Tag: Missed Movies

Snow Angels (Missed Movies)

When one considers that much of the U.S. has snow on the ground for a significant part of the year, it is somewhat surprising that so few movies are placed in that setting. There are the Christmas movies.  But where are the movies set in the frigid and dreary months of January and February?

Perhaps because I grew up in the snow and later lived part of my life in areas without snow, I especially enjoy a good snow movie. And there are some excellent movies set in the snow such as the sad The Sweet Hereafter (1997).  There’s also Paul Newman’s fine performance in Nobody’s Fool (1994).  Murder sagas also seem to work well in the snow, as shown by Fargo (1996) and Insomnia (2002).

Snow Angels
photo: Adam Colton (licensed for reuse)

One of my favorite snow movies, though, is Snow Angels (2006).  The film is set in a 1970s small town in Pennsylvania.  The time of year is during the weeks when snow stays on the ground but it seems too cold for more snowflakes.

In the opening scene of Snow Angels, a marching band practices as their director tries to inspire them.  The students suddenly hear gun shots in the distance. The screen goes dark and we jump to “weeks earlier.” So we know from the start that somehow at least one person is heading toward a tragedy.

There are tragic turns in the movie, but I will not ruin the film. The movie focuses on two families. In one, Annie (Kate Beckinsale) and Glenn (Sam Rockwell) are separated spouses struggling with the failure of their marriage while trying to take care of their young daughter.

Annie works with and used to babysit for teenager Arthur (Michael Angaro).  And the other family focus is Arthur’s family. While Arthur is developing a relationship with a new girl at school, his parents are separating.

The acting in Snow Angels is superb and believable. Sam Rockwell may not immediately come to your mind when listing the top actors today, but he continues to make his every movie worth watching. Here, as the troubled Glenn, he is outstanding.  He makes viewers sympathize with someone they probably would not want to be around in real life.

I had seen Snow Angels several years ago.  So I watched it again before writing this entry. I enjoyed the movie the second time too, although it may not be a movie you will want to watch repeatedly.  Although there is a great deal of sadness in the movie, one may also find a little hope toward the end.

The movie is based on the book Snow Angels by Stewart O’Nan. Apparently the book included someone making a literal snow angel, while the movie does not. Still, the title suits the movie in a number of ways.  “Snow Angels” may refer to real angels or to the cold emotions and isolation faced by many of the characters.

If you are looking for a light comedy or uplifting story for this weekend, you should look elsewhere. But if you are in the mood for an intense drama that keeps you enthralled, you may like Snow Angels.

The trailer gives away too much of the movie.  So, you are better off not seeing the trailer before seeing the movie. But if you want to know more before deciding whether to watch the film, the trailer for Snow Angels is here.

“Snow Angel” the Song

Instead of the trailer I will introduce you to an excellent band from Ohio called Over the Rhine.  The band consists of the husband and wife team of Linford Detweiler and Karin Bergquist.

Below is a fan recording of their live performance of their beautiful song, “Snow Angel.” The song is not related to the movie of the similar name. The singular “Snow Angel” is off their album of the plural Snow Angels (2008).

In the song, the singer tells of saying goodbye to her “one and only love” who goes off to war (“The rumors of a distant war / Called my true love’s name”). But the man is killed during the war, leaving the singer heartbroken (“Snow angel, snow angel / Someday I’m gonna fly / This cold and broken heart of mine / Will one day wave goodbye”).

Like the movie Snow Angels, the song “Snow Angel” captures something about the pain and loneliness of winter.  It also reminds us to enjoy our days of warmer weather.

Movies You Might Have Missed is a Chimesfreedom series to inform our readers about good movies that did not receive the attention they deserved.

