Movie Reviews: Let's Kill Ward's Wife

Let's Kill Ward's Wife
directed by Scott Foley

This is a black comedy which is most definitely not for everyone. If you can find murder humorous, if you can think of a few people you wouldn't mind removing from the planet, if you have ever gotten away with something and kept it moving, you might find the premise of this movie to be tolerable. If on the other hand none of those things apply then this film isn't for you. I wasn't that bothered by the film's premise : an unpleasant, aggressive, bullying, harridan causes her husband's friends to consider removing her from the planet. A Fish Called Wanda treated murder comically and did so with great verve. But Let's Kill Ward's Wife is not A Fish Called Wanda in either writing or execution. Although the title is if anything flame bait for people who are worried by "misogynist" or "anti-feminist" overtones, the film attempts to inoculate itself against this charge by having various women be in on what turns into a murder conspiracy. I'm not sure this would have made a difference. It might have been more of a twist if the men had carried out the murder and tried to hide it from their wives or girlfriends at first. Dunno.  
Anyway. My major problem with Let's Kill Ward's Wife was that the film never gives the viewer any reason why Ward (Donald Faison from Scrubs) would have married this woman in the first place, let alone put up with her or have had a child with her. His wife is not only verbally abusive, insulting, and nasty to Ward in private she's also that way in public. She will rip Ward a new one in front of company. She has no problem doing that. 

His wife is at best average looking. She provides Ward no physical comfort. I don't just mean the obvious. I mean no hugs, no kisses, no nothing. It's the opposite as the viewer is led to believe that she would have no problem giving the passive Ward a backhand across the face. So from a male point of view why would you marry a plain looking nasty hostile woman? It would have been more understandable and interesting had his wife been exactly the same personality wise but been extremely attractive. It would be easier to understand why someone like Ward might have stayed with her for a while.The sad truth is that many men, especially if they lack confidence like Ward does, would put up with a lot of stuff from a woman who may be a witch on wheels, but is nevertheless a babe. Well. We all have our cross to bear. 

Ward's friends are well aware of his predicament. When Ward is guilt-tripped into skipping their weekly golf outing, one of them wonders out loud if they shouldn't just kill the woman who is interfering with their lifelong friendship. This thought percolates but of course none of them mention it to Ward. During a get together at Ward's house, his wife Stacy (Dagmara Dominczyk) overhears one of his friends making flirtatious talk to an actress (Nicolette Sheridan). Because Stacy is at heart a bully she assumes that the man was cheating on his girlfriend and gleefully threatens to rat him out. Panicking, he accidentally on purpose kills Stacy. The remainder of the movie involves Ward, his friends and their wives/girlfriends trying to dispose of the body and avoid unnecessary contact with the police, one of whom is Ward's new neighbor. There is the normal trope of the quiet guy who has hitherto unexamined murderous impulses and the strutting macho guy who falls apart when faced with some ugly decisions. All told though the movie wasn't really that good both because of the messages it sent and the uneven tone. This is just a reworking of Very Bad Things and a few other films I am not interested in seeing again. There is eye candy for both genders as anyone who's read Murder Machine knows when you're disposing of a corpse you need to strip down to your boxers or bra and panties to avoid getting incriminating material on your clothing. Other actors include Scott Foley, Patrick Wilson, James Carpinello, and Amy Acker. 
TRAILER

Movie Reviews: The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies
directed by Peter Jackson

