Movie Review: "127 Hours"

In 2003, hiker Aron Ralston found himself literally trapped between a rock and a hard place.

While hiking in a Utah canyon, a boulder dislodged and pinned Ralston in the gap by his arm. For five days, Ralston fought hunger, thirst and pain before finally using a dull pocket knife to amputate the appendage and escape to safety.

It's a harrowing and intense story, even without any visuals. And much of the early press for Danny Boyle's "127 Hours," which is based on these events, has focused on how audiences have reacted to the climactic amputation sequence, with a few reports of fainting at early screenings. The stories have caused some people I know to say they couldn't bring themselves to see the film.

That's a shame. While a suspense-riddled and intense survival tale, most audience members aren't likely to leave "127 Hours" feeling sick or upset. I suspect exhilaration is a more common experience. Rather than create a dark and graphic "dare you to look" story, Boyle weaves a tale that is just as much a celebration of life and the human spirit as his "Slumdog Millionaire." It's a true-life adventure, wrapped up in a meditation of what keeps pushing humans on when all hope is lost.

James Franco, who seems to flip between drama and comedy, has found a role that will define the rest of his career. As Ralston, he captures the spirit of a man with an insatiable thirst for life and adventure, and a dangerous sense of independence. Ralston's a self-described "hard hero" who helps with survival and rescue missions, but he neglects to tell anyone where he's going on this excursion and doesn't bring along a cell phone or any means of contact.

Aside from a flirtatious meeting with two female hikers early in the film, Franco is the only face on the screen for the majority of the run time. And, trapped in a narrow canyon with his arm pinned to a boulder for the majority of 90-minutes, he brings to life the frustration, fear, determination and intelligence that fueled Ralston during his five-day ordeal. At times he collapses in tears as he realizes his plight; at other times, the comedic sensibilities that served Franco so well in "Pineapple Express" come into play, such as when Ralston airs his feelings on a mock interview show he captures on his video camera. It's a fantastic performance that shows a range to Franco that I was unaware existed prior to this.

Boyle, a director who has helmed everything from junkie dramas ("Trainspotting") to zombie movies ("28 Days Later") to children's films ("Millions"), has his work cut out for him here; it's not easy to helm a movie that takes place in two feet of space featuring a lead character who can't move. Boyle utilizes every trick in the book - pulsing soundtracks, split-screens, switching film stocks - to keep the story moving, from its adrenaline-charged opening sequences to the riveting hallucinations Ralston endures in the canyon. In doing so, he expands the story from a simple tale of survival to a meditation of meaning, our need to depend on others and the triumph of the human spirit. With Franco commanding the screen and Boyle masterfully manipulating everything behind the camera, "127 Hours" is a constantly riveting and powerful experience.

I know some won't be able to stop thinking about the amputation sequence and, yes, it is intense, as Boyle uses sound effects to suggest more than he actually shows. But my hunch is that the scene is so intense not because it's graphic - audiences primed by the "Saw" films have been shown much worse - but because it really happened. Boyle drags us into that moment to share, as much as he can, what Ralston endured in that canyon.

But by sticking with that moment, viewers are rewarded with a life-affirming and triumphant final act that makes all the discomfort and pain worth it. The film's final moments are among the most joyous and victorious I've seen in years and a parting shot of the real Aron Ralston only underscores the story's heroic nature.

Lately, it seems that every "great" film has to feature a tragic ending. While that sometimes is the ending that fits, the truth is I miss being elated as the credits roll. With "127 Hours," Boyle and Franco take us to some dark and dangerous places, but reward us with an ending that reminds us of the heroism of which we're all capable.

This is one of 2010's best films.

Originally posted at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows--Part I"

After 10 years, six films and billions of dollars in box office receipts, it's finally time to say goodbye to Harry Potter.

But don't worry honorary Hogwarts students: It's going to be a long farewell.

JK Rowling bid adieu to the beloved wizard in one massive tome, released in 2007. Warner Brothers, astutely realizing that there is still plenty of money to milk from muggle moviegoers, made the decision to split the grand finale into two films, with the conclusion due in theaters July 2011.

Yet what might seem to be another Hollywood money grab is actually the best thing to happen to the franchise, allowing Rowling's characters to finally breathe and grow up without rushing to hit every plot point and wrapping up the story in two hours. The love and care put into this first part of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" almost makes me wish all the other films had been split up this way - at least beginning with "Goblet of Fire," when the stories became darker and more complex.

Director David Yates expects that audiences have avidly followed the other films in the series and picks right up after the events of "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince," without so much as a pre-credit recap. Hogwart's headmaster Dumbledore has been murdered by Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), the Ministry of Magic has been infiltrated and overthrown by Voldemort's Death Eaters, and wizards everywhere are going underground, fearing for their lives. Harry, along with friends Ron and Hermione, set out into the big, dark world to find and destroy the remaining Horcruxes - artifacts that hold pieces of Voldemort's soul and can allow him to be defeated once and for all.

