Review of MADAGASCAR 3: EUROPE'S MOST WANTED (2012)

- Rated PG for some mild action and rude humor.
- Featuring the voices of Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, David Schwimmer, Jada Pinkett Smith, Sacha Baron Cohen, Cedric the Entertainer, Andy Richter, Frances McDormand, Bryan Cranston, Martin Short, Jessica Chastain
- Screenplay by Eric Darnell and Noah Baumbach
- Directed by Eric Darnell, Tom McGrath and Conrad Vernon
- Running time: 1hr 33min.

The first MADAGASCAR has a special place in my heart.  It was the first movie that my daughter (then, 23 months) sat all the way through.  She was laughing and engaged throughout.  It was just a joy watching her watch it.  And since then, she hasn't looked back.  She has now seen over 175 movies in the theater (she's almost 9 now).  Even besides that, I thought the movie was fun and stylish.  The second one was more of the same, though I thought it was a bit sillier with some of the secondary characters (namely the old lady).  It wasn't quite as good.  And now with this third one, I was a little skeptical going into it, though on the plus side I was bringing my daughter again.

When we last left the crazy animals of the MADAGASCAR saga (Alex, Gloria, Melman, and Marty). they were in Africa trying to find a way home to the New York Zoo.  The movie starts off with the penguins fixing a plane and taking it to Monte Carlo so they can gamble with some monkeys, but they promise to come back and take the rest of the gang home.  Alex can't wait, so he gathers the crew plus King Julien and his posse, and they make their way to Europe.  The animals practically destroy the town which draws attention to a vicious animal control expert, Captain Chanel DuBois, who desperately wants a lion head to add to her trophy room.  Alex and the crew escape Dubois when they board a circus train.  They ask the animals if they can join them in the circus.  Though some of the circus animals are reluctant (mainly a has been tiger named Vitaly), they let them hide out, promising to take them to America when their tour goes there (if the American promoter likes them in England).  But there's just one thing... the circus sucks!  So it's up to Alex to create a great show for all of the performers so they can get back home, all the while Dubois is hot on their trail.

While I didn't like the 2nd one all that much, at least that story had a good moral center with the subplot involving Alex's father.  But this one doesn't have anything heartfelt like that.  The plot isn't all that original as it seemed like they were really fishing for a reason to make another one.  The result is rather "meh".  I couldn't really care less about anything going on here.  I guess it wouldn't be so bad if it was stylish and offered some fresh humor.  But everything felt rushed.  The pacing is set at a breakneck speed (especially the first 30 minutes) that if you haven't seen the other 2, you'll probably be lost as to who everyone is.  No time for character development Dr. Jones!

There were a few amusing bits.  Julien's sidekick Maurice has a funny moment and Marty doing his Afro Circus song was funny the first time he does it (it's repeated at least 4 more times).  My favorite moments in the movie though, involved the love affair between Julien and an overweight circus bear.  There romantic montage as they tour Italy had be chuckling a lot (loved seeing that bear driving around on a crotch rocket).  But more often than not, the movie just resorts to loud and obnoxious humor.  There are so many chases with animals and humans screaming, making noises, and wrecking stuff.  It got so exhausting that I checked out long before the halfway point.

The voice work is about the same as the other movies, though the penguins aren't that funny anymore.  Maybe because their type of shenanigans are no longer fresh, but one thing's for certain.  They're getting old.  Francis McDormand is a welcome addition to the cast and is somewhat amusing as DuBois.  I loved her operatic number that comes out of nowhere.  But Martin Short's seal character was annoying and not funny.

Instead of being imaginative like the first one, the filmmakers just throw in a lot of random humor that just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Speaking of not making any sense.  In the first movie, I believe that Alex and his friends were shipped off to Madagascar because of bad behavior, so they weren't welcomed back to the zoo.  But in this one, there are newspaper articles stating that the Zoo is still looking for their "missing" animals.  Maybe I'm wrong.  It has been awhile since I've seen it, but if I'm not wrong then that's sloppy writing.

If you want to see a family film that tries to make kids laugh by throwing lots of loud scenes with obnoxious characters doing annoying things at you and features the latest crappy pop songs, then MADAGASCAR 3 is for you.  But if you want to take the family to a genuinely imaginative, unique, visually interesting, and hilarious movie, then you should've taken them to see PIRATES! BAND OF MISFITS, which is much better.  The sad thing is, that movie flopped and this one is going to make at least 150 million.  Sometimes moviegoers boggle my mind.

Oh yeah.  And for the record, my daughter didn't really like it either.  But she loved PIRATES! (which you may still be able to find at the cheap theaters, which is definitely a better deal than spending 60 bucks taking everyone to this mediocre flick).

** (out of ****)

Review of GOODBYE FIRST LOVE (2012)

- Not rated but contains full frontal nudity.
- Starring Lola Creton, Sebastian Urzendowsky, Magne-Havard Brekke
- Written & Directed by Mia Hansen Love
- Running time: 1hr 50min.