I really wasn't planning to see this but the regular season of college football is over. I had a few hours to kill during my all too brief holiday break. And I can be a completist. So I figured what the heck. In the previous two reviews I already pointed out my modest displeasure with Jackson's alteration of source material supposedly to make the story more female friendly, the inclusion of greater violence, and the general more and more approach to padding out a simple children's book into 3 sprawling LOTR prequels.  Well been there, done that. Jackson and his co-creators have a certain style and preference. I don't think any of them are changing those things at this point in their lives. Either you can deal with it or you can't. I probably should have waited for DVD for this release as my brother has promised he will do. There is the greater question of how far can you stretch an adaptation before the original meaning of the story or the characters has been lost. As we've discussed before this is always a tricky issue. The films Exodus, Noah and The Passion of the Christ take key protagonists who are critical to Christianity and Judaism and portray them as European when these characters were not European. One reason for this is almost certainly financial but another is likely the fact that most of the people producing, financing and directing such films are of European descent and see no issue with writing themselves into the center of the story. I mention all of that to point out that I think that such changes to religious depictions are much more damaging to people than Jackson and crew changing Tolkien's fantasy work to include more women warriors, doomed cross-species romances and aggressively Scottish dwarves. As an interesting aside, in real life Tolkien mused that his dwarves might be considered similar to Jews (slightly different creation story, different language, and lost homeland). Anyway. It bears repeating that this film is less of an adaptation of The Hobbit and more of an "inspired by The Hobbit". I had to keep reminding myself of that while I was watching the movie. In the big picture, Jackson's alterations, whether they work or not, whether I like them or not, don't change the book.

The movie is also AFAIK the last Tolkien piece that Jackson will be able to interpret for the big screen as the Tolkien estate has steadfastly refused to license any more of Tolkien's novels to anyone, most especially Peter Jackson.

When last we left our bloated storyline Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) had just departed The Lonely Mountain to bring fire and blood to the human inhabitants of Laketown. Smaug's attack was suitably impressive. It reminded us of just how dangerous dragons can be. In ancient times the Dark Lord Morgoth had several such dragons, far larger than even Smaug. Smaug is likely the last of his kind and not as large as his forebears. But he's still deadly enough to lay waste to Laketown. He does just that right up until the time that Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) escapes from jail and puts his last arrow, the Black Arrow, into Smaug's heart, killing him. As the previous town master has perished in the attack, Bard becomes town leader by popular acclaim. He decides to seek shelter in the Mountain and the ruined human city of Dale, hoping that the dwarves will provide assistance and also some wealth to help rebuild the homes of their human allies and neighbors. It's the right thing to do. Not all of Smaug's hoard was dwarvish in origin. And Bard did after all kill Smaug, who would not have attacked were it not for the dwarves. A heroic act like that ought to be worth a little something in Bard's opinion. But the dwarvish leader and now King Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) is really not that interested in helping others at present. And he has exactly no intent of giving up any of his gold. He's looking for the Arkenstone, the most valued jewel among all the treasure and symbol of his rule. He's unaware that Bilbo (Martin Freeman) has it. Thorin is becoming increasingly paranoid and prejudiced about non-dwarves. And as the search for the Arkenstone drags on, Thorin starts to cast a side eye at his dwarvish relatives and friends.

In what I thought was the film's most interesting and well done scene the White Council led by Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) attacks Dol Guldur, rescuing Gandalf (Ian Mckellen) and drives out the revealed Sauron (Cumberbatch again) and his Nazgul. Of course by now everyone and their mama has heard of the death of Smaug and the presumably undefended hoard. And everybody wants some. So an elvish army led by the primly prejudiced King Thranduil (Lee Pace) shows up at the Mountain to bring food and gear to the human refugees but more importantly to stake their own claim to elvish heirlooms in Smaug's hoard. Thorin is becoming a greedy lunatic but he's no stranger to war. Seeing the gathering hosts he sends off a message to his cousin Dain Ironfoot (Billy Connolly from The Boondock Saints) to come heavy right now. By Gandalf's account Dain (and Connolly really has fun with this role and his accent) is by far the less reasonable of the two cousins. Although Bilbo and Bard both try to negotiate peace war appears imminent among men, elves and dwarves. Until the Orcs show up.