If the preceding paragraph makes no sense to you, you're probably better to hit the video store and catch up on the series before buying a ticket for this final ride. "The Deathly Hallows" is less interested with garnering new fans as it is with satisfying those who have grown up with Harry and the gang over the past decade.

As the characters have matured, so has the series, both in print and on film. What started as a whimsical children's tale has grown into a surprisingly complex, dark and imaginative fantasy that rivals the works of Tolkien and Lewis in popularity. Just as with the book, this final chapter is a dark and harrowing adventure, without even the comfort of Hogwarts to reassure the heroes or provide familiarity.

Freed of the stricture of the school-year formula that dominated the previous installments, Yates turns this into the most grown-up film in the franchise so far. The film careens from an opening chase sequence through the city to a mysterious encounter in a small village before spending time in the forest for an extended period. This portion, which tended to drag in the book, actually provides a great opportunity for Yates to let the characters breathe a bit and show some depth that had been lacking in the preceding films.

It's a bit shocking to realize that much of the franchise's core audience has, in fact, grown up right alongside Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Plucked from obscurity 10 years ago to headline a major franchise, it's fascinating to have had the opportunity to watch them grow into adulthood and turn into fine young actors, all of whom have the chance to shine here. Radcliffe has turned Harry from a naive and awestruck young boy to a tortured hero, but still manages to keep a sense of adventure about him. Watson has found a way to blend wit and emotion with the character of Hermione; a heart-breaking moment at the beginning of the film when the character must erase her parents' memories to keep them safe is her strongest moment in the series yet. Grint's Ron Weasley remains the humorous heart of the franchise.

Free of Hogwarts, Yates creates the most beautiful and haunting "Potter" film yet, with stops in the forests, on the Moors and in small hamlets providing bewitching backdrops to the action. He respects Rowling's work and remains faithful, but isn't afraid to deviate when necessary. One such deviation, which finds Harry and Hermione finding some joy in a dance, is one of the most powerful and perfectly crafted quiet moments of the series.

Potter fans will find a lot to love here, as Yates makes sure to incorporate all the humor and excitement of Rowling's stories. In its 2.5-hour running time, he manages to bring back most of the major characters for at least one appearance, allowing some of Britain's top actors - Bill Nighy, Imelda Staunton, Jason Isaacs and Helena Bonham Carter - a chance to shine.

Those who have no interest in the saga will likely not find anything to sway them here. But that's to be expected - after 10 years, this franchise has found its fan base. And as the movie's final moments unspool, promising just one more adventure left for Harry and his friends in eight short months, I suspect those fans will feel a twinge of sadness at having to say goodbye so soon.

But at least Harry knows how to go out in style.

Originally published at advisorsource.com and in the November 21 edition of The Source.

Movie Review: "Morning Glory"

The new comedy “Morning Glory” argues that hard news and fluff can not only coexist, but are both equally important and essential to helping Americans start their days.

As a journalist, I want to resent this idea. But the film’s just too darn cute.

Rachel McAdams finally gets a role tailor-made for her talents as energetic, effervescent and over-caffeinated Becky, a producer at a middling morning show in New Jersey. A go-getter with a Blackberry constantly in her hand and a smile permanently affixed, Becky is defined by her job, as we see in a disastrous first date that opens the film. Not that Becky seems to mind the single life; she loves her job and is so assured that her boss wants to see her about a promotion that she has a shirt prepared saying “I accept.”

Such confidence is rewarded—as it always is in movies—by Becky being fired, not promoted. Desperate to prove her nay-saying mother wrong, Becky scrambles for a job and lands one at a fourth place television network. Her boss (Jeff Goldblum) is initially weary of Becky’s inexperience, but hires her to shepherd “Daybreak,” a morning show that places dead last in the ratings. Eager to save the show, Becky shakes things up by firing the program’s lecherous male anchor (Ty Burrell), goading the weatherman (Matt Malloy) into outrageous stunts and forcing a reclusive reporting legend and news snob (Harrison Ford) to sit alongside the somewhat daffy and cynical female lead (Diane Keaton).

“Morning Glory” makes passing references to the way American news programs have devolved into ratings-starved circuses, trading in investigative journalism and foreign news for cooking segments and celebrity interviews, but it’s not interested in a serious exploration—if anything, it takes the side of the fluff. Rather than make any serious commentary about the state of journalism, “Morning Glory” instead wants to be a wacky workplace comedy, an ensemble piece with larger-than-life characters who butt heads, get on each others’ nerves and ultimately become a family. It’s less “Broadcast News” and more “The Devil Wears Prada” (which is fitting, as the two share a screenwriter in Aline Brosh McKenna).