This small independent French film has been making it's rounds on the festival circuit over the past year.  It follows the lives of 2 lovers.  Camille is just 15 and Sullivan is a little older.  They have a pretty intense relationship which is typical of young love.  They love each other so much that they make each other miserable.  One day, Sullivan decides to go on a 10 month expedition to find out what he wants to be in life, which devastates Camille.  Sullivan tries to convince her that nothing will change, but of course it does.  He writes to her often at first, but then the letters come less frequently, eventually admitting that he cheats on her and doesn't plan on coming back.  Years later Camille becomes an Architect and begins a relationship with her (much older) professor.  So it's been like 10 years and everything seems fine... then Sullivan comes back into Camille's life.  Will it still be the same?

The premise has all the making for a tragic and moving love story, but unfortunately the execution is tedious and boring.  For most of the movie, nothing happens.  In fact, the first half felt like it was composed entirely of second unit footage.  Lots of shots of the city, skies, and looking out windows.  It was like a travelogue of Paris.  But not much character interaction, unless Camille and Sullivan are fighting.  They are so not right for each other.  Maybe that was the point, but either way it's not very fun to watch. There just isn't much chemistry between the two actors, but we really aren't given a chance to see why they were together in the first place.  There's hardly any scenes of them having conversations or anything like that.  Just them looking at each other naked.  That's not chemistry, that's the screenwriter not knowing what to have the characters say to each other.

Then the movie jumps around a few years every 20 minutes or so.   What for?  Big deal!  We really don't get any more insight by doing this.  Most of the focus is on Camille during the middle hour of the film, and she's not very interesting.  She just walks around looking sad and confused while an old geezer professor seduces her.  I didn't see Camille being attracted to him.  I didn't buy it.  Then when Sullivan and Camille reconnect, it's still clear they don't belong to each other.  But at the end of this I finally just asked myself, "Why should I even care?".   Good point, me.  Why do I even care if any of this makes sense cause it was just so poorly paced and boring.  And I didn't like the characters, so yeah, why care?

The acting isn't bad.  Sebastian Urzendowsky is decent as Sullivan, but the real find is Lola Creton.  She has a great natural ability and is so beautiful.  I found out after the screening that she was only 17 when they filmed this (and she's fully nude).  That was kind of disturbing, but it made sense why she looked unconvincing as a college grad student whose supposed to be in her late 20's.  But she is a talented actress giving an honest and fragile performance.  The direction isn't awful.  I liked the low budget natural look.  There are some individual beautiful shots in this, but most of that is from the second unit stuff.  This movie was in the need of a good editor.  There were many scenes that just has characters staring off into nothing for minutes at a time.  I didn't see a point for most of it.  It just made the film seem super long.

I think there were good intentions involved here, and I think the actors thought they were making something special, but the filmmaking is indulgent and the running time bloated.  I can respect the director for the effort, but it felt too much like a self important student film.

** (out of ****)

Review of THE FAIRY (2012)

- Not Rated but should be rated PG13 for fleeting nudity, although the MPAA would most likely rate it R cause they're dumb.  But it's PG13 style nudity.
- Starring Dominique Abel, Fiona Gordon
- Written and Directed by Dominque Abel, Fiona Gordon and Bruno Romy
- Running time: 1hr 34min.

I have not heard of these filmmakers before seeing this French comedy, but after watching it, I will be keeping my eye on them with great interest, as well as checking out their first 2 films.

A lonely hotel clerk named Dom meets Fiona, who enters his place of work looking for a room.  It looks like she just escaped some sort of mental hospital (which she did), but she claims to be a fairy and grants Dom 3 wishes.  He doesn't really think anything of it, but when he almost chokes to death, Fiona comes to his rescue.  He then wishes for a scooter and unlimited gas, and he wakes up the next morning with a scooter in the middle of the tiny hotel lobby, and a key to a gas tank.  The rest of the film is a series of vignettes as Dom and Fiona encounter a variety of zany characters, including a man who (not so secretly) sneaks a dog into the hotel, a nearly blind restaurant owner, 3 illegal immigrants, and a few people from the insane asylum.  Dom and Fiona fall in love and must try to find a way to be together when the fairy is taken back to the asylum.  And what about Dom's last wish?  You'll just have to see.  heh heh. 

I don't even know where to begin here, honestly.  I think I'll just start gushing now.  This has to be one of the most imaginative, articulately planned, strange, wacky, whimsical, unique and flat out hysterical films I have seen in at least a few years.  I haven't laughed this hard in a very long time.  Comedies today just don't impress me much as most of them have a bunch of Saturday Night Live alumni improvising their way through a sketchy story.  It gets old really fast.  I'm frankly getting tired of it.  But THE FAIRY is such a breath of fresh air.  Everything is carefully planned out with perfect comic timing.  Everything happens for a reason of this.  This is very much in the tradition of a classic silent comedy and the films of Jacques Tati.