This film (especially the last 45 minutes) was a special effects extravaganza but it didn't really need to be. There's very little that's emotionally involving. This is unlike the book. It's seen most clearly with Fili and Kili, Thorin's nephews. In the film Thorin's tactical mistakes and the aforementioned elf-dwarf romantic love lead to his relatives' doom. In the book it's honor and loyalty (feudal and familial) that bring their end in the true Northern warrior tradition. "Fili and Kili had fallen defending [Thorin] with shield and body, for he was their mother's elder brother". Perhaps, all things considered, this is a small change but to me it's an example of how Jackson missed or misread some key themes in The Hobbit. YMMV. It was particularly needlessly maudlin to have women and children at the battle. Some of this looked like outtakes from the Helm's Deep battle in LOTR 2. Much of the quirkiness and sense of wonder that was there in the book was lost in the translation to the screen. To be fair by the time of the battle the book had taken a slightly darker tone but that was a brief change in something that until that point had been mostly whimsical. I think Jackson was pushing the prequel idea a little too much. This was nonetheless the most satisfying installment of the trilogy, primarily because it's over. It had some humor but little from the book. You can safely wait to see this on DVD or VOD unless you just have to see long battles or drawn out duels right this instant. I am interested in seeing what else Richard Armitage has done or will do. The film's running time was about 2.5 hours.
TRAILER

Book Reviews: Revival

Revival
by Stephen King

I wonder if as we age we all begin to have more feelings of nostalgia. Perhaps it is also the case that our mortality is more on our minds. That's certainly the case for me. I wouldn't call myself old just yet but I am certainly neither young nor any longer under the illusion that I am going to live forever. I don't know if that is the case with Stephen King. Fictional books are not autobiographies. Fiction doesn't necessarily tell you anything about what the author is actually thinking about or experiencing in his or her personal life. Nevertheless it is interesting that it seems that after King's near death at the hands of an inattentive motorist and his self-acknowledged entry into senior citizen status more of his books have horrific car accidents, narrative grumbles about aging and its indignities and very sharp tones of regret and nostalgia. A character in Revival points out that humans have three age ranges : youth, middle age and how the f*** did I get so old? But of course all of this could be completely coincidental. Only King knows for sure. In the foreword to Revival King name checks some of the writers who have influenced him. These include such luminaries as Arthur Machen, Mary Shelley and H.P. Lovecraft. The introductory quote is the famous Lovecraft couplet "That is not dead which can eternal lie/And with strange aeons even death may die". Revival is a loving homage to all of those writers and more while still being an identifiable King work. Like many King stories it has references to his earlier creations. Revival's tone just screams out Joyland, from the first page to the very last. There are numerous stylistic similarities, from the first person framework, to the old man looking back at his life and remembering the glory and embarrassment of first time sex, to the excitement of a man actually discovering his true talents. One character in Revival even points out that he briefly worked at the Joyland carnival. I will have to go back and peruse Joyland to see if that was the case. Like Joyland, Revival generally keeps the open supernatural stuff off the page until later but unlike Joyland  the reader is aware much earlier that something strange is going on.

I don't think that Revival ever went for the gross out (my definition of gross out might differ from yours) but King has never needed to do that. He can and has accomplished that goal in several books but that's not what I enjoy about his work. His horrors are usually quite grounded in everyday reality. Looking at life there's quite enough horror to go around for everyone without having to include supernatural events to scare people. One of King's gifts is to meld the supernatural with the prosaic in a manner which allows the reader to easily suspend disbelief.

This story reminded me of Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes, Frankenstein and several Lovecraft stories featuring the malign god Nyarlathotep. Nyarlathotep maliciously shares and displays many scientific and even magical advances that generally have the effect of driving humans mad. Revival also had a big nod to the mad scientist motif, especially as inspired by real life oddball scientist and engineer Nikola Tesla (who may himself have been an inspiration for Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep). Revival takes place over fifty years but it doesn't drag. The book is around 400 pages in hardcover.