It’s not a fresh approach, to be sure, but “Morning Glory” overcomes nearly every cliché and formula on the strength of its ensemble and the speed with which director Roger Michell (“Notting Hill”) propels the characters through the craziness. The dialogue is fast and sharp, particularly a frenetically-paced sequence set on Becky’s first day when she’s seemingly overwhelmed by the chaos around her and then barks back orders just as quickly. The newsroom is the typical sitcom blend of wackos and divas, but Michell wisely gives each supporting cast member just enough of the spotlight to elicit chuckles before they wear out their welcome.

McAdams, smiling and talking a million miles a minute, has never been as good as she is here. The actress has been typecast in self-serious romantic dramas ever since “The Notebook” and, while she’s never been unlikable, she’s never really had a role she could tear into like it was her own. Here, rushing around the newsroom and keeping a joyful disposition while the media circus comes to life around her, McAdams shows a true flair for witty repartee and physical comedy. There’s an infectious joy to her performance that she is somehow able to keep from toppling over into annoying. It’s the kind of role Meg Ryan was doing 15 years ago and calls to mind Amy Adams at her most winning.

McAdams is so good that she elevates everyone else’s game, but none more so than Ford. It’s been way too long since Ford has seemed anything less than comatose in a movie that doesn’t require him to wear a fedora, but here his curmudgeonly attitude is the perfect foil to McAdams’ optimism. Ford wisely doesn’t ham it up ala Jack Nicholson, but instead creates a believably serious news anchor who resents what his profession has come to. He’s effortlessly funny in the role, selling a scene with just a glowering look and rumbling delivery. Few will be surprised to learn that the character has a soft spot and wounded heart, but what is surprising is just how subtly Ford reveals it and how his opening up at the end is less of a character revelation and more of an inevitable thaw as the character comes to respect his boss. It’s a great role for Ford, who has been absent from good movies for far too long.

When “Morning Glory” focuses on the workplace, it’s a very funny, extremely enjoyable ensemble comedy. When it detours into Becky’s obligatory romance with a fellow producer (Patrick Wilson), it sputters and feels a bit too formulaic and cliché. I appreciate that Becky needs to come to terms with her own work addiction and learn to turn off the Blackberry, but the whole romance proceeds with a sense of obligation that is at odds with the energetic workplace scenes. It may have been wiser to find another way for Becky to learn her lesson, particularly if it gave more screen time to Keaton, who we don’t see enough of here.

Michell is a pro at this kind of stuff and the film looks beautiful. I wish he had trusted his characters and the setting a little bit more without having to lean so heavy on an unnecessary romance; he also gives in a bit too frequently to his love for montages—there are at least two sequences of McAdams walking or running through New York, set to music. They’re done just about as well as those scenes can be, but they feel out of place. Mostly I just wanted her to stop running and get to the newsroom.

“Morning Glory” is no “Broadcast News,” but it’s not pretending to be. No one here is setting out to make the defining satire about the modern news business—even if, at times, they come frustratingly close. It wants nothing more than to be a fun and fluffy feel-good movie. The fact that the cast exceeds the movie’s reach is a nice little bonus.

This review appeared in the November 14 edition of The Advisor and Source .

Movie Review: "Megamind"

Just two months after Steve Carell made evil lovable in “Despicable Me,” one can be forgiven for thinking “Megamind” is a case of been there, vanquished that.

But the new take on the life of a supervillain is a refreshing and original tweak on the superhero mythos, delivering smart laughs and capping a banner year for DreamWorks animation, which also released the sublime “How to Train Your Dragon.” If it hadn’t been for the latest “Shrek” debacle, they’d be competing with Pixar in terms of consistency.

Megamind (Will Ferrell) is a blue-skinned, big-brained menace constantly trying to defeat superhero Metro Man (Brad Pitt), guardian of Metro City. The two have had a rivalry going back to infancy, when both were launched from their dying planets to Earth to fulfill their destinies. Metro Man crash-landed onto a wealthy estate where he discovered superpowers, loving parents and the adulation of his peers. Megamind landed in a prison and has a pet fish named Minion (David Cross).

After years of battle and to everyone’s surprise—including his own—Megamind accomplishes the unthinkable: he destroys Metro Man. With his arch nemesis out of the way, the villain can now rule Metro City with an iron fist. But soon, defacing works of art and playing target practice with fire trucks grows old, and Megamind finds himself in an existential funk: what good is being a villain if there’s no hero to challenge? Once you’ve conquered the world, what else is there for you?