There are so many memorable set pieces here.  I don't want to give them all away, but I'll tell you a few.  The film starts off low-key as Dom's bike chain breaks on a rainy day on his way to work.  Once there, he makes a sandwich, accidentally putting the cap to a ketchup bottle in it.  Then every time he is about to take a bite, there is a call at the front desk.  This happens several times, and it's just so perfectly built up that when he finally bites into his sandwich, I was anticipating it with comedic suspense.

The scene I laughed at the most (until I was crying) was when the owner of a restaurant (Bruno Romy) is serving Dom and Fiona beer, and he can hardly see anything.  He keeps running into walls, and almost spilling drinks on the two lovers.  Romy's timing in this is exceptional here, and has wonderful body language.  In fact, all the leads have wonderful body language and it left me thinking that maybe they had some training in performance art, cause it certainly feels that way as they gracefully move through the movie.

Both Fiona and Dominique are terrific comedians.  They create wonderfully infectious characters that are extremely likable.  Sure, they're eccentric, but they are so delightful.  And they both do this without hardly saying a word.  There are many sequences without any dialogue, which definitely gives it that silent comedy feel.  I've seen some filmmakers try this and actors try to emulate classic comedies, but many of those attempts turn out flat.  But Fiona and Dom are so graceful and talented that I almost feel like they were born in the wrong time period.  They would have been right at home making films in the 1920's.  Even their direction is minimal, just like those movies.  So many comedies today are overdirected with too much coverage.  But here, the camera is mostly static, the action in perfect frame, and just lets the actors do their thing.  It takes guts and lots of confidence to be able to just let the camera sit there.  It's simple, but most effective.  There's not much character development here, but that's not what this movie is.  It's ABOUT the comedy.  Not the characters.  Which is what the Farrelly's didn't realize when making their 3 STOOGES movie. 

I can't get many of the film's great moments and images out of my head: a marvelous dance number under the sea with Fiona being eaten by a giant clam, a dog thrown into sewer, a flying hospital patient, Dom trying to ride his scooter for the first time, Fiona's kleptomania, a human alarm system, Fiona immediately becoming pregnant and her delivery... there's just so much to talk about.  But no matter what I say, I cannot do this film justice.  You just have to see it!

This is a wonderful movie about 2 souls getting together as they go on a wacky journey through silliness.  Filled with old-fashioned humor, wit and charm.  Just about everything about the film's comedy and humor is perfect.  THE FAIRY is a refreshing jolt of comedic genius.  This is how comedy used to be done, and by no means should it be stopped.  This may not be everyone's cup of tea.  It's pretty strange and you have to be patient for the comedy to pay off.  But if you're a fan of classic comedy, whimsical tales, or just odd films, you will not want to miss this!  It's perfect!

**** (out of ****)

Review of HYSTERIA (2012)

- Rated R for sexual content.
- Starring Hugh Dancy, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jonathan Pryce, Rupert Everett
- Written by Stephen & Jonah Lisa Dyer (Based on an original story by Howard Gensler)
- Directed by Tanya Wexler
- Running time: 1hr 38min

I had no idea what this movie was about walking into this, so the story sort of surprised me.  If you want to walk in cold, don't read any further.  The plot is talked about in every other review and in the trailer, but I just didn't know about it, which was kind of cool.

The story takes place in Victorian London.  Dr. Granville (Dancy) is a poor physician with a big heart.  He gets a job assisting Dr. Dairymple (Pryce) treating women with "Hysteria".  Pretty much back in this time period, any woman who showed signs of what we now call anxiety or depression were diagnosed with Hysteria.  And to treat them, Dr. Dairymple services them.  By servicing them, I mean he has his patients lay down, spread their legs and massages their... um.... well, I'm just going to say it.  He fingers them!  I guess this was a common practice.  Dr. Granville is finally trained in on this and he's very successful.  But then he begins suffering from arthritis.  He can't perform to his boss' (and patients) standards no longer.  Then Granville's roommate Edmund (Everett) invents an electronic devise, a Dustbuster.  But Granville gets an idea from it.  What if he can use an electronic device to treat his patients.  Hence, the vibrator was born.

But this is all just a backdrop for the heart of the story, which turns out to be a traditional romantic comedy.  Dairymple has 2 daughters.  One is quiet and reserved, Emily (Felicity Jones) who Granville has affection for.  The other is Charlotte (Gyllenhaal) who is "a Chinese firecracker", as one character calls her.  She is a feminist and is against her father's practice.  She's also trying to raise money so a shelter for poor people won't shut down, which her father doesn't approve of.  But something funny happens.  Dr. Granville, once he gets to know Charlotte, starts to grow fond of her, but he's already engaged to Emily.