In 1960's small town Maine a new Methodist preacher named Charles Jacobs arrives to become the new pastor. The very first person he meets and befriends is Jamie Morton, the youngest son in the large Morton family. Reverend Jacobs is a good man, a friendly one, who even plays in the dirt with Jamie as Jamie plays war. Jacobs is not a fire and brimstone type of preacher but he still increases the church's popularity. The town's women and girls are attracted to his youth and good looks while the men and boys feel the same way about his beautiful blonde piano playing wife Patsy. And everyone adores the couple's cute son Morrie. Reverend Jacobs is fascinated by electricity. He is something of an amateur scientist/physicist. He finds ways to link the wonders of electricity and the natural universe to God's message when he preaches. Jacobs also displays more practical applications for his electrical inventions when he is able to heal Jamie's brother Conrad from an accident which has left him mute. Of course as this is a King book, grief and tragedy are not far off. When a horrible accident occurs Reverend Jacobs spectacularly loses his faith and leaves the town. Jamie grows up to become a touring and session rock guitarist. He's struggling with his own losses and pains. He's also fallen into a nasty heroin addiction. By chance he comes across the Reverend Jacobs again. Jacobs is still friendly but has taken his interest in electricity far beyond what it was in Jamie's youth. Jacobs thinks he can heal Jamie of his addiction. Jacobs thinks he can do even more. Jamie is not sure that the pastor is still the same good man he knew in his youth. There is, pardon the pun, a special spark between the two men and no I am not talking anything of a sexual nature. An uneasy relationship is restarted, one that will last for years in some form or another.

There are events in the universe that we can not perceive unassisted (visible light is only a small portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum) and other phenomena that we do not yet fully understand (e.g. dark energy) The world we think we know is experienced quite differently by creatures who have senses far superior to ours (dogs and scent) or who possess senses we lack (sharks and electroreception). What would life look like if we pulled back the veil of this world? Are there truly things man is not meant to know? This book raises and depending on what you think of the ending, answers that question. Revival is also a love letter to music and musicians. King played guitar with the just recently retired all author rock band The Rock Bottom Remainders. Revival has a few potshots at faith healers and evangelicals. I didn't enjoy this quite as much as some of King's earlier works but it's still good. Most of the shudders came from the idea of aging, disease and death and not so much things that go bump in the night. Anyone who has ever had to deal with the health issues of stubborn siblings may nod their head in recognition while reading some passages.

Disturbed Man Kills Two NYPD Officers: Blame Game Ensues

As you might have noticed (and I was planning on writing a separate post touching on this and still may later this week or next) there have been recent nationwide protests about the level of (often deadly) violence which US local police forces use against Black Americans, especially Black males, especially young and/or unarmed Black males. In the cases of the deaths of Michael Brown, John Crawford and Eric Garner, mostly white grand juries and/or prosecutors refused to charge the police with any crime at all. Some white supporters of police not only applaud and celebrate these no indictment outcomes but take to the media to lecture black people on their actual or perceived shortcomings and point out that in the big picture, police killings of citizens are relatively rare events. So quit crying and be happy you're living in America. Or something. The same people taking a phlegmatic view about police on citizen violence started singing a different tune when a disturbed and violent young man shot and killed two NYPD police officers, after shooting his girlfriend and before killing himself.

Two police officers sitting in their patrol car in Brooklyn were shot at point-blank range and killed on Saturday afternoon by a man who, officials said, had traveled to the city from Baltimore vowing to kill officers. The suspect then committed suicide with the same gun, the authorities said. The officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, were in the car near Myrtle and Tompkins Avenues in Bedford-Stuyvesant in the shadow of a tall housing project when the gunman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, walked up to the passenger-side window and assumed a firing stance, Police Commissioner William J. Bratton said. Mr. Brinsley shot several rounds into the heads and upper bodies of the officers, who never drew their weapons, the authorities said.

Suddenly the relatively rare incident of a citizen shooting and killing two police officers became the foreseeable outcome of "anti-police rhetoric" and "incendiary comments" made by various anti-police brutality protesters and such persons as President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and professional gadfly/MSNBC host Al Sharpton and probably any other black person to the left of Ben Carson. At least that is what former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Police Union leader Pat Lynch said.