A cleverly-skewed and thinly-veiled take on the Superman story, “Megamind” has a great time playing with superhero conventions in much the same manner as the original “Shrek” did with fairy tales. Where “Despicable Me” had fun playing with the idea of making a supervillain sympathetic, “Megamind” cleverly subverts the superhero genre and presents some genuinely intriguing questions about its conventions. When Megamind discovers he has no more heroes to vanquish and sets out to make his own hero (Jonah Hill), he fails to realize that super DNA and a flashy costume alone don’t make a hero and winds up making the situation much worse. There’s also a funny and surprisingly affecting romance between Megamind and his favorite victim, reporter Roxie Ritchie (Tina Fey).

DreamWorks’ animated films have traditionally relied too heavily on comedic personalities, lazily plugging in dated pop culture references and jokes meant only for the parents in the crowd. Like “Dragon” and “Kung Fu Panda,” however, “Megamind” lets the comedians develop full characters—Megamind may be a villain with a bit of a reading problem, but there’s a bit of sadness Ferrell allows to seep into the character as well. He and Fey have a clever rapport with each other and the characters’ romance has the same sweetness that the “Shrek” franchise showed in its best moments. Pitt is clearly having a ball sending up his hunk persona and there are some great laughs to be had at tweaking Metro Man’s Boy Scout image.

Yes, Megamind finds his heart and, yes, everything builds to a happy ending. But the route that “Megamind” takes to get there is full of some clever and frequently hilarious twists and turns. The dialogue is witty, full of Ferrell’s randomness and Fey’s smart alec charm. The action sequences are surprisingly energetic and had me wondering why directors don’t just stop and make the next Superman movie a computer-generated adventure. The use of 3D, seemingly required in every family film these days, is actually quite effective. Kids will love the comic book heroics and adults will get a good laugh at the way the film twists and turns familiar tropes (I was particularly pleased with Ferrell’s nod to Marlon Brando’s work in “Superman.”)

“Megamind” isn’t the first film this year to subvert superhero conventions and, with Rainn Wilson’s “Super” in the pipeline, it’s not the last. But it happens to be one of the most clever and enjoyable yet and definitely saves the day for DreamWorks.

Movie Review: "Due Date"

Robert Downey Jr. endures cross country mayhem with “The Hangover’s” Zach Galifianakis in this frequently funny, but ultimately disposable frat boy riff on “Planes, Trains and Automobiles.”

Downey is Peter Highman, an uptight father-to-be trying to get from Atlanta to Los Angeles before his wife gives birth. When an altercation with the fey, irritating and impeccably permed Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis) lands the two on the no-fly list, they commandeer a car and begin the cross-country trek. As road movie logic dictates, the tightly-wound Peter quickly has his nerves frayed by Ethan, who lapses into bizarre bouts of stupidity, is fond of asking inane questions, carries a small dog along with his father’s ashes and has an unfortunate way of relaxing himself before bed.

If you thought director Todd Phillips (“The Hangover”) would bypass the genre’s proclivity for car crashes, run-ins with the law and encounters with ill-tempered fellow travelers in favor of nuance and heart, you obviously haven’t been paying attention to the “Old School” director’s resume. Phillips follows the road trip formula to the letter, including the leads’ obligatory fight and reconciliation and the last-minute dash to the delivery room.

But who am I to second-guess the director of “Road Trip”? The formula works because it allows Downey and Galifianakis to let their personalities clash and the ever-moving scenery allows Phillips to distract audiences with a variety of chaotic and sometimes very funny sequences.

Galifianakis worked so well in “The Hangover” because he was used sparingly, an unpredictable and offensive wildcard that scored laughs because of how deranged he came across. Ethan’s a bit cuddlier and more idiotic, dulling some of Galifianakis’ edge. But just when you think the comedian is getting a bit too cute for comfort, he pulls a joke out of his pocket, be it his obliviousness over finding a drug dealer on Craigslist or his impromptu auditions in a rest stop bathroom. Few people are better at playing annoying and offensive better than Galifianakis, who can summon a laugh with just a gasp.

Downey plays the Steve Martin role to Galifianakis’ John Candy but forgets that the film’s uptight straight man needs to have a heart to rediscover. Few do a slow burn, tart response or explosive expletive better than Downey, but he goes a bit too far with the snark and turns Peter into more of a jerk than a harried traveler. Phillips seems to have left most of Michelle Monaghan’s scenes as Peter’s wife on the cutting room floor, taking away much of the reminder of why he’s in such a hurry to get home. As a result, Downey’s character often comes across as quite unlikable.

Phillips long ago proved he’s a master of the big gag and “Due Date” features several very funny moments. Peter’s solution to babysitting for a drug dealer (Juliette Lewis) gets a huge laugh and Phillips has fun with several stops along the way, particularly an unfortunate encounter with Danny McBride at a Western Union. Downey and Galifiankis have a delightful anti-chemistry and some of the film’s finest moments involve them bouncing their particular tics off each other.