This could've easily been a one-joke movie, but the script is deeply layered with drama, screwball comedy, and fluffy romance.  A film with a potentially raunchy subject matter is handled with taste and elegance.  Even though it's about the invention of the vibrator and has absolutely riotous scenes of women orgasming, it was done in such a manner that I would feel comfortable taking my mom to this.

And those "pleasuring scenes".  The first one had me in stitches as a proper British lady (Georgie Glen) is yelling at Dr. Dairymple as she's orgasms.  And she does a great horse bit too.  Yes, there's plenty of sex jokes but it also has some well timed situational comedy.  It is all so well balanced, making this a very sturdy film.  There is also a social commentary about the rich and poor that was handled with kid gloves.  I'm glad it wasn't preachy.  The romance isn't overdone either.  It takes it's time and you actually see chemistry between Charlotte and the young doctor.  Every character in this, whether it's a lead actor or a a heavyset woman singing opera style as she's being pleasured, are fun and likable.

The acting is terrific all around.  Hugh Dancy has the perfect British everyman look, and is just wonderful in the lead.  Now, it's been no secret that I'm not a big Maggie Gyllenhaal fan, but that's just because I have a tough time looking at her.  She often gets cast as the young romantic lead, but I always felt like she looks at least 10 years older than her actual age.  But I've always thought she was a great actress, and she fits the character wonderfully here.  She should be doing nothing but period comedies and dramas, as she flawlessly does a convincing British accent.  Her performance is full of verve and confident energy, but she's also sweet.  Jonathan Pryce is good as always as the head doctor.  And man, is it nice to see Rupert Everett in a movie again.  He has some of the film's best lines as Dancy's roommate, delivering smart comments with a slight, tight smirk on his face.

The art direction is marvelously authentic, and the costumes spot on.  The whole movie just has a great tone to it.  Director Tanya Wexler has crafted a wonderful, edgy, but surprisingly commercial (and that's good) lighthearted comedy.  If I had one complaint, it would be that a certain development in the last act felt a tad rushed.  But the rest of the film is so enjoyable that it's a minor quibble.

I know some viewers tend to dread costume dramas or comedies, but this has a real nice swift pace.  It goes by real fast, and you'll be sad when it's over, cause it's just a joy.  I never thought I would say a movie about the vibrator would be delightful.  But it is!  HYSTERA is absolutely delightful!  If you loved movies like SENSE AND SENSIBILITY or EMMA, this is in the same league.  And even if you're not a fan of those, I have a feeling you'll still have a good time. 

***1/2 (out of ****)

Also, check out my interview with the film's director, Tanya Wexler.
http://1andonlyfilmgeek.blogspot.com/2012/05/exclusive-interview-with-director-of.html 

Review of SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN (2012)

- Rated PG13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and brief sensuality.
- Starring Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Sam Clafin, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, Toby Jones, Sam Spruell
- Written by Evan Dougherty, John Lee Hancock and Hossein Amini
- Directed by Rupert Sanders
- Running time: 2hrs 7min

It was just over 2 months ago that MIRROR MIRROR with Julia Roberts came out to the theater.  That was a lighthearted take on the Snow White story, while this movie is a lot darker and aimed at older teens and fantasy loving adults.  I didn't hate MIRROR MIRROR, though it had problems.  I liked the look and some of the tone, but it wasn't as focused as it should have been.  After seeing many trailers for SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTMAN, I began getting pretty pumped as it looked bad ass.

If you know the traditional story of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, forget it.  This is quite different.  The movie begins with the origins of the evil Queen (Theron).  She seduces the king of a mighty kingdom, and then marries him before brutally stabbing him in their bed.  Fearing that the King's daughter, Snow White (Stewart), will take revenge, she locks her in one of the castle towers.  Over the years, the kingdom has fallen apart.  The queen is growing older but the magic mirror tells her that if she has Snow White's heart, she will become immortal.  The queen's brother attempts to kill her, but she escapes. 

Meanwhile, there's a gruff but handsome looking huntsman (Hemsworth) who is a drunkard because his wife passed away.  The queen hires him to find Snow White, but of course that's not how it all goes down.  The huntsman eventually helps the princess.  They meet a band of dwarf thieves who decide to help out as well. There's also a prince charming story line involving Snow White's childhood pal thrown in cause I guess there wasn't enough plot to begin with.  Everyone joins up to destroy the evil queen and to put Snow White on the throne where she rightfully belongs. 

The look of this film is pretty cool.  It's evident that a lot of time, effort, and imagination went into this.  The concept of a darker, more violent Snow White story is something to get excited about.  However, the execution is not.  I really wanted to like this one guys.  Sorry.  It starts out promising, with the shocking murder of the King (this PG13 movie doesn't cut away from the violence), but then it takes awhile for it to get going.  I found the pacing rather sluggish, as every scene felt like it could have been cut down by 15 or 20 seconds.  It also struggles to find the right balance in which to juggle it's many characters.  Prince William seems like an interesting character, but then the movie forgets about him.  I guess he's just not as popular as Thor, huh? 

