MOVIES NOW AND THEN

I can't say I didn't see the King's Speech victory coming, but it still disappoints me (and the Director win, too). You wouldn't know it since I neglected to post a Best of 2010 list, but The Social Network was my pick for best movie of the year. I think any major problems somebody could have with a movie are absent from The Social Network. That movie will become one like E.T. or Do the Right Thing that people will appreciate more than the actual winner.

The ads for Cedar Rapids make it look like another Superbad or The Hangover, but instead it is the most charming comedy since The Kids Are All Right. It's a movie that considers its subjects human beings instead of stock figures or sideshow freaks. The rude humor is nicely proportionate to affecting performances and surprisingly underplayed scenes.

It breaks my heart to say anything close to "no" to Roger Ebert. Yes, I may disagree with him on a few movies, but to give even a mixed review to "Ebert Presents At the Movies," his first television endeavor in over four years, feels like a shot to my own chest. Alas, though the new show is not hopeless, it proves problematic largely due to its unexciting hosts.

This new program, broadcast on WLIW21 in New York, emerges five months after the original "At the Movies" ended on ABC. Ebert began that show with Gene Siskel in 1986 after 11 years of working together on public television. After Siskel's death in 1999 and Ebert's departure in 2006 due to cancer treatment, the show went through some unfortunate and sometimes gimmicky replacements (namely, the uninspired Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz and the almost self-serious Michael Phillips and A.O. Scott) before ending for good. With his new program, Ebert returns to public television to revitalize the studiously yet lively type of reviewing he did with Siskel.

Ebert chose Christy Lemire of the Associated Press and Ignatiy Vishnevetsky of Mubi.com as the show's hosts. Both critics display experience and knowledge about cinema's past and present. Lemire appears to be more casual while Vishnevetsky is somewhat of a scholar. When Vishnevetsky gives a movie "thumbs up," he points out specific scenes and comparisons to past films and filmmaking techniques to explain why he liked the movie. (In the premiere episode, one of his praises about "The Green Hornet" was the cinematography's similarity to optical processes from the 1970s.) Lemire explains her opinion as well, but her comments are broader, less formal and slightly repetitive. (She used "languid" as a major adjective two reviews in a row.) I don't want to suggest one takes their role more seriously than the other because they both clearly love movies, but it does seem like the intellectual playing field is slightly imbalanced.

The problem with these hosts is that neither one has a distinctly opposite personality yet. Siskel was a collected man while Ebert had the capacity to raise his voice if it seemed a movie he liked was being attacked. Any of their disagreements is two or three minutes of guaranteed humor amidst the discourse. The only emotion I can see in these new hosts is happiness to be on television. They should improve as they do more episodes and build a relationship. (Vishnevetsky is a last-minute replacement for Elvis Mitchell of the radio program "The Treatment.") I hope they'll reveal some more facets in time, because we certainly don't want another pair as wan as Lyons and Mankiewicz.

The reviews themselves can be less than engaging. The hosts often begin by summarizing the movie before offering any criticism. If there's one thing I know as a writer, it's that you need a juicy opening to hook in an audience. Don't start by describing the plot. Give us one succinct statement on the quality so we can be interested in hearing more. Ebert is better about it in his own segment, where he handpicks movies like "The Rite" and "My Dog Tulip," but he also wastes time describing the film factually and not describing it emotionally. It's a forgivable error for a beginning show, and the critics already started making their opinions clearer in the second episode, but they should remember to relay their general statement at the most opportune moment.

The new "At the Movies" also promises specialized segments with guest correspondents. The first two episodes featured blogger Kim Morgan praising the 1949 classic "The Third Man" and essayist Kartina Richardson analyzing the bathroom as an important recurring setting in "Black Swan." Segments like these run the risk of seeming random, so I hope their subjects will stay related to the overall episode or to current events in addition to being discussed for their own sake. So far, these pieces are interesting and recall some of the special episodes Siskel and Ebert did (like their salute to black and white and their analysis of great villains).

Even with its faults, I wish "Ebert Presents At the Movies" the best of luck. I will continue watching to see if it will improve. This show is bringing back what the original "At the Movies" delivered: intelligent film discussion proffered by relatable people. The hosts this time around are not as entertaining as Siskel and Ebert were, but their potential cannot be abandoned after only two episodes. I trust Ebert very much, and if he likes these new critics, then I'll wait and see if they will earn their seats in the balcony.

Originally posted on FordhamObserver.com.

Visit EbertPresents.com to watch the show's reviews.

127 Hours – R

James Franco gives a captivating performance in 127 Hours, Danny Boyle’s inspiring, if possibly incomplete, film about adventurer Aron Ralston. Ralston’s hand was pinned under a rock when exploring a canyon, and he was stuck for five days until he severed his own arm. The film adds a lot of touches to keep the scenes of the trapped Ralston from growing tedious. We see unusual point-of-view shots from places like Ralston’s water bottle as fluid is sucked out and his camera as it rewinds his video. It also intercuts Ralston’s physical endurance with his flashbacks and hallucinations, which call to mind Dalton Trumbo’s novel Johnny Got His Gun (another amputee story, but a much less hopeful one).

Best-of-the-year lists for 2010 are already passé, but my decision to go home for Christmas delayed opportunity for me to see a few movies. To speed the process, my cutoff will be seeing and reviewing The Illusionist, Winter's Bone and Blue Valentine since the first one is a movie I've looked forward to and the others are ones that will likely show up on the Oscar ballot. There are a few, like Rabbit Hole and Another Year, that I may write about if they get any substantial nominations, but I've drawn the line and will publish my list as soon as possible.

Now that the fall semester and holidays are over, I can catch up on a few Oscar contenders that I’ve been too busy to see immediately.

Black Swan


Darren Aronofsky’s intense and dark fantasy follows Nina (Natalie Portman), an "aging" ballerina (mid-to-late twenties, but old enough to feel she needs bigger roles now) for whom the pressure of starring in Swan Lake initiates a chain of paranoia, sexuality, physical torture and overdue freedom. Portman is brilliant as both a girl who has taken too long to grow up and, in Nina's hallucinations, a carnal savage that wants to escape. She is surrounded (and her character oppressed) by a very good supporting cast, which includes a candid Mila Kunis as a rival dancer, an eerie Barbara Hershey as Nina's mother and an imposing Vincent Cassel as the ballet's director. His character is what Boris Lermontov (the impresario Anton Wolbrook played in the 1948 classic The Red Shoes) would be like if he had a libido.

I apologize for delivering this holiday gift guide so close to the end of the season. This would have come sooner if I did not have to prepare for final exams. Nevertheless, as long as it is not yet December 25th, I can still offer movie fans some good holiday gift ideas.

This was the year in which I converted from DVDs to Blu-rays, and I have not regretted it once. The picture quality is such that you can see every cobblestone in the road, every shingle on the road and every line in person’s face. If you haven’t considered a Blu-ray player before, I’d say it’s about time to start. My model is a Panasonic DMP-BD45, which works fine despite not having Internet capability. If you want a regular player, I suggest a higher-level Panasonic unit. The best one I’ve seen, however, is Sony’s Playstation 3, which is Internet capable and loads discs at a much faster speed (not to mention Batman: Arkham Asylum is one of the best video games I’ve ever played).