much.  The point, to invoke the title of a book whose author has an amusing cameo here (played by Frances Sternhagen), is the joy of cooking.

In the end, Julie, who in an early scene in the movie, is humiliated by a table full of college friends who flaunt their BlackBerrys, assistants, multi-million dollar real estate deals and lucrative glossy-magazine gigs, shows up all her friends,  eventually winning a book and movie deal. And Julia, similarly, overcomes the xenophobia and sexism of the French culinary establishment and the myopia of an American publisher and becomes the person we know as Julia Child.

The real Julia Child died in 2004, ten years after her beloved husband, Paul, died in 1994 after suffering a stroke. Theirs was a beautiful friendship, partnership and relationship, sustained by food and nurtured with the heart. If only we all could be so lucky.

I loved Quentin Tarantino’s new film, Inglourious Basterds. (These words are intentionally misspelled in the movie title. Not sure why.) The movie is visually beautiful and exciting with lush photography and artful cinematography. And the soundtrack is outstanding. Tarantino knows how to use music effectively in his movies and I loved every minute of it in this one. In essence, this movie is about revenge. I am not a person who believes in getting revenge; I believe life will take care of that for you. But, just for fun, this movie about revenge, Hitler and World War II was pure entertainment.

Taking his cue from World War II action movies like The Dirty Dozen, Devil’s Brigade and 1978’s original Inglorious Bastards (yes, both words were spelled correctly in that version), Tarantino has created a relatively straightforward storyline in which a special unit of Jewish Americans land in occupied France and start scalping Nazis. Their goal is to kill all the Nazis they can find. They take great pleasure in it. They later cross paths with a theater owner with her own scheme.

It is worth noting that the Second World War has produced endless fun, yet serious films: The Dam Busters, The Great Escape, and Where Eagles Dare, to name a few. And Inglourious Basterds is a heroic addition to the genre. The dialogue is smart, intelligent and the violence is gritty, but not overly done. I did have to squint my eyes through some of the scenes of blood and gore (and scalping), but not as much as I had anticipated.

In summary, Inglourious Basterds is a story about Nazi-occupied France, and a young Jewish refugee, Shosanna Dreyfus, played by a beautiful French actress Melanie Laurent, who witnesses the slaughter of her family by Colonel Hans Landa, a Nazi officer who hunts down French Jews. Narrowly escaping with her life, Shosanna reappears later in the movie in Paris, France as the owner of a theater. She plots her revenge when German war hero, Fredrick Zoller, played by Daniel Bruhl, quickly takes an interest in her and arranges an illustrious movie premiere at her movie theater. With the promise of every major Nazi officer (including Hitler) in attendance, the event catches the attention of the “Basterds,” a group of Jewish-American guerrilla soldiers led by the ruthless Lieutenant Aldo Raine, played by Brad Pitt who sports a moustache and drawn-out Southern accent. These “Basterds” are famous throughout the Third Reich for scalping and brutally killing Nazis. As the relentless executioners advance with their own plot and the conspiring young girl’s plans are set in motion, their paths will cross for a fateful evening that will shake the very annals of history.

Heading up the opposition is SS Colonel Hans Landa, played brilliantly by Christophe Waltz. He is one of the best things about this movie. With his unctuous portrait of a stiff, upper-crust brute sheathed inside the cosmopolitan persona of a white-gloved aristocrat, Waltz delivers an outstanding performance that should earn him admission to Tarantino’s pantheon of gentlemanly villains. And, maybe an Academy Award nominee for best supporting actor. For the opening farmhouse scene alone, in which Landa spends 20 minutes acting like a perfect gentleman while soliciting crucial bits of information from his host, Waltz deserves, and will surely receive, an Oscar nomination.

Since Tarantino is a genius at deploying music to carry the moods of his movies, I sometimes felt as though I was watching a western that had transitioned to World War II. With excerpts from composer, Ennio Morricone, creator of the theme from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, there was a definite influence of Sergio Leone’s spaghetti-western showdowns as retrofitted into a World War II period piece.