The second half is definitely better and more exciting.  Once the Dwarfs arrive, life is finally injected into the story, though the way they're used is pretty much ripped off from LORD OF THE RINGS (even the way they filmed them was the same, by having normal sized actors made to look short with special effects).  Their interaction is a lot of fun and that's when the movie also has it's share of some (not a lot) of humor.  Too bad this film wasn't just about them.  The queen was all over the first half, but she's hardly in the second when the focus switches to Snow White.  This approach doesn't allow the character to be fully realized and developed.  Most of the time she's just reacting to creatures and people trying to attack her as the Huntsman and Dwarfs save her.  Then, in the supposedly big epic battle at the finale, she puts on armor and becomes a full fledged hero, leading her people to victory.  There was absolutely no transition!  When did she get the confidence?  When did she learn to sword fight?  When did she become the main character?  Whatever.  Oh yeah, and they try to shoe-in a love triangle that doesn't feel warranted.  It just felt the filmmakers wanted audiences to choose between team Huntsman or team Charming.  It was pretty pointless.

The acting is kind of all of the place.  Kristen Stewart has gotten a lot of shit for her portrayal as Bella, and this won't change people's minds about her.  I personally didn't think she was awful here, but her character is such a blank slate.  There's nothing there.  Hemsworth is fine as the huntsman, but again, the character isn't developed.  Charlize Theron gives an unrestrained performance as the Queen that is wildly inconsistent.  Sometimes she is quietly menacing, but when she shrieks and her eyes get as wild as silver dollars, it's unintentionally funny.  Probably my favorite performance was that of Sam Spurell as the Queen's brother. He has a bowl cut that would make Jim Carrey's character from DUMB AND DUMBER jealous, but he portrays the part with terrific menace.  His confrontation with the huntsman was a highlight of the film.  The dwarfs were mostly good all around.  Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, and Toby Jones deliver fun performances.  Bob Hoskins is the only one who I found to be a bit flat.  He just looked like he was up for three weeks straight and wanted to take a nap. 

The effects are great.  The sets and art direction, though not very original, look fantastic.  There were some nice creative flourishes here.  There was a troll who attacks Snow White that was super cool looking.  There were some demons made out of glass that I thought was incredibly imaginative.  The scene in the dark forest when people hallucinate nightmarish images was horrific fun.  My favorite moment (and my daughter's) was the scene when the dwarfs take Snow White to a place of sanctuary, which was inhabited with all kinds of fantastic creatures, like mushrooms with eyeballs, sprites, fairies, and other magical beings. 

But the movie is only as strong as it's story, and that's where the movie falters.  First time director Rupert Sanders seems to have taken on more than he can handle.  He's fine when helming scenes of wonder and amazement.  But his action scenes are just so-so, edited in a very standard, generic fashion.  Even though building up to them was exciting, the actual fights and battles were kind of dull.  If a true visionary director (like Peter Jackson, Brian De Palma, Martin Scorsese) would have been handling this, SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTMAN could have been something really special. 

Though there are moments that are visually interesting to gaze at, the characters are severely underdeveloped, the direction generic, and the pacing kind of slow.  It's frustrating, cause this had all the ingredients to be a classic fantasy/adventure.  But it tries way too hard to be like LORD OF THE RINGS, and it pales in comparison.  My daughter liked it a bit more than me, but not much.  This isn't a disaster, but I never thought I would've rated this lower than MIRROR MIRROR. 

** (out of ****)

Review of FOR GREATER GLORY (2012)

- Rated R for war violence and some disturbing images.
- Starring Andy Garcia, Eva Longoria, Oscar Isaac, Bruce Greenwood, Ruben Blades, Peter O'Toole, Bruce McGill, Catalina Sandino Moreno
- Written by Michael Love
- Directed by Dean Wright
- Running time: 2hrs 22min

Based on a true account of the Cristeros War in Mexico from 1926-1929.  The Government was against Christianity and this is about how the Christians banded together to fight the system.  There are many characters (too many) in this film.  To be honest, I saw this movie about 2 months ago and I'm trying to remember who everyone was.  For some reason, I don't remember Eva Longoria in this at all.  Whoops!  I know Andy Garcia plays Enrique, a born leader who is an atheist, but ends up taking charge of the Christians cause his wife is religious.  I think that's who Longoria plays, his wife.  Yeah, I think.  Anyway, then we have Oscar Isaac as El Catorce, a sort of lone gunman who's a bad ass.  There are also a few kid characters who want to fight for the cause that Enrique grows attached to.  Rueben Blades is appropriately sinister as the head of the Mexican Government, Calles.  The first half of the film is an introduction to it's many characters, building up to the war that makes up more of the second half. 