To paraphrase and expand on what a friend on facebook pointed out recently, remember the meltdown the right-wing media and police unions had over the (alleged) murder of a Pennsylvania state trooper by right-winger Eric Frein? Remember how mad Giuliani and Sean Hannity got at their right wing drinking buddies for all the murderous anti-government and anti-police sentiment that presaged the murders of police officers by Cliven Bundy supporters Jerad and Amanda Miller? Remember how right-wing Congressman Steve King of Iowa harshly criticized the anti-tax/militia members of the right for setting the stage for the murderous actions of Joseph Stack?  Remember how conservatives were horrified about the murders committed by Fox News viewer Jim David Adkisson who felt compelled to murder Unitarians because they were liberal? Conservatives felt so despondent about this that they forced Fox News to reduce or eliminate its demonization of liberals. Right. Of course you don't remember any of that because none of it ever took place. Rather than condemn Stack, Congressman Steve King did all but say he sympathized with him and blamed the IRS for existing. By the standard which people like Giuliani or Congressman Peter King seek to apply to others they themselves have "blood on their hands". They would disagree with this. Their argument is of course weak. They seek to delegitimize all protest against police brutality and police misconduct. It's the same media playbook that conservatives used against MLK and others in the sixties. Giuliani is incapable of perceiving that such a thing as police misconduct exists. It's a blind spot that both he and several police officers seem to share. I remain amazed that such a bitterly malevolent person was ever elected to any office but that's an essay for another day.

It apparently has to be written out in bold letters but it is possible to protest against police brutality and murder of citizens without also cheering for the murder of police officers. And I think most decent Americans realize this. If I protest against racist police that doesn't automatically mean that I hate all white people or all police. That said, much as Malcolm X once got in hot water for saying that chickens coming home to roost was a certainty, it's important to realize that a system that does not provide a sense of justice will see more and more confrontations and killings between officers and citizens. If we don't want this (and who does?), all of us must work to weed out and punish the bad officers. If the man who murdered those officers hadn't killed himself it's a certainty that unlike police officers who have killed citizens, he would have been arrested, indicted and convicted. Giuliani is not going to dig up irrelevant dirt on the deceased officers as he did with unarmed Black men shot by police. No one is going to claim, as Donald Trump did with the vindicated Central Park Five, that these police weren't angels. No one is going to wonder if the police did anything to cause Mr. Brinsley to fear for his life and use justified force. So just as I don't think that the actions of Darren Wilson or Daniel Pantaleo mean that all officers are murderous goons, I don't think that protesting their brutality means you cheer Brinsley. I don't want cops shooting innocent people. I also don't want crazy people shooting cops. It's not an either/or situation. And whether Giuliani or Lynch or anyone else like protests or not they are lawful. I am sure that were a person like Giuliani to obtain greater power than he had he would eliminate protests altogether but fortunately this little amendment is still in effect. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What are your thoughts?

The Interview: North Korea Punks Sony and Hollywood

I don't like confrontations. However there are situations where some people or organizations will provoke a conflict to take something from you or yours. Maybe it's your lunch money or a job promotion. Maybe it's your self-respect. Maybe someone has insulted your little sister. When these things happen the only thing you can do is fight. Someone wants to throw down? You give them all they expect and more. You need to punch the bully in the mouth. You won't always win. You may get a beatdown, figuratively or even literally. But by fighting back you raise the cost of the clash. Bullies, like other predators, seek easy weak prey. If they have trouble taking things from you then even if they win the resulting fight this time, the next time they may leave you alone.  When you fight back you might win. You show the bully and other observers that the bully made a mistake. By refusing to cave to extortion you reveal that it's the bully, not you, who is the weak cringing coward. Sometimes just standing up to a bully may end the situation. It's hard to say for sure. But it's certain that allowing yourself to be bullied, to be insulted, to be humiliated, will bring more of the same. Once you get on your knees for someone it's pretty difficult to stand up straight again. Unfortunately Sony executives, other Hollywood magnates, film distributors and theater owners never seemed to learn this critical life lesson. Hackers connected to the North Korean government broke into Sony's databases to steal sensitive, private and confidential information. They warned Sony not to release The Interview, a Seth Rogen satirical comedy about the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. 