Diane Kruger turns in one of the best performances of her career as the glamorous actress and double agent, Bridget von Hammersmark. And Eli Roth is effective as Sergeant Donny Donowitz, aka “The Jew Bear” who makes a bloody impression through expert use of a Louisville Slugger.  In a surprise appearance and totally uncharacteristic of him, funny man Mike Myers plays a nerdy and somewhat stiff General Ed Fenech.

To make the movie even more interesting, Tarantino incorporates cinema history into the plot. He works in references to Nazi filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, German silent-film comedian Max Linder and German director G.W. Pabst.  A critical plot point relies on a film inspired by an actual movie produced by Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

There are some French and German dialogue with English subtitles and even a little bit of Italian by Pitt’s character and a couple of other “basterds.”

To recap; the music is wonderful, the plot is thought provoking and interesting, the cinematography is visually stunning and exciting, the actors are brilliant and the direction is superb. Go see this movie, sit back and get ready to be highly entertained.

Sam Bradley’s new music video, “Sea Blue” is filled with tender emotion, questions about life and love, choices and pain…

Sam Bradley has launched his new music video “Sea Blue” on his MySpace page at: www.myspace.com/sambradley and on YouTube at http://www.Youtube.com/watch. This video comes as a precursor to the release of his new EP release on Friday, August 29^th, Sam’s birthday. (He’ll be 23 years old!)

Sam’s new music video is adding an exciting, complimentary visual dimension to his music that is already highly enjoyable to his fans. Part Jack Johnson, part Eckhart Tolle, Sam Bradley is a troubadour of the anodyne — an emotionally humane John Mayer, a slicker Paul Simon — and at times a devilishly effective one. If you’ve had the good fortune to see Sam Bradley in concert, you’ll understand what I mean. His personality is fun, upbeat, personable and warm.

Sam’s song that’s featured in his video, “Sea Blue” is one of the most indelible, romantic, soulful pop songs in recent years. A commentary on love with its soulful lyrics such as “It takes more than love in life,” and “Kiss the world goodnight now; it’s you I want to hold,” the song and video capture intimate moments of love and a relationship. Shot and directed by Zack Spiger, the video was filmed at Aktion studios in Paris, France. It is beautifully shot with languishing moments on the seashore interspersed with photos that depict the main character’s life. The two main characters in the video are played by Sam and a beautiful French woman. They playfully skip across ocean rocks on a desolate sandy beach with ocean waves lapping and frothing on the shores. The video has a realness to it that approaches almost a documentary feel about this couple’s relationship. It’s haunting, beautiful and painful. Watching the love and the sorrow of its beauty conjures up moments of past and fleeting loves in our lives. 

A razzle-dazzle wordsmith, Sam is a serious vocalist and a sober songwriter who can also mix it up and simply have fun. But in this video, his sensitivity is clearly reflected in the song “Sea Blue” as we catch a glimpse of Sam’s soulful shimmer. Sam’s intelligence arrives in flickers, shining through the fog of his good will, his passion and his kindness.  The story in the video escalates in emotion and mood as the song continually reflects on life and love. Flashing scenes evoke a tumbling of emotions and frustration. The music video also subtly depicts the solitary life of a musician and songwriter and how it can be difficult to balance the two.

Zack Spiger does a wonderful job of capturing Sam’s mood and message. This video could be developed into a romantic movie.  Plus, the music would be wonderful as part of a soundtrack on a movie.  It is a beautiful video that will have a lasting effect on your heart.

I had high hopes that Paper Heart would be wonderful. Instead, it was just O.K. The movie has a charming premise and is filmed like a low budget documentary, following a musician, comedian and actress, Charlyne Yi as she travels across America, interviewing people about love. (Charlyne had a small part in Knocked Up.) In the movie, her character claims she has never been in love and doesn’t know if it’s possible to ever fall in love. 

Through her journey, she interviews children and older people, going everywhere from Las Vegas wedding chapels to Middle America. These segments are all real and are sometimes humorous, as well as touching. The real-life stories of married couples are whimsically illustrated with homemade paper puppets that I enjoyed. The puppets and interviews of married people were in many ways, the most interesting parts of the movie.