I had no idea what type of movie this was going to be, so I was surprised when it turned out to be an action film.  That would be the film's greatest strengths.  Director Dean Wright knows how to properly stage and execute battles.  The best ones were the smaller and more sustained gunfights, usually involving El Catorce, who has a kick ass introduction as he takes out some baddies.  The bigger battles at the end were also riveting.  If you like epic war movies, you might like it. 

Unfortunately, I need a bit more than just some swell battle scenes.  The film is nearly 2 and a half hours, and it hurts it in more ways than ones.  It tries too hard to tell several stories, but some are more developed than others.  The most interesting character for me was El Catorce, but after the first half, he's not in it a whole lot.  They build him up to make it seem he will be important to the plot later, but he isn't.  This movie either needed to be longer, to expand the storylines that were lacking, or shorter, cutting all the stories and characters that weren't fully developed. 

Andy Garcia does solid work here as Enrique.  He's a fine actor and it's nice to see him dig into a meaty role here.  Oscar Isaac is terrific as the lone gunman who felt like a great western legend.  There are a few other known actors in smaller parts, like Peter O'Toole as a doomed priest, and Bruce Greenwood as an American Ambassador who can't seem to help out the Mexican people. 

The direction is good, but the script really needed to be shopped out.  There are moments that I enjoyed quite a bit, and the story is worth telling I think.  The action scenes distracted me from it's weaknesses from time to time, but not enough for me to fully recommend the film.  It's a nice try, but it doesn't quite make it.  Well crafted technically, too bad it has a scattershot script. 

**1/2 (out of ****)

Exclusive: Interview with Director of HYSTERIA, Tanya Wexler!!!

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking (in person) with Tanya Wexler, who is a filmmaker whose romantic sex comedy about the creation of the vibrator called HYSTERIA is releasing this month.

I met her at the Foshay Tower downtown Minneapolis, and sat down in some pretty comfy lounge chairs to chat with her.  I must say, interviewing her didn't really feel like interviewing her.  It felt like I was just hanging out with a friend, jibberjabbing about her latest accomplishment.  It was very casual.  She was very loud and boisterous and I mean that in the best way possible.  An absolute pleasure to talk with!


TW (Tanya Wexler): Hi!  I'm Tanya.

AK (Austin Kennedy):  Austin.  Austin Kennedy.

TW: How are you? 

AK/TW (same time): Nice to met you.

TW: If you have a bunch of stuff (to ask)... I just basically kind of non-stop talk, so you should just "neeeeeer", cut me off and steer me around or...

AK: Okay. 

TW: I won't take it personal.

AK: First of all, I saw the movie a few weeks ago and loved it. 

TW: Aww, thank you.  Thank you so much!

AK: What was funny was that I didn't know...

TW: You didn't know what was coming?

AK: Well you usually (at screenings) I don't know about what the movie is about.  I just get invited and am like "Oh, cool".  So I didn't know anything about it.

TW: (laughs) Were you like, "What the fuck?"

AK: Well about halfway through the movie I was like... "Wait a minute!  Is this.... is this about... the vibrator?

TW: (laughs)

AK: Cause I didn't know where it was going cause they finally talk about the vibrator about halfway through the movie. 

TW: Yeah! It's late.  Cause it's really about hysteria in many ways.

AK: But I was like, "wait a minute!" So I thought it was really cool and it surprised me

TW: (laughing and clapping)  That's awesome.  I've only met  a few people who saw it kind of cold like that.  Cause it's almost impossible to not hear what it's about...

AK: Well with so many mainstream popular movies it's hard to stay away from what it's about, so when there's an independent movie like this, I don't want to know anything about it.  

TW: But also with this topic it's sort of hard to keep it (a secret).  Cause most people are like, "Oh! The vibrator movie."

AK: If I would've heard something about that before seeing it, I would've had preconceived notions about it.  So it was kind of nice going in cold like that.  So I had a  different perspective on it.  

TW:  Yeah yeah.

AK: So this is your third film?

TW: It is.  I made 2 little teeny weeny small films.

AK: And that was awhile ago?

TW: Yeah.  I had 4 kids.

AK: Oh! O.K.!

TW: So I was in my kidland for quite awhile.  Then this took a long time to get going too, so I can't blame it all on the children.  I can blame a lot on my children but not that.

AK: How did the script get to you?

TW: It was a two page treatment and I brought the writers on board.

AK: How did you find the treatment?

TW: A friend of mind said, "I know what your next movie is."  And I was like "you do? "  And she said "a romantic comedy about the invention of the vibrator in Victorian England".  And I was like, "YES!".  ME!  Done!

AK: So it was just a treatment?

TW: Just a treatment.  Yeah.  A treatment about the treatment.  (laughs)

AK: Did she write it too?

TW: No. No. I knew the writers.  I brought it to them.  I was like, "we have no money".  And they're like, "what's the idea?  Okay we'll do it!".  It was just like that.  The people who GOT IT, got it right away and were passionate about it.