The hackers threatened to publicize other private information or to engage in unspecified 9-11 type actions. They also threatened Sony's vendors and business partners. Sony and US film distributors crumpled like a wet paper bag. Major theater chains declined to show the film. Sony pulled the film from release. 

Fearing that the exact precedent about bullies which I described above was being set, other theaters planned to feature the older movie Team America: World Police, which made fun of Kim Jong-Un's equally oddball late father Kim Jong-Il, but Paramount Studios pulled that film as well. And just in case anyone who was super special stupid might have missed the point of what was going on here, the severely English language challenged hackers sent an email to Sony that congratulated Sony for the speed and intensity of its kowtow to their demands. The email also stated that if Sony knew what was good for it, it would ensure that that The Interview was never released in any format, theatrical, video on demand, web based or otherwise. 

"Very wise to cancel 'the interview' it will be very useful for you," read the message. "We ensure the purity of your data and as long as you make no more trouble." "Now we want you never let the movie released, distributed or leaked in any form of, for instance, DVD or piracy," wrote the hackers.
LINK

So let's review. The US claims to have a belief in freedom of speech. The important concept in freedom of speech is not that a work can't be criticized or mocked or even boycotted but rather that our government can't put in prior restraint to tell the artist what he or she can create. And obviously the government can't allow private actors to employ threats of violence or actual violent acts to prevent an artist from creating or sharing his work. North Korea has no First Amendment or concept of free speech. The only rule in North Korea is don't upset Fearless Leader. That may work for North Korea but US Sony and the theater chains made a big mistake in allowing North Korea to export its censorship into the US market. If a bovine butterball like Kim Jong-Un can get Sony to wet its Depends, what might other dictators or for that matter interest groups seek to do? The implied power of hackers just went to an entirely different level, one light years beyond where they were previously. Make no mistake, Sony will not be the only corporation or organization impacted by this surrender. Other groups and other governments will seek to target US based media companies for censorship. Other studios are already "rethinking" films that are set in North Korea or make any sort of reference to North Korea. This was a test. Sony and Hollywood failed it. They talk a good game about freedom of speech and standing up for artists but when it comes down to it they're just cowards. I should point out that I'm not the biggest Rogen or Franco fan. The Interview could very well be an unfunny movie full of jokes about body functions, obesity and gay sex, all of which seem to fascinate Rogen greatly.

Being cynical I wonder if distributors were really just worried that this movie would be a financial turkey and therefore jumped at the opportunity to drop it. That could be. But that's not the point. We wouldn't permit the US government to tell us we couldn't make or watch a movie. So why are we letting the North Korean government tell us what to watch? If globalization means letting Pacific Rim communist dictatorships influence or censor American media,  then we need to reset some things. Hollywood once made movies and shorts satirizing Nazis. It made movies about evil communists during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But today's studio heads have no guts. More's the pity. It should be a reminder to us that media corporations  have no real interest in First Amendment rights. Kim Jong-Un just made Sony cringe and roll on its back. American business leaders have gotten soft. Sony has stated that it still intends to release The Interview but we'll see.