Several moments designed to add depth and heart to the film feel oddly truncated, particularly a subplot involving Peter’s old friend (Jamie Foxx). Peter’s fears of impending fatherhood and issues with his own dad are rushed over and even the film’s climax seems a bit too eager to get the audience home on time. Only a stop at the Grand Canyon for Ethan to say a final goodbye to his father has any resonance.

Little missteps like that keep “Due Date” from being ranked with the classic road trip movies. I hate to bring up comparisons to “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” again, except that this film so clearly invites them. The reason people return to John Hughes’ classic time and again isn’t just for the big laughs, but because the film has a genuine heart.

“Due Date” is content to just deliver “Hangover”-style laughs and, admittedly, audiences will likely be satisfied with that. It’s a trip worth taking; I’m just not sure how many times you’ll want to repeat the journey.

Chris's Classics: "Back to the Future" trilogy

I had the pleasure to go see "Back to the Future" on the big screen yesterday in honor of the film's 25th anniversary. I'm pleased to say that the film is just as much fun all these years later as it was the first time we laid eyes on the DeLorean.

As the trilogy hits Blu Ray this week, I figured I'd post my thoughts on it from back when I was doing my Alphabet Project about a year ago. My thoughts are all still the same except that maybe I love the movie a little more now.

Enjoy!


"Back to the Future"--It hit me about halfway through my viewing of Zemeckis' film how easily this movie could have been just another forgetable '80s teen comedy.

The plot was ripe for a raunchy, broad piece of trash. A teenager lives with loser parents and is friends with an eccentric scientist. He goes back in time and his mom falls in love with him. So he has to get her to fall in love with his father. Toss in a couple '80s jokes and music and you can see how the wrong director and cast could have made this a "Weird Science" or "My Science Project" type of raunchy, dated flick. And "Back to the Future" certainly has every right to feel dated--it's set in 1985, has a soundtrack driven by Huey Lewis and the News' "Power of Love," and contains jokes about Ronald Reagan, Darth Vader, Eddie Van Halen and copius use of the word "heavy."

But I guarantee that kids today still love "Back to the Future." There is something endurable about it that transcends time and generations. It's probably one of the few movies where the entire family will stop and watch it together simply because everyone loves it.

I think that's a testament to the work of director Zemeckis and producer Steven Spielberg, who make this movie feel much bigger and more epic than the plot would appear to allow.

Because, really, the plot is simple. Kid goes back in time, complicates his parents' meeting and endangers his own existence. Yes, there is the complication of getting him back to his own time via a lightning strike, but the heart of the film is really setting up the meeting of Marty McFly's parents.

But it's that plot that I think appeals to everyone. We've all wondered what it would be like to go back and see our parents as teenagers--where they cool? Dorky? What if we could see them fall in love? What effect does one moment have on the rest of a life? On a generation? Would we be friends with our parents or would we think they were dorks?

The great thing about Bob Gale's script is how it doesn't use the time travel as an excuse for cheap humor and gags but rather explores these concepts with heart and whimsy. Marty--in what is Michael J. Fox's most memorable role--is really an audience surrogate here...he's not really a deep, complex character. But because he's a typical teen who wants to take his girlfriend to the lake and dreams of rock stardom, we like him. And there's great humor in the complications with his mother's crush, his father's dorkiness and the bully Biff who would be a thorn in the family's side for 30 years. The film's biggest laughs and smiles come not from the time travel gags or 80s/50s juxtapositions, but from character-driven moments. George McFly calling Lorraine his "density," Lorraine swigging liquor and then pouncing on Marty (who she believes is named Calvin Klein), Biff's knack for screwing up insults.

The cast is just wonderful here. Fox is one of the most likable actors in the business--whenever I see him in a rare interview I think how much I miss his presence on the big and small screens. He's got a great comic timing and he comes across as an intelligent, funny kid--not a smart alec teen or an uber-nerd, as original choice Eric Stoltz may have come off. And he's got great chemistry with the entire cast--Lea Thompson is wonderful as Lorraine and Crispin Glover will always be known as awkward George. No one stands out or steals the spotlight but everyone is so genuine and likable that they provide a beating heart to this movie which, at its core, is driven not by science or plot but by a sweet love story.

