Slamdance - Hank and Asha - 3 1/2 stars

Hank (Andrew Pastides) had a movie play at a film festival in Prague.  He wasn't able to attend, so Asha (Mahira Kakkar) emails him a video.  The video is of her, asking him a question about his movie.  He replies with a video of his own, and an online friendship is born.

Hank is living in New York City and working as a production assistant on a reality show.  Asha is from India but living in Prague attending film school.  Each one is surprised to find that the other person is younger (and more attractive) than each had imagined.

This movie is a real pleasant discovery.  The movie consists of the videos each character made for the other, which means neither actor is on screen together at the same time.  At first, the videos are simply the characters talking directly to the camera.  They are addressing each other, but this puts the audience right in the middle of the action, as the actors are speaking directly to us.

As the movie progresses, the videos get more elaborate.  They take their cameras outside to show the other person their city, school / job, and stuff like that.  What starts as a pen pal - type of friendship starts to develop into a flirtatious relationship.  There is talk of meeting in Paris ...

Both actors are very good in their roles, but Mahira Kakkar is particularly good.  She has a sweetness and vulnerability that comes across so well on screen, and there is an innocent quality there as well.  I really got into the story of these two, and I was hoping they would end up together.  I was more invested in their story than any other on screen romance I have seen in a long time.  Highly recommended.

Sundance - Manhunt - 3 stars

This is a documentary about the search for Osama Bin Laden.  It's an interesting movie to watch after you see Zero Dark Thirty.

I felt like the movie started out really slowly.  I want facts and information from a documentary, and this movie takes its time giving those out.  The first part of the movie focuses on showing us the women who were hunting for Bin Laden before anyone else knew his name.  We learn more about their jobs than we do the facts of the investigation at first.

I don't know how much classified information had to be left out, but there is at least one scene where one of the subjects can't answer a question.  There isn't anything the filmmakers can do about that, but it's still frustrating knowing that there are details to this story that can't be told.

I forgot that a CNN crew interviewed Bin Laden in the mid '90s.  It's interesting to see the footage and hear the reporters talk about meeting Bin Laden.  It's also interesting to learn that Bin Laden declared war on America and no one noticed.

The movie touches on a lot of themes that it doesn't explore.  I guess the movie would be far too long if they did, but I really wanted to hear more about their views on torture.  The CIA analysts and other interview subjects reveal that no useful information came from torture, and that all the valuable information came from traditional interrogation methods.  But this is glossed over pretty quickly.  I also liked the message at the end about how it's important to try and understand why the terrorists hate us, because killing Bin Laden doesn't mean there won't be another terrorist attack.

There is mention of the Iraq war, but not much.  It would have been interesting to hear whether the war made it harder to find Bin Laden.  Also, when they talk about the CIA black sites, it would have been nice to hear about whether innocent people were sent there under the assumption that they were terrorists.  This movie makes it seem like everyone who was interrogated was an Al Qaeda member.

This movie could have been much tighter and more focused, but there is enough good information in there to recommend it.

Sundance - The Look of Love - 2 1/2 stars

From sundance.org:  "Welcome to the scandalous world of Paul Raymond, entrepreneur, impresario, and the “king of Soho.” Seeing mediocrity in the smutty sex parlors of London, Raymond unveils his first “gentlemen’s club” in 1958 and gradually builds an empire of clubs and erotic magazines that brings him vast wealth while affronting British sexual mores. It also brings a litany of obscenity charges, a failed marriage, troubled children, and personal tragedy."

Steve Coogan plays Paul Raymond.  He is Britain's answer to Hugh Hefner.  This is a different kind of performance from Coogan.  While he does have some funny moments, it's definitely a dramatic role.  This movie should have been a lot better.  The movie traces his life from stage performer to director of nude stage shows to men's magazine publisher.  By the end of the movie he will be the richest man in Britain.

Watching the movie I felt like there were scenes missing.  I felt like we were getting the cliffs notes version of the story.  It moved by so fast that I had a hard time getting emotionally involved.  It got better as it went along, but I would have liked some longer scenes and more dialogue to give us an idea of what he was thinking and feeling as he started his businesses.  

One thing that confused me was his wife.  At first, it seems like she knows he's sleeping with his models and she is ok with it.  Then abruptly she starts freaking out over his relationship with a new girl.  

The story line that works best in the movie is when Raymond develops a business relationship with his adult daughter.  He is grooming her to take over the company, and he is also condoning her drug use.  His advice to her is don't buy drugs on the street, because you don't know if it's any good.  Make sure you buy the good stuff.

I was surprised that the movie bored me as much as it did.  It just wasn't structured very well.  Lots of nudity though.

Sundance - Virtually Heroes - 2 1/2 stars

From sundance.org: A sarcastic, self-aware character in a video game, Sgt. Books, becomes frustrated by the screwy logic of his universe: the pointless battles, superpowerful bosses, and an endless supply of virtual Vietcong. He can’t get the girl who appears at the end of each level, and he can’t get through to his gung-ho partner. To find answers to the questions posed by his odd existence, Books abandons his mission and seeks help from a straight-talking monk, delightfully played by another onscreen hero who also once received words of wisdom from a man in a robe.

This is a very clever premise.  The character fights until he is killed, then the words "Press fire to continue" flash on the screen.  Then the game starts over.  As the player keeps starting the game over and over again, we see the same scene played out several times.  But the character in the game is aware he's in a game.  

This movie should have been a lot more fun than it is.  There are moments that made me laugh, like when we find out that a bridge is the boss of a level.  It makes sense if you're ever played a first person shooter arcade game.  Or the main villain who has a pet pig.  The Mark Hamill cameo is cute, but he's only in the movie for about 5 minutes.

