starring Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro
written by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn and directed by Matthew Vaughn
rated PG-13 for some fantasy violence and risque humor.
87%

Somewhere in the English countryside lies the village of Wall, named after the long stone wall that runs next to it. For as long as anyone remembers, a group of the villagers have diligently guarded a gap in the wall that leads to the magical kingdom of Stormhold. Now, a star has fallen from the sky and landed deep within the fairy kingdom, and young Tristran (Charlie Cox) is determined to retrieve it to prove his love to Victoria (Sienna Miller).

He is not the only searcher, however. The evil witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), need the heart of the star to restore their youth, and Stormhold’s remaining princes will cut any throat (including each others’) to find the star and claim the throne. Add a few subplots involving sky pirates and an enslaved princess, and you just might have the makings of a quirky fantasy classic. That’s what Paramount hopes, anyway.

If you’ve seen a trailer for Stardust, you already know more than I’ve let on here, and you still don’t have anything approaching a complete picture of how the story plays out. This is all to the good: a more detailed synopsis would be far too long and complicated, and half the fun is seeing it for yourself.

There have been a lot of truly awful attempts to introduce an element of whimsical silliness into the traditional fantasy or fairy tale movie setting in recent years (Ella Enchanted, Happily ‘Never After, and the Shrek sequels, just to name a few), but it’s been a long time since I have seen it employed as successfully as Stardust employs it. And the movie itself is (if I may gush) totally frickin’ cool. Perhaps that is because Stardust is solid fantasy-adventure first and comical fairy-tale fun second, instead of the other way around. We laugh at the comical characters and doings in Stormhold and Wall, but we also want to visit.

I have not read Neil Gaiman’s Stardust, but my interest in the movie version was definitely piqued when a friend first pointed me to a trailer several months ago. I was further intrigued when I read a short story by Susanna Clarke, author of the brilliant Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. The story (“The Duke of Wellington Misplaces His Horse” from The Ladies of Grace Adieu) was set in Gaiman’s universe, and has Wellington unwittingly chasing his horse through the gap in the wall with comical results.

The defining characteristic of Clarke’s fantasy is that it is quintessentially British. I don’t know about Stardust the book, but probably the only definably British thing about this movie is that part of it is set in England. One thing it does share with Clarke’s fanciful realms, however, is that while many of its elements are silly, whimsical, and comical, there is a dark and deadly-serious edge not far beneath the surface.

It is a delicate balance, well-maintained, but not the same sort of thing as, say, The Princess Bride. Princess Bride is simple and sweet, both gentle satire on and affectionate homage to “Once upon a time,” and by now firmly entrenched as a nigh-unassailable classic. It doesn’t need special effects because it’s all charm.

Stardust, by contrast, has pulse-pounding excitement, CG gloss, and an epic feel. It is unapologetically more adult than The Princess Bride (which I first saw at about age 5), but also more juvenile. It isn’t particularly fresh or original, but it feelsas though it is. What it lacks in meaning and substance, it makes up for in sheer entertainment. And if many elements of the plot are transparently contrived, at least they mesh well and keep things moving. With a run-time of over two hours, I never felt the need to check my watch.

So, as I say, Stardust is not the next The Princess Bride, but for a group of friends in search of a good time, the effect will be much the same. Loaded to the gills with action and fun and magic, it has strange characters, exotic locations, breathtaking visuals, and a rousing soundtrack. A few flaws aside, it’s really just about all an uncritical theatergoer could ask for in a fantasy adventure movie.

Posted in Reviews

A Raisin in the Sun is the finest film based on a stage play that I have seen since I watched A Streetcar Named Desire a few years ago. Raisin was released in 1961, two years after it opened on Broadway, and ten years after Streetcar. It stars its original Broadway cast, with Sidney Poitier in the lead.

The Youngers have never had much beyond a small apartment and steady work as household staff for rich whites. Until now. Following the death of her husband, family matriarch Lena (Claudia McNeil) has a fat $10,000 insurance check coming to her in the mail, and everyone seems to have big plans for it.

Lena’s daughter Beneatha (Diana Sands), an eternal and somewhat flighty student, dreams of becoming a doctor. Daughter-in-law Ruth (Ruby Dee) thinks Lena should use the money on herself, to take a much-deserved break. And Lena’s hot-blooded son, Walter Lee (Poitier), sees a chance to leave his soul-crushing chauffeur job behind him and set himself up in his own business: a liquor store.

For Walter Lee, this is his chance to finally win some personal dignity, in his own eyes and in the eyes of his young son, Travis, but his wife and sister know better than to count on him. Lena shocks them all when she lays down a third of the money down on a house in an all-white neighborhood and gives the rest to Walter Lee. Will he rise to meet the immense responsibility, or sink all of their hopes with his rash impulsiveness?