Movie Reviews: As Above, So Below, The November Man

As Above, So Below

directed by John Eric Dowdle

What is the basis of fear? It's the unknown isn't it? It's the dark. In the dark our primary sense of sight is useless. That in and of itself can cause disorientation. Another major fear that many people suffer from to a greater or lesser degree is claustrophobia. I might have a tinge of this myself. I don't like the feeling of being restrained, caged or closed in someplace. At all times I want to know that I'm in control, that I can get up and leave from wherever I might be, that I can move around and breathe freely. As Above, So Below is an interesting horror film that combines the hoary old tropes of found footage and handheld cameras with some cool historical and semi-mythological information. It gives a tip of the hat to films like National Treasure,  Angels and Demons or The DaVinci Code. Obviously it also makes very strong references to The Descent. It may raise the more thoughtful viewer's curiosity about lost cities, ancient science and the flotsam and jetsam of civilization. As mentioned, the film emphasizes the simple fears of being trapped and lost somewhere in the dark. The ending is not the best in my estimation but no film is perfect. I did like that not everything was explained. The movie allows you to make up your own mind about some things. This film uses some very simple and classic techniques to ratchet up dread and excitement. Generally speaking my interest was kept throughout the entire film with only one or two dead spots. The movie maintained viewer interest without too many magnificent massive mountains of mammary gland tissue displayed willy nilly or excessive grotesque gratuitous gut-wrenching ultra-violence. So I suppose that's a skill that must be recognized. It is possible to make an entertaining film and scare people with only modest amounts of violence or toplessness. There are plenty of shocks and frights that the viewer may know are coming. Until the very end these shocks still manage to impress. Sometimes very simple techniques can work the best. And believe it or not, the black guy didn't die first. He's not a primary character but not dying first is a step forward.

Scarlett Marlowe (Perdita Weeks) is a scientist/archaeologist with a krav maga black belt, multiple doctorates, multiple language proficiencies and a singular powerful albeit occasionally disturbing tendency to focus in on whatever her current goal is regardless of whatever the risks are to herself or to other people. This last characteristic is not presented as a stereotypically bad thing because she happens to be a woman. It has both good and bad applications. It's probably something she inherited from her father, who was in the same line of work. It's just who Scarlett is. She's a scientist who takes things seriously. She doesn't mean anything by it. Scarlett just has a obsessive dedication to science and knowledge. Scarlett has a special interest in the ancient science of alchemy. It's her family's quest to discover the Philosopher's Stone, a magical artifact believed to be able to heal, grant eternal life, and turn things into gold. After a harrowing escape from Iran where she was trying to cross reference some ancient data on alchemy, she believes that she's found where the Philosopher's Stone may be. She thinks the grave of the French medieval alchemist Nicholas Flamel, believed to have found the Philosopher's Stone, has clues to where the Stone might be. Half bullying, half flirting with her onetime lover George (Ben Feldman), a Renaissance Man who speaks the few dead languages that she doesn't, Scarlett convinces George to translate and help her to work through some clues on Flamel's headstone and elsewhere. This information leads her to believe that the fabled stone must be at a certain point in the Paris catacombs. So despite George's concerns and warnings, Scarlett thinks there's nothing to it but to put together a little mini-expedition to crawl through the dead, the caves, the old city, and find that stone.

Needless to say, things don't exactly work out as Scarlett had anticipated. Much of this film was actually shot on location in the catacombs. The film captured the generally creepy nature of the place. Just walking among the dead of centuries past, walking through rows and rows of skeletal remains in the dark, inhaling the dust of those long departed could be enough to give most people the creeps. This movie moves very slowly. It tries to wring out the maximum amount of fright from something as simple as getting lost underground or getting stuck in a tunnel. If you have ever been lost and discovered that your first plan to reorient yourself didn't work you can appreciate the increasing trepidation that may arise in this situation. Now imagine that same scenario but underground in a massive cemetery with concerns about air quality, water, food and cave-ins. Then imagine that you weren't even supposed to be on this trip but are there purely by accident. And just for fun start throwing in some para-normal activity. That's As Above, So Below. This was a worthwhile but not great film. If you can appreciate the feelings of claustrophobia and fear of darkness this is well worth watching. As I said I didn't really go for the ending because I thought it was a little out of left field. But there are some people who like those sorts of endings. Like some great horror or sci-fi novels this movie did manage to remind me that no matter how important any of us think we may be, in a hundred years or so, all of us will be just like those remains in the catacombs, moldering away and slowly turning to dust. For some people that is the true horror. For others it's just a fact of life. The film's title is taken from Hermetic texts. It is a saying which was quite popular with alchemists and occultists.
TRAILER