AK: Did you have a lot of input in the script?

TW: Oh yeah, I mean we worked together.  So it's a husband and wife team, and the husband produced my first 2 movies.  And they were moving away from producing cause every time we went into production he'd start smoking again.  And I think he'd die if he produced another movie.  And he was a good writer and both knew how to produce.  And they started writing a lot, and they were figuring out what to write next, and something we wanted to do together.  And I brought it to them, and they were like "Oh my God, it's the best idea I've heard in a year".  They just wrote it on spec.  It took a lot of time to get it right.  Like a year and a half. two years just to get the script right.

AK: Was it just the tone or...

TW: Yeah, and there's a lot in it.  There's a lot of different storylines and subplots and characters and we want them to be real and three dimensional.  And to get all that in an hour and a half and follow ... what is it?.... six characters really.  It's tricky cause you need enough for each one to feel like something, but you need to keep your main story going.

AK: And probably the balance of tone of broad humor or (is it) too raunchy...

TW: Yeah!  We didn't want to make a sex farce.  We thought the movie about the vibrator was just a 15 minute sketch.  So we had to figure out what it was about.  They had to find a plot.

AK: About Hysteria.

TW: Yeah!  They ultimately found it in the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's.

AK: I love those.

TW: Yeah, so it's kind of like that Cary Grant/Katherine Hepburn vibe.  So once they got that done we needed to bring on some producers.  We teamed up with a British producer whose done 12 amazing period pieces.  MRS. BROWN, ENGLISHMEN WHO WENT UP A HILL BUT CAME DOWN A MOUNTAIN....

AK: I love that movie.

TW: Just tons of stuff.  RUN FATBOY RUN with Simon Pegg!  She's just great.  And the producer of CRAZY HEART, Judy Cairo came aboard too.

AK: That wasn't the hard part?

TW: It was very hard.

AK: Was it hard to get it funded?

TW: It was really hard.  Hard to get it cast and funded.  A lot of that is getting around and through to certain people.

AK: How was it hard casting?

TW: The volumes of material actors get sent is tremendous.  The volume of material I get now is tremendous, and I'm still not anybody anyone's ever heard of.  But there's so many people trying to make so many scripts.  The way things kind of get through that kind of noise is because someone knows someone.  You know, if a famous director is attached, then another famous actor is attached.  Or if the producer has a big reputation.  So it was helpful we had a producer who had made these 12 films, and Judy who had just made CRAZY HEART.  When we first started, we didn't have Judy and CRAZY HEART was still a twinkle in her eye.  But for a director that was not known in my case,  I mean I made 2 little films that proved that I knew how to but a camera somewhere and work with actors but I wasn't known.  So there's an education.  And first you get someone to read the script, then you have to do the education.  You have to build the pieces so that someone starts paying attention.  But to get those first pieces was hard.  So we ended up casting Jonathan (Pryce) first.  And then Rupert... and then building an ensemble.

AK: Jonathan came first, huh?  How was it working with him?  I love Jonathan Pryce.  BRAZIL's one of my favorite movies.

TW: Me too! And I got to meet to Terry (Gilliam)!

AK: Oh really?
 
TW:Which was the coolest thing in my entire life!
  
AK: Super cool!

TW: Jonathan's great!  We've become family friends.  He's only friends with me because I have a guest room in New York.  (laughs).  But he's great and tremendous.
  
AK: Was he helpful on the set?
 
TW: I mean they're all helpful.  And they want the movie to be good.  And they want to seem good in it.  So people worked very hard and they cared a lot.  And they were passionate.  It can make you crazy sometimes cause it is the stuff of art and emotions that you're playing with and working with and I don't mean it to be high-minded but lot of it's intangible.  And a lot of it's subjective.  So people get their feelings hurt.  But our actors... our group got along really well.  It was a good ensemble.  Our team got along really well.  It was as harmonious as it gets.
  
AK: So how did you get to Maggie?  What did she think of the script when she finally read it? 
 
TW: That's what convinced her to do it.  She got it from her manager (through Judy who worked with her on CRAZY HEART), and Maggie just laughed and said "I can play this!!  I know how to play this part".  She said in a lot of interviews: "You get a lot of scripts that are good, but you know there is going to be a rewrite or a polish.  But this one was done!"
  
AK: Cause you worked on it for so long. 
 
TW: Cause I knew that the education was going to be about me as a director and if I was going to stay on, I had to tell them why things in the script needed to be the way they were, even though I wasn't the writer.  We should only have writer/directors.  But, we basically said we won't send it out until it's perfect.  And that's the difference when you don't walk in with a studio or a bunch of money or known director.  You have to walk in with something that you can't get anywhere else.
  
AK: I have to talk about the first scene when Hugh Dancy is servicing (the old lady).  Who is that actress?  The first one.
 
TW: The first one, when Jonathan and Hugh are together?
  