I think Thomas F. Wilson gets unfairly overlooked when it comes to this series, by the way. Is there any doubt that Biff Tannen is the greatest bully in cinema history? He's dumb but he's also a bit scary--the scene when he goes after Lorraine at the end (prompting that fateful punch from George) is played seriously when, today, I think it would be played for more laughs to show a bumbling Biff. He proves to be the series' memorable villain and I think that people don't realize the range Wilson shows in the franchise--he's George's schlubby jerk of a boss at the beginning, a typical teenage bully in the majority of the film and a suck-up in the "new" 1985 created at the end. Then in part II he's Old Biff, sadistic grandson Griff, the big bad villain of Hill Valley AND his 1955 bully again. And in Part III Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen is definitely kin of the Tannens but with a wonderful Western flourish. It's a bit sad that we never have seen Wilson really live up to the potential he showed here (except for in his few memorable episodes of "Freaks and Geeks"--please Judd Apatow, use him again!).

And, of course, it would be a crime not to mention Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmett Brown. Were this film to be remade today (PLEASE don't!!!!) I guarantee we'd see Doc as a one-note, bumbling and kooky mad scientist played by Eugene Levy or Ben Stiller. And yes, Doc is an eccentric character--he cons Libyan terrorists out of plutonium and creates a time machine out of DeLorean because it's stylish. But I also love the heart that Lloyd brings to the role here. This is a frustrated scientist with inventions that don't work...who finds out that he will be responsible for the creation of a successful time machine. There's a geeky awe that fills Brown's face as he studies the videotape of the future and I love the nerdy glee with which he makes a model of Hill Valley and apologizes that it's not painted or to scale. It's a largely comedic role, yes, but like everything else here, there's a strong heart to it.

Which I think only Zemeckis could pull off--he's never been a director who wants to make lowest-common denominator fluff. When he did a cartoon he made the insanely large undertaking of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit." His Oscar winning "Forrest Gump" may be remembered for its quirky character, but it's also got a strong heart and ground-breaking special effects. Even his stumbles--I'm looking at you "Beowulf"--have been noble failures that managed to push the edge of technology and cinema. Zemeckis makes big movies. And while "Back to the Future" has a relatively simple story, it's a movie that feels big and magic.

As I said, much of that is due to its heart. But much of it is also due to the compact and airtight script by Bob Gale. In addition to being funny, it's also a wonderful example of screenwriting. There's not a wasted, useless scene or line of dialogue in the movie. Something interesting to try--pause the movie right before Marty escapes from the Libyans and is sent back to 1955; try to take stock of every piece of information you've been given in the movie up until this point--about the characters, time travel, Hill Valley, etc. EVERY single piece of dialouge ends up being vital and having a payoff in the movie. And its that tightness and focus that keeps audiences from drifting off--it's a fast-moving and energetic piece of work that never once lags. When you combine that with such great characters and wonderful pacing and editing work by Zemeckis--the climax of the film waiting for the lightning to strike is one of the best-timed set pieces in pop cinema--you have a formula that transcends simple entertainment and feels a bit like magic. And there's definitely a wonderful alchemy at work here that elevates "Back to the Future" above other films and explains why it's so beloved.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention Alan Silvestri's memorable score. In one of the behind-the-scenes featurettes on the DVD collection, Silvestri recalls that Zemeckis told him to compose the score so that the movie felt bigger than the images would suggest. And I think the big orchestral score is part of the reason the movie has such a wonderful feel to it--it really gives it an epic, larger-than-life atmosphere. I've tried imagining an average film score in its place and I simply can't do it without the movie feeling a bit cheap. Silvestri's work here is just as memorable as John Williams' scores for "Star Wars" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark."

And, like most great films, "Back to the Future" stands apart from its sequels. While I think Parts 2 and 3 are entertaining and fun in their own right, the fact is that they don't capture the magic of the original. And, in much shorter write-ups, we'll see why. . .

"Back to the Future, Part II"--When I was a kid, this was THE movie to see in 1989 for one reason: Hoverboards.

Zemeckis has stated time and again that "Part II" was not an original part of the "Back to the Future" plan...the "To Be Continued..." stuck at the end of the VHS copies of the first film was a bit of a sly joke. But once a sequel was called for, it would definitely have been a cheat not to pick it up right from the end of the first film. When Doc comes back for Marty and Jennifer and tells them they have to "do something about their kids" and then that DeLorean flies away audiences WANTED to see what happens next.

But I actually think the 2015 portion of the film is the weakest part of the trilogy and really falls prey to sequel-itis. Yes, it was fun to see them re-visit some of the beats of the first film but in a new setting four years after the fact. But when you watch the films back-to-back, it just seems a bit lazy. Michael J. Fox playing multiple roles is played for broad, cheap humor that never really works--Fox is a great actor but his comedy has always been based in characters, not in gags and I think having other actors play his children would have kept some of the heart of the first film (but I think Zemeckis probably wanted to see how far he could push having the same actor play multiple roles on the same scene). I also think it's a mistake in the first 1/3 to make Jennifer a major character...we all know Elizabeth Shue went on to become an accomplished actress but here she's just a bit too annoying. And Doc is really left to the sidelines in the first half of the movie...actually he doesn't really figure much in the movie until the final 1/3 (but he gets vindicated in Part III).