All of this plays out amidst some intense and powerful human drama, backed by solid performances all around, and thanks in no small part to Poitier’s immense skill. Poitier was undoubtedly one of the most talented actors of the 1950s and ’60s, a true class act. He is at the top of his game here, two years after his first Oscar nomination and two years before his first (and only) Oscar win. Poitier’s Walter Lee is a volatile force, a pleasure to watch. By turns sympathetic and pathetic, he rages and grits out his lines . . . It is a riveting spectacle.

The movie is perhaps slightly limited in its vision. There is never any doubt that this is based on a work written for the stage. 95% of the action takes place inside the Younger apartment, and the camera only ventures outdoors twice. Then again, I don’t know that there is anything wrong with staying faithful to these limitations. It certainly communicates a feeling of claustrophobia and entrapment to the Younger’s surroundings. They can’t get out of the apartment, and neither can we.

The title comes from “Harlem,” a poem by Langston Hughes. The poem begins . . . Well, actually, I may as well quote the whole thing:

What happens to a dream deferred?

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
like a syrupy sweet?

Maybe it just sags
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?

Maybe deferred dreams do dry up if left alone, but seeing them on the brink of resolution for even a short time is much more likely to produce an explosion, as we see here. Playwright Lorraine Hansberry and director Daniel Petrie show us a group of people struggling within a very specific context, but in doing so they open up a window on something universally human: the ability of our dreams to either empower or destroy us.

Posted in Reviews

The Simpsons Movie

I started laughing the moment the feature started and I rarely stopped until the credits had finished rolling. It was manic and hilarious and brilliant, running the gamut from broad slapstick to cheap lowbrow to keen satire and back again in the space of a few seconds. The pace just never let up. Oh, and if I may say so, the Simpsons themselves are looking better than ever with glossy animation against backgrounds that appear to have a definite depth to them.

I’m not a long-time Simpsons fan, honestly . . . I’ve seen just enough to know most of the characters and catch a few in-jokes. It doesn’t even matter. This is just funny, funny stuff for sophomores of all ages.

Akeelah and the Bee

I’ve been waiting to see this movie for quite awhile, and I finally got my hands on a library DVD copy. Great performances from Laurence Fishburn and Keke Palmer strengthen a quality movie that also happens to be family-friendly (for what it’s worth). There are plenty of thoughtful themes and the film has a really nice soundtrack . . . lots to like, in other words.

For my money, though, you’ll get more bang for your buck out of the excellent Spellbound. Not to be confused with Hitchcock’s psychological thriller, Spellbound is a charming, riveting documentary about several kids who competed in the National Spelling Bee in 2002. Ultimately, Akeelah and the Bee is a fictionalized version of the same. It is good in its way, but lacks a certain tension when you’ve already seen the real deal.

Freedom Writers

I expected something a lot more cliche-ridden than this, to tell the truth, so Freedom Writers was already a little ahead of the game in my book. Inspirational-but-gritty teacher stories based on fact aren’t really my genre, but I have to admit that this movie had style and depth backed by some solid acting from all concerned. The only thing I didn’t find compelling was the driving force behind the last act: the students fight to keep the same teacher on into the remaining two years of their high school experience and succeed. The epilogue revealed that she went on to teach many of them in college.

What, so a first-year teacher works a miracle in bringing a group of high school students together and getting them excited about learning, but then they refuse to leave the nest? And she follows them for several years, nursing them along, denying her gifts from all the classes that came after? How is that an accomplishment worthy of its own feature film? Oh, well.

The Host

This Korean monster film made waves among those who like that sort of thing, so I checked it out. I guess I just don’t like that sort of thing. The creature was pretty sweet, I’ll grant that, with awesome visuals and a cool design. And there is some great comedy, as well . . . but not nearly enough. The movie takes itself too seriously, and gets severely bogged down along the way.

Also, I know that a really stupid origin is standard for the genre, but have we run so far out of ideas that an excess of formaldehyde in the river is the best they could come up with for the reason behind this creature’s existence? I suppose that just as monsters created by radiation spoke to a Cold War fear of nuclear annihilation, so this speaks to concerns about foreign (American) presence in Korea and pollution . . . or something. It still seemed a bit weak.

Hairspray

What an outrageously fun bubble-gum piece this is. Shallow as a half-filled kiddie pool, but with several show-stopping musical numbers and a disarmingly tongue-in-cheek sense of humor. The cast is pitch-perfect, with a distinctive blend of recognizable faces and talented newcomers. I saw it twice.

A friend that I saw it with the first time leaned over at the end and whispered, “And that’s the true story of how racial harmony was achieved in America.” Yes, this is a very facile treatment of the civil rights’ struggles of the ’60s, but it doesn’t even pretend to take itself seriously, so that’s okay. I’ve got the soundtrack now, and I might just want to add this to my growing collection of musicals when it hits DVD. Now if they’d just film a big-screen version of Wicked, my life would be complete.

Posted in Reviews