Except for Michael Cera.  Charlyne finds herself pursued by Michael Cera who she casually meets at a party. Michael is a real-life actor who starred in the comedy hits Juno and Superbad. He plays himself in Paper Heart and at times, you can’t help but wonder if Michael and Charlyne are a real-life couple who decided to make a movie together. Michael is one of my favorite actors and he is the reason I saw the movie in the first place. His dead-pan humor and comic timing is genius. He is indeed one of the best things about this movie.

Charlyne is funny and believable as a frumpy 23 year old, going on 12, who doesn’t think she can ever fall in love, with her tomboyish ponytail and droopy jeans with hanging suspenders. But, I never quite believe she is falling in love with Michael Cera in the movie. Their chemistry is one of friendship and I never feel the tingle of romance. Perhaps that’s the point. Perhaps the cameras in the fake “documentary” put up a barrier for Michael and Charlyne and they can’t cross that barrier as long as they’re being filmed.  When they resolve their need for privacy, there’s not enough of a resolution to feel satisfied from a viewer’s perspective. I would have loved to see them run away from the cameras and actually develop a believable romance in the film. I longed for a sweeping embrace or a lingering kiss. Instead, I was left with a vague idea of what happened.

Written by Nicholas Jasenovec, who also directed it, and Charlyne Yi, I felt as though they almost succeeded in making a wonderful film about love. However, this almost is a big word. The movie felt aimless in parts as if there was no real direction and I was bored mid-way, as the pace fell flat. Jake Johnson portrays Nicholas Jasenovec in the movie and does a respectable job. Seth Rogen had a cameo appearance and I would have enjoyed a few more cameo spots from other actors. David Krumholtz who stars as Charlie Eppes in the TV show, Numbers, had a small part in the movie, but no speaking part. I was actually hoping David would say something.

Charlyne and Michael composed the music in the movie and Charlyne sings a song she wrote. They should have left that out. It was quite bad and grated on my nerves and did nothing to open the heart.

Honestly, I wish Charlyne and Jasenovec had shelved the Paper Heart script and waited a few years, then rewrote it. I believe it has a lot of potential, but it was produced before it was ready. Of course, this is just my opinion.  Paper Heart actually won the 2009 Sundance Film Festival Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award for Jasenovec and Yi. Makes me realize I should start working on my screenplay!  I will add this: it’s great to see young filmmakers writing and producing movies with nearly non-existent budgets and minimal sets, even if I didn’t like the film that much.

District 9 is a futuristic, visionary Sci-Fi film that is told in a documentary-style news format, blending political drama and sci-fi flawlessly. I actually forgot that it was a movie and felt as though I was watching CNN.  That being said, District 9 is a very different type of sci-fi film. I can’t say it’s a “feel good” film at all. Rather, it’s a sobering look at humanity and mankind’s lust for greed and power.

The South African-born, Canadian-based director, Neill Blomkamp, does something remarkable with this movie that will most likely herald the beginning of many more experimental directives on sci-fi stories. Set in the near future, District 9 unfolds in Johannesburg, where, twenty years earlier an alien ship descended over the city.  The government entered the ship and “rescued” its cargo – ugly insect-like creatures that were nicknamed “prawns” due to their appearance. Refugees from their own planet, the prawns soon became refugees on Earth and are sequestered into a slum-like area – a shanytown hastily erected right beneath their ship. The ship hovers above the city, apparently unable to power up for the ride back to home.

Soon, the locals grow tired of the prawns who eat garbage and cat-food and insist they be relocated farther away from Johannesburg. This job is given to Wilkus van der Merwe played by Sharlto Copley. It is interesting to note here that Copley has never even appeared in a feature film before. Evidently, according to MTV News, Peter Jackson liked the idea of Copley playing the lead and he told the film’s director, Neill Blomkamp, who offered the role to his longtime friend and producing partner by saying, “Look, Peter is totally behind this.”

There were initial concerns that studio executives or investors would want a star, but in the end Jackson had the clout to keep the unknown and inexperienced Copley in place.

“I was never set to star in the film,” Copley explained to MTV News. “I was always going to be a producer on it, in my mind.”