The November Man
directed by Roger Donaldson

This could and should have been a better movie. If there is a former Bond actor (Pierce Brosnan) paired with a former Bond girl (Olga Kurylenko) I expect a little more chemistry and sexual sparks between the two leads and more excitement throughout the movie. Instead, I found that this film was only intermittently interesting. It did not fully exploit the idea of government coverups and secret collusion with some very nasty people that it imagined. Also it would have been a nice little aside if the film had bothered to explain how Peter Devereaux (Brosnan) was an American CIA agent when he has such a strong Irish accent. I'm not saying the CIA doesn't use people from across the world. It does. But a little more backstory would have been useful as US viewers are reminded of Devereaux's foreign status every time he speaks. Anyway. At its worst this film was reminiscent of some of the similar Eastern European secret agent movies that Wesley Snipes made right before he had to report to prison for tax evasion. I mean that the story occasionally jumps around and some of the acting and effects weren't the best. Brosnan is showing his age though he (or perhaps his stunt man) gamely goes through the necessary fight or action sequences. At this point in my life or rather at this point in his life I am expecting to see Brosnan play the man behind the man, the financial mastermind or smooth talking political leader instead of an field agent who's still kicking behind and taking names. But what the heck, right? If actors of similar age like Denzel Washington and Liam Neeson can still play older warriors who are mad, bad and dangerous to know, why not Brosnan?

The results are mixed as far as I was concerned. At its best this film does make you question what's really behind some events that most of us only read about in the papers. It brings in some real life events and alleged reasons why those events took place. As the film points out repeatedly, governments are not moral actors. They can't afford to be. You might question that in the abstract but in the world in which Devereaux operates such luxuries are not available to operatives like him. Or that's what he's been led to believe.On the other hand each and every individual always has a choice about the actions that he or she takes in life. Those choices may be constrained or not very palatable but nonetheless, choices remain.

When the film opens we see that Devereaux has something approaching a conscience or at the very least he's not a fan of any sort of "collateral damage". Assigned to protect the US ambassador to Montenegro, Devereaux forbids his partner, protege and son in all but name, David Mason (Luke Bracey) from taking the killshot on the would be assassin. There are too many civilians around. Devereaux thinks he can stop the assassination another way. Mason has different ideas and takes the shot anyway, killing an innocent girl in the process. Disgusted, Devereaux goes into semi-retirement in Switzerland. But of course the agency is not done with him. He's called in to help shepherd a Russian deep-cover CIA operative Natalia Ulanov (Mediha Musliovic) out of Russia. This lady has some information about her boss, Russian general and political rising star Arkady Federov (Lazar Ristovski) that could be very useful to the right people. But she'll only trust Devereaux to bring her out safely. Unknown to Devereaux, another faction in the CIA has different plans for Ulanov. They send Devereaux's old buddy Mason to oversee them. Of course, everyone, not least of all Devereaux, has secrets and goals of their own. So it's every man or woman for him(her)self and God against them all. One person who may have the key to everything is a journalist named Alice Fournier (Olga Kurylenko in a mostly toned down role). So if this appeals to you then you know what to do. I didn't hate the movie but I wasn't blown away by it either. It had the normal level of cliches, desperate last stands and surprise reveals that weren't really surprises. OK as a lazy afternoon movie or if you happen to be a serious Brosnan fan but overall it was just middling to mediocre in quality.
TRAILER

Murder Ballads

Why are murder ballads so enduring in music? Frankie and Johnny, Pretty Polly, CC Rider, T or Texas, Delilah's Gone, Hey Joe, 32-20 blues,