That said, I don't think the 2015 portions are terrible, per se. The special effects are still fun and there are some clever in-jokes to the careers of Spielberg and Zemeckis. I love the menace Wilson has as Griff and elder Biff; Part II is really the movie where Wilson gets to shine. And I think Zemeckis really was just going through the motions of this first act simply to get to where he wanted to really take the sequel...

Which would start with Act II, in the alternate-1985. Watching it again I was surprised how dark of a turn the series takes in this portion of the film. Hill Valley is turned into a hell hole as Biff has taken control and there's a genuine feeling of danger and edge as we watch the town we loved in the first film transformed into such a dark place. By setting up an alternate present where Marty's dad is dead, his mom is married to Biff and the world as he knows it is thrown in disarray, the heart of the first film starts to be beat again and we realize that the characters we loved so much in the original are in danger--we want to see things change back. It helps that, despite how bizarre the situations get, Thompson and Wilson never play the characters as cartoons. Lorraine is now a sad woman who hangs on to Biff because of what he can provide. And Biff is now a menacing, sadistic thug without a hint of the buffoonary we saw before. I don't blame audiences who may have felt unsettled by this alternate reality and yearn for the innocence of the first film's 1955 setting...

And then Zemeckis makes a wonderfully genius idea by taking us right back there and dealing in great detail with the implications of time-travel--parodoxes, multiple selves, etc. I love the way the film acts as a "sidequel" to the original and there's a wonderful glee as Gale and Zemeckis weave Marty in and out of the events of the first films. It's fun and so complex that the movie threatens to topple over...but it never does. If the first third of the sequel is the trilogy's weakest point, I think the 1955 section of Part II is one of the most purely brilliant of the franchise and the cliffhanger ending is perfectly done...the shock of seeing Doc disappear, the mysterious letter and then the funny ending that draws back to the climax of the first.

So yeah, "Part II" is a fun and entertaining movie that is full of very clever, even brilliant,, moments. But I do think it lacks the sincerity and heart of the original film, relying too much on creating logical twists and turns. It's full of brains but a bit light on heart. Which is funny, because "Part III" actually has the opposite issue.

"Back to the Future, Part III"--I know it's popular to dig on this film and call it the weakest of the series. I know some people who think the franchise fell apart with this last movie. And it's certainly not perfect. But I think people have been unfair...it may lack the cleverness and logical twists of the second film, but it's still an enjoyable, fun and surprisingly sweet way to close out the series.

Really, I don't know that there's much Zemeckis could have done with time travel after Part II. I guess it's only logical that after tackling the scientific complexities of it in the first sequel that he would set up the third to be an emotionally-centered and more stream-lined time travel adventure. And given the reality that they created--that they could travel through time but not space--and the series' insistance on focusing on Hill Valley's different families and generations, the best place they could go would be the Old West. Besides, it sets up a nice dilemma--without the scientific technology of the 1980s or even the 1950s, how in the world could Doc and Marty repair the DeLorean?

Besides, I think Zemeckis really wanted to make a Western. And the stunts and story-line may be pure fluff and typical Western archetypes, but they come off as fun and exciting. Some critics--such as Ebert--complained that the series went to a movie-style Old West instead of looking at the Real West. And yes, that may have been more scientifically accurate. But I'm a sucker for shoot-outs, horse stampedes, train robberies and other Western tropes, so I don't really care. And there's some good humor and excitement mined from it...and I like that Marty is finally challenged to mature and put aside his concerns about what others think of him. It's a nice way to mature the character a little.

But the heart of the movie and the reason it works so well is the burgeoning relationship between Doc and Clara. The romance is sweet and well-played and reminds us of the romantically-centered plot of the first movie. Lloyd really shines in this film and his heartbroken Doc, wrestling with love and logic in the final half, allows him to add a new dimension to the character. Mary Steenburgh is wonderful as Clara and their quiet interludes are the film's highlight--until the spectacularlly-done train robbery.

And in the end, the series ends on a fitting note. Marty, having learned not to worry about other people's impressions, avoids a tragic accident. The time machine is destroyed, just as Doc wanted. And yes, I don't understand why Doc would want the time machine destroyed and then would go ahead and build one out of a train--or how he would get the materials to do that. His reapparance at the trilogy's end is definitely more of an emotional capper than a logical one. But I understand why Zemeckis did it--no one would want to end the series without knowing that Doc and Marty see each other again and that Doc and Clara have happy lives. So I forgive that ending, even if it doesn't really make much sense.