AK: Yes yes!

TW: I know! Everyone loves her.  Georgy Glen.  Really tall and skinny.  And that horse bit?  She's brilliant.  She's been in the UK in every BBC thing.  She was in MRS. BROWN and was in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE.  She had a smaller part as lady in waiting.  But she's brilliant.  And she came into the audition, and I wasn't even going to go do that bit in the first round of auditions because I was going to see a lot of people.  So just do the dialogue bits and the people I'm calling back, if they want to try the orgasm bit, then we'll do that.  And she said (in a proper British accent), " Oh, do you mind if we read this one too?".  And we were like, sure!  She said, "Do you mind if I get on the floor?".  It seems fun to them and most of these actresses got it and were passionate.  Actors are very game to try stuff if they feel safe.  I've got a lot of questions about if it's different cause I'm a woman director.  And I just say that I have no clue.  But, the 2 things that might be different are that maybe the actresses felt more comfortable that I was there.  Not that a guy couldn't have done it.  But they just knew that I wasn't going to be exploitative, not that I think most guys would either.  The only other person who really had the experience of going into it cold, was a producer who was looking at me for another film.  She didn't know what my film was about.  And the first treatment scene is like 15-20 minutes into it.  She said she turned around to her husband and was like "They're not. Oh my God! What?"  But since she knew it was a female director that she just sat and relaxed.  Cause she knew it wasn't going to go somewhere that was going to make her uncomfortable.  And I never thought about it that way.

AK: So how did you get the actresses comfortable during those scenes?

TW: (laughs)  Like I said, they kind of came into the audition fairly comfortable.

AK: And the actors too.

TW: Yeah, We had a sandbag.  That's what the actors were actually manipulating.  So they had a privacy sandbag.  You know it's funny we got an R rating.  Let's see... there's no nudity, there's no language.  I mean the chicks are wearing hats for God's sake.

AK:I was thinking of that too because... you've seen PLEASANTVILLE....the scene when Joan Allen services herself, and it's PG-13. 

TW: But I guess it's not "about" (masturbating)...

AK: It wasn't about that but it was pretty...
 
TW: Intense.

AK: And she's in the bathtub.  and the tree goes on fire and everything.

TW:  Yeah yeah yeah. 

AK: And then you get something like this which is more clinical.

TW: And you have a movie about 12 year olds murdering each other and that's PG13. 

AK: But I never really pay attention to the MPAA. 

TW: It's fine.  I don't think we're expecting 13 year olds to come out to this movie anyways.  But it's fascinating to know what exactly is the most disturbing thing here, if you really think about it.  But that's kind of the big joke.  Right?

AK: Right.

TW: The denial.

AK: I really liked watching Rupert Everett again. 

TW: Yeah, he's great.

AK: I mean, he was huge for awhile, like in the late 90's with MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING and AN IDEAL HUSBAND.  And then he kinda disappeared for awhile. 

TW: He says it's cause he came out of the closet.

AK: Oh really?

TW: He says when he came out the roles dried up, cause they were kind of touting him to be the next big leading man.  And then he wasn't.  You don't know if it's true or not,  and it was a different time then.  I don't think there's a big "out" leading man, but you know there is, um, what's his name from HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER... Neil Patrick Harris.  And he's playing a straight guy and everyone knows he's out.  So it's probably a little better now.  But I think the good thing for Rupert is that he's such a comedic genius that there's a whole other chapter in his career, and he's amazing.  He's irrepressible.  And he just does all sorts of crazy stuff on the set, and gives you so many choices.  It's like shoot!  He did this funny bit on take 2 and this funny bit on take 3, and they're at the same moment, and I have to choose!  And that's the hardest thing with him.

(At this time the publicist has informed me that I need to wrap it up.  I acknowledge her and ask if I can ask Tanya one more, and she said yes)

TW: Wow.  Everyone here is polite.  You're nice (talking to the publicist) and he actually listens to you.  You go to L.A. and they're like "yeah yeah yeah, I'm going to keep asking questions.  (laughs)


AK: What's next?

TW: That is the question.  What's next?  I'm developing something with Paula Patton.  Kind of this Woody Allen-ish adult style romantic comedy.  I have a bio-pic I'm working on that I can talk about in a couple weeks.

AK: So you got a couple things coming up.

TW: Yeah.  And then I have a kind of dramedy I'm co-writing.

AK: So you're definitely not taking a long break like you did before.

TW: No, I had the children...

AK: And now it's time to play?

TW: And now the children can take care of themselves.  I want to crank out a lot of movies.

AK: That's good.  That's good.  I'm excited to see what you're doing next. 

AK & TW: Thank you so much. 

TW: Great to meet you!

AK: Great to meet you. 

TW: Take it easy.

AK: Yeah, you too.


As you can see.  She was a blast to talk to.  And definitely check out HYSTERIA, out in theaters now.