District 9 is a smart, intelligent sci-fi film and Copley does a brilliant job as Wilkus. I honestly believe he should be nominated for an Academy Award for his performance.  The film is reminiscent of an apartheid drama. And, it’s part action with plenty of explosions and tense moments which will appeal to young adults. But, it’s much more. It possesses intelligence and emotion.  The CG aliens are so photorealistic, it’s hard to believe they’re not played by guys in insect suits. 

Copley plays a naive and fairly racist bureaucrat at Multi-National United (MNU).  MNU is a decidedly for-profit company that sees nothing but dollar signs and power in the aliens’ confiscated weapons – weapons that require alien DNA to be operated.  Wilkus becomes infected and strange things begin happening. The MNU’s bounty hunter, Koobus (David James) is a mean, ornery,  military guy who seems to survive even the harshest of blasts.  And while the film isn’t about how and why the aliens arrived on Earth (and specifically in Johannesburg), and why they can’t leave, moviegoers will feel a bit cheated out of such details.

You might be interested to know that all of the slum shacks used in District 9 for the alien living areas were actual shacks that existed in a section of Johannesburg. Residents were to be evacuated and moved to better housing by the government (paralleling the events in the film.) The residents had not actually been moved out before filming began. The only shack that was created solely for filming was Christopher Johnson’s shack – the alien who befriends Wilkus.

I’m not going to give away the plot. I don’t like it when people tell me “too much” because I’d rather be surprised. And so will you. I do wish we could have had more back story about why the aliens arrived and why they hadn’t returned to their planet, or why no other beings from their planet had attempted to rescue them. The movie does show their compassionate side through a couple of the prawns – a father and his son. However, it seems the other prawns are insect-like beings with no emotion or intelligence. The screenplay writers, Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell could have given us more information about the prawns, which would have helped us empathize more with their predicament.

Clinton Shorter’s music score moves the movie at just the right moments, giving it the perfect mood between regret, fear, remorse and empathy.

For Sci-Fi fans, District 9 is a MUST see and for others it is an excellent adventure with a lot of action. There is some violence but no real gore. It does have an R rating but it is mostly because of the language.

Fundamentally, even though this isn’t a “feel good” story, this is a story of reconciliation, courage, love and hope. Go see it today.

FUNNY PEOPLE

This has to be one of Adam Sandler’s most poignant, heartfelt and serious performances since his role in Reign Over Me, co-starring Don Cheadle. In Funny People, Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Leslie Mann star in the story of a famous comedian who has been told he has a fatal blood disease.

This is Judd Apatow’s third R-rated comedy, but this movie is far above his other slap-happy, toilet-humor type movies like Knocked Up (which I didn’t like at all. I wanted to gag Katherine Heigl. All of that screaming got on my nerves) and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, (which I enjoyed very much.)

Adam Sandler portrays George Simmons, a highly successful stand-up comedian and star of silly Hollywood movies. However, Funny People explores a deeper, more serious side of comedy. It focuses on the aloneness in a world where you’re a celebrity and surrounded by “yes” men and girls who want to sleep with you just because you’re famous. 

George learns that he has an untreatable blood disorder and is given less than a year to live. Ira, played wonderfully by Seth Rogen, is a struggling up-and-coming stand-up comedian who works at a deli in Los Angeles and has yet to figure out his onstage persona. One night, these two perform at the same club and George takes notice of Ira. George hires Ira to be his semi-personal assistant and writer and they become friends. Ira is flattered by George’s attention, but he’s eager for his own career, too.  

There are several funny scenes in the movie and Jonah Hill is hilarious as Leo Keonig, one of Ira’s roommates. The scenes of Ira and his greedily ambitious friends and roommates, Leo and Mark, an actor on a popular TV series played aptly by Jason Schwartzman, are priceless. They display an easy camaraderie in spite of their competitiveness.

Meanwhile, we get to watch George and Ira’s relationship develop as we also otice the juxtaposition between the lives of the famous and the not-so-famous, which in Hollywood terms means the powerful and the weak.

There are some great cameos featuring Sarah Silverman, Norm Macdonald, Eminem and Ray Romano.