This is definitely a B movie, and while the idea of seeing a Roger Corman movie at Sundance sounds intriguing, it's not much different from watching a Roger Corman movie on cable.  

Slamdance - Between Us (3 stars)

From slamdance.org:  In this darkly comedic drama, two couples reunite over two incendiary evenings where anything can happen. Grace and Carlo are a newly married New York couple who visit their old friends Sharyl and Joel in their huge Midwestern home. Despite their wealth, the hosts are in a bitterly destructive marriage. A few years later, the couples reunite in New York, but the tables are turned as the young couple struggles with parenthood and finances, only to discover their old friends even more successful and much happier than before.

It took a little while to get into this.  At first I didn't care much for either couple.  But as the movie progressed I started to get interested in them and their struggles.  The movie flashes back and forth between the two time periods.  One minute, Sharyl and Joel are screaming at each other, the next minute we are in New York watching Sharyl and Joel getting along great while Grace and Carlo's marriage is falling apart.

I don't know if the jumping back and forth in time aspect worked so well.  At times it bugged me.  I would like to see this movie edited chronologically.  Jumping back and forth between the time periods makes it apparent how easy it is for a happily married couple to become so unhappy, and vice verse.

This movie could easily be a play, since it only takes place in two settings - each couples' living rooms - and the entire movie is dialogue.  The performances were really good, especially Julia Stiles and David Harbour.  I have seen Harbour in other movies, but this is a star making performance.  I just wish I enjoyed the movie a bit more.  It's a tough one to recommend.  You're basically watching married people fight the entire time.  I admire the writing but it's not a crowd pleasing movie.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - 3 stars

I feel like I've been waiting for this movie almost as long as I waited for The Phantom Menace.  After Return of the King opened in 2003, there was talk that Peter Jackson would make The Hobbit next.  Then after a few years, it was happening.  But there was just the problem of getting the rights from MGM.  And then MGM went through bankruptcy.  Then Guillermo del Toro left.

After all that, we finally have The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opening today.  And while it's not the disappointment that The Phantom Menace was, it can't live up to the brilliance of The Lord of the Rings.

Set some 60 years before the events of Rings, the story concerns young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, taking over for Ian Holm), a simple hobbit who lives in the Shire.  One day the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) shows up and asks Bilbo to go on an adventure.  It seems there are these dwarves who were kicked out of their homeland by a dragon named Smaug.  Their quest is to defeat Smaug, and steal back his treasure, so the dwarves can go home again. 

And that's basically the story.  No quest to save the world this time.  That in and of itself isn't a problem.  It shouldn't matter whether a movie is about the fate of the world or just a simple adventure story.  But it's hard not to compare this to the LOTR movies.  And while those movies were epic enough to justify their 3 hour plus running times, this movie should have been at least a half hour shorter.

One problem I had was the beginning.  It's at least a half hour before the quest begins.  First Gandalf appears to Bilbo, and then one by one we meet the dwarves.  It seems like they stay in Bilbo's house forever eating, throwing dishes around, and singing.  This gets very boring.  And you would think that with that much time, they could have developed the characters of the dwarves better.  While some of them have a distinct look (the one with the funny hat, the really fat one, the one with the crazy beard), with the exception of Prince Thorin Oakenshield, none of them are memorable. 

In LOTR, you had Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin.  Then after we got to know them, we got Strider, Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir.  In The Hobbit, the only characters we really care about are Bilbo and Gandalf.  And just like the other movies, Gandalf has a habit of disappearing for stretches of the movie. 

There were several sequences that dragged on too long, and I got kind of bored.  But there are some fun moments too.  The best is when Bilbo meets Gollum.  I have to admit that it's nice being back in this world with these characters again.  And the movie does get me excited for the next chapter.  I just wish that Peter Jackson would restrain himself a bit.  Not every movie needs to be 3 hours long.

Hopefully the next movie is even better.  I am looking forward to seeing what they do with Smaug, since we hardly see him in this movie.

Hitchcock - 3 1/2 stars

This isn't a biopic of Alfred Hitchcock.  This movie just focuses on one year of his life.  The year is 1959 - 1960.  North By Northwest has just been released, and it was a huge success.  The studio wants him to make another movie just like it, but he wants to do a horror movie.  He finds the book Psycho and decides that will be his next movie. 

We get to see his battles with the studio, who refuse to finance the movie, leaving Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) to finance it himself by taking out a load against his house.  We also see him battle the censors about everything from violence and nudity to showing a toilet.  The funniest scene in the movie is when the head of the censor board argues about showing a toilet flush, which no American movie had ever done.

Helen Mirren plays Hitchcock's wife, Alma.  She may be having an affair with an author named Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston), and this subplot is where the movie lost me a little.  But Mirren delivers a great performance and her scenes with Hopkins are great fun.  Hopkins does a great impersonation of Hitchcock, and I would love to see him play the director again just to get more of this performance.

The movie works best when it's focusing on the making of Psycho.  Scarlett Johansson is very good as Janet Leigh, and James D'Arcy is wonderfully creepy as Anthony Perkins.  I just wish he was in the movie more.  Danny Huston is very good, but unfortunately his scenes are the ones that are the most unnecessary to the movie.  Any time the focus is on Alma and Whitfield, I was just wanting to get back to Hitchcock. 

We don't get to learn a lot about the man himself except that he was in an almost loveless marriage, and he liked to eavsdrop (and peep) on his actresses.  This movie is a lot of fun.