Rumors, of course, persist about a fourth movie and I'm very happy that most everyone involved with the franchise has firmly said that a fourth movie is just simply not happening (if only the "Ghostbusters" cast were so willing. Sigh.). I don't think there's more for the franchise to say and, given the limitations they've set for themselves, there's not much more they could do in terms of time travel (Medieval England is out, and that would be the logical time-travel choice). I think a sequel would simply be an excuse for flash and special effects and would leave out the heart of the series...those who want a roller coaster road of fun had the opportunity for it on the fantastic "Back to the Future" ride that used to be at Universal Studios and fiction will never tire of exploring the philosophical and scientific complexities of time travel ("Lost" is doing it better than anyone right now).

What we have is a fun series that has moments of pure cinematic bliss. I'm happy to have it as it is without risking ruining it all.

Chrisicisms: Hobbits, Hangovers, Time Travel and Robopocalypse

Happy Saturday everyone! While I sit down with my coffee and cereal, I thought I'd post my thoughts on a few of the movie-related news items that came up this week. So sit back, relax and here we go:

• Obviously, the big news is that Peter Jackson's now-greenlighted adaptation of The Hobbit announced much of its cast this week, most notably Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Having never read "The Hobbit," I'm not sure how closely the cast resembles what fans had in mind, but Freeman does bore a striking resemblance to a young Ian Holm, who played Bilbo in Lord of the Rings. I've liked his work in the UK version of "The Office" and his brief turn in "Hot Fuzz," so I have no problem with giving him the keys to a movie this big. I called Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy last decade's biggest cinematic achievement, so I'm eager to see him take another trip to Middle Earth. Some have given Jackson flack for his post-LOTR career, but I found "King Kong" to be a highly entertaining, if overstuffed, ride and have yet to see "The Lovely Bones" for myself.
• Other big news is that The Hangover 2, currently shooting in Thailand, has reportedly nixed the Mel Gibson cameo. It was reported last week that Gibson was going to appear as a tattoo artist, but this week director Todd Phillips stated that the cast and crew couldn't agree on the actor taking the role. I can see why--the jury's still pretty much out on Gibson's recent behavior. Those voice mails were pretty appalling and paint a dark picture of an actor whose persona was already pretty stark. Still, some have brought up the question as to why it was okay for "The Hangover" to feature convicted rapist Mike Tyson in a prominent role, but it's wrong for the sequel to feature Gibson, who has not been convicted with anything. That's a good point, although I agree with those over at www.ew.com who seem to think that it's the time element. People have had time to turn Tyson into a punchline while Gibson's offenses are still fresh. I do hope Mel can get it together and eventually be a respected actor-director again. But for now, he probably needs to lay low.
• Still, I'd kill to see him on "Between Two Ferns" with Zach Galifianakis.
• Back to the Future seems to be everywhere right now. "Entertainment Weekly" featured Michael J. Fox and Lea Thompson in their recent reunion issue, Fox re-shot the film's famous teaser trailer for Spike TV's Scream awards and the trilogy will be released this Tuesday on Blu Ray. This is all in celebration of the film's 25th anniversary, of course, and AMC Theaters is offering screenings of the movie today at 12:30 p.m. and again on Monday, Oct. 25 at 7 p.m. I'm heading out in a bit to catch the film, and I'm hoping to write it up later this weekend as a look back at one of my generation's most beloved films.
• It was announced just yesterday that Steven Spielberg will direct Robopocalypse, based on an upcoming science ficton novel. Spielberg has been fairly quiet since Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it looks like we'll be seeing quiet a bit from him in the next few years. His motion-capture Tintin movie comes out next December the same day, actualy, as his WWI drama The War Horse, which appears to be his return to the serious fare such as Saving Private Ryan and Munich. I do love those films, but I have to admit that I miss old-school Spielberg, the man who brought us Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T. Popcorn Spielberg has been missing over the past few years--even his science fiction films AI, War of the Worlds and Minority Report are tinged with a darkness that wasn't in his earlier work. I have no idea what the tone is for Robopocalypse (which I assume deals with a robot uprising) but I hope it's in line with the Spielberg I loved in the 1980s.
• Box office news from last weekend was, of course, Jackass 3D's unbelievable $50 million haul. There really aren't words for that.
• This weekend brings Paranormal Activity 2. I had no plans to see this movie and was prepared for it to be a "Blair Witch 2" clone, but the early reviews I've read are promising. Now it just comes down to whether or not I'm brave enough to see it.
• Work at my day job kept me busy this week so I had to miss screenings of Hereafter and Conviction. Stone also opened out here and I had to miss the screenings for that as well. Hopefully before I have to vote on the year's best I'll make up for that.

Okay kids, that's about it!

CW