George reaches out to an old lover, who he has fantasized about ever since they broke up, wondering why he ever let her go. That rekindled flame, Laura, is played by Mr. Apatow’s wife, Leslie Mann, a brittle, lightweight comic talent who giggles at just the right moments. Eric Bana plays her husband from Australia. It’s nice to hear Bana talk in his true, Australian accent as he’s an Aussie. 

The movie poses the question, “What would you do if you knew you were dying?” Then, “What would you do if you had a second chance at life?” It illustrates how our memories can become better than the reality. And it aptly shows how fame and success can be one of the loneliest places on planet earth.

Go see the movie. You’ll understand what I mean.

This movie is based on the bestselling book, The Time Traveler’s Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger. In the movie, Eric Bana stars as Henry  DeTamble, a dashing, handsome, adventuresome librarian/researcher who travels involuntarily through time. Clare Abshire, played by Rachel McAdams (who starred in The Notebook), is an artist whose life changes forever the day she meets Henry when he time travels back in time and visits her when she’s a little girl.

It’s a clever and inventive story, as well as an intriguing science fiction concept. Unfortunately, the book is so much better. The book is 560 pages long and provides an in-depth and realistic character study of both Henry and Clare, as well as a touching love story.  The movie version of a book such as this is never as satisfying; (think Twilight and Harry Potter,) but it does a respectable job at portraying the emotional depth of both Henry and Clare. However, it lacks sorely when it comes to portraying Henry and Clare’s best friends and social network.

Henry, who has a rare genetic anomaly called Chrono Displacement disorder, time-travels to the past, present and future. But, the main drawback is that he can’t control when he goes or where he goes. Still, he manages to hold down a job at a Chicago library and maintain an apartment, makeshift as it is. The only constant seems to be that when he time-travels, he leaves his clothes behind and shows up naked at his destination. This causes a lot of chases by the police as Henry has to break into homes and commercial buildings to steal clothes wherever he can.  

Actor Stephen Tobolowsky does a good job as the geneticist who tries to help Henry and Clare forge some sort of normal life, but I would have liked to have seen more of him in the movie. In the book, he becomes a trusted friend.

Because of Henry’s time-travel escapades, there are some wonderful paradoxes. From his point of view, he first met his wife, Clare, when he was 28 and she was 20. She ran up to him exclaiming that she’d known him all her life. He, however, had never seen her before. But when he reaches his 40s, already married to Clare, he suddenly finds himself time travelling to Clare’s childhood and meeting her when she’s a 6-year-old, (played by Brooklynn Proulx who is adorable and a perfect younger version of Rachel McAdams.)

Henry and Clare eventually have a daughter to whom they pass on the time-travel gene, but it doesn’t seem to bother the kid. She’s a prodigy and is learning how to control the time travel.

The book alternates between Henry and Clare’s points of view, and so does the narration. This would have made the movie a bit more fast-paced and interesting. The movie dragged a bit and I kept wishing that it would go faster like the book does. I could not put the book down and stayed up one whole weekend, exhausting myself until I finished it. 

Bruce Joel Rubin, (an Oscar winner for “Ghost,” a supernatural love story that was one of the best ever) wrote the screenplay and I felt like he left out some important scenes from the book that would have made the pace of the movie more intense and the love scenes more memorable. Plus, he failed to illustrate Henry’s devil-may-care, reckless personality as a young adult, which is prominent in the book. In the movie, Henry is calm and detached.

The director of this movie, Robert Schwentke did a beautiful job with the cinematography and evolving love story, but he fell short when it came to the pace of the movie. Viewers should have been sitting on the edge of their seats, but they weren’t.

The music fell short, too. Music is a wonderful way to set the tone and pace of the movie, and I just didn’t feel it in this one.

All in all, it’s hard to give an unbiased review of this movie because I read the book and expected so much more. Perhaps if you’ve never read the book, you’ll be more captivated by the movie. It’s worth seeing, if for no other reason than to watch Eric Bana, who is gorgeous and a wonderful actor. And it is a tender love story. It pulls at the heartstrings and presents the question, “Is it possible to change our destiny?” Also, we’re left wondering, “Is the future set in stone?” I don’t believe it is and based on this, I think the movie could have had a different ending.

But, go and see it. I’d be interested in hearing what all of you think about the movie!