If you saw Snow Angels, what did you think? Any thoughts on the very last scene? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Here’s a Little New Year’s Song
  • Why Wasn’t Conviction a Best Picture Nominee? (Missed Movies)
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Song of the Day: “If a Song Could Be President”
  • Is “Captain Fantastic” Fantastic?
  • Runaway Train (Missed Movies)

    • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    It’s About Time to Watch “About Time” (Missed Movies)

    Domhnall Gleeson There are a number of reasons to give the movie About Time (2013) a chance, despite its somewhat generic title. The film is written and directed by Richard Curtis, who wrote Love Actually (2003), Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001), Notting Hill (1999), and Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994). While not everyone loves romantic comedies, About Time throws in a twist. In line with a trend previously examined on Chimesfreedom, the film incorporates a science fiction element where the science fiction element, with little or no special effects, is a mere co-star to help explore some interesting aspects of the human condition.

    Near the start of the film, a father, played by the wonderful Bill Nighy, tells his 21-year-old son Tim, played by Domhnall Gleeson that the men in the family have an unexplained ability to travel back in time in their lives to change their own past. Before viewers can get too excited about the time-travel concept, though, the dad explains that it is limited to the person’s life, so they cannot go back and kill Hitler, etc. With that limitation in mind and other “rules” we later discover, the rest of the film follows Tim trying to live a good life with his unusual ability to help his family and friends, including the woman with whom he falls in love, Mary, played by Rachel McAdams. As a metaphor for real life, Tim uses his powers much as the way we use our own power to live in the present.

    I will not ruin the movie by delving further into the plot (and if you are sure you are going to see the movie, skip the plot-revealing trailer below). But there are additional reasons to see the movie besides the clever writing and the interesting concept, which never comes close to overwhelming the real emotions of the characters. One reason the movie works is the engaging acting by Domhnall Gleeson. His occasional narration will remind viewers of similar narration by Hugh Grant in films like Love Actually and About a Boy (2002), with comparable phrasing and heartfelt insight. But, aside from the Hugh Grant similarities, Gleeson brings much more, adding some goofy humor from a man trying to figure out life. Gleeson, who lacks Grant’s leading-man looks, brings an everyman quality to the role. He interacts well with McAdams, but it may be his work with Nighy as his dad that provides the real heart of the movie. The movie features a fine supporting cast of other secondary characters that are well developed too.

    Because of the sweetness of the film is connected to a supernatural element, one is tempted to say the movie is a combination of Love Actually and Groundhog Day (1993). The comparison may raise expectations too much, but you get the idea. Even if About Time does not live up to those movies on your first viewing, it is one that has a chance to grow in popularity with repeated viewings once it starts running on cable TV. After watching the movie for the first time on DVD, I immediately watched it again, which is something I rarely do. And I continued thinking about the movie for several days, a nice respite from the majority of films that vanish from thought ten minutes after they end.

    In addition to the engaging characters, the concept of the film makes it re-watchable, as a viewer might analyze the logic of the film’s time-travel concept. Because of the number of questions that are raised by time travel that cannot be completely sorted out in a movie, I could not help thinking that About Time would make an interesting television series.

    There were other questions that a TV series might explore more. For example, Tim is a lawyer in the movie. While the movie does not tell us much about his work, someone does make a comment implying Tim has won all of his cases. That off-hand comment makes the viewer wonder if Tim used his time travels in the workplace, which would raise a number of ethical and moral issues. But the movie does not have time to explore them. What the movie does with the time it has, though, is explore the meaning of time, making the viewers think about their own lives. And, even if About Time is not perfect, that experience is a lot more than one expects from most modern movies.

    Conclusion? If you like romantic comedies and do not mind an unusual twist that may challenge you and make you think, then you should give About Time a chance. Maybe you will not like it, but then again, it might change your perspective on life.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me?: About Time is a movie that seems destined to be loved by a lot of viewers while being scorned by a lot of critics. Rotten Tomatoes gives About Time a so-so rating of 69% from critics while the movie gets a respectable 82% audience rating. Stephanie Zacharek at The Village Voice hated the movie, calling it “mostly dreadful.” Meanwhile, Joel Arnold at NPR enjoyed the film, concluding that About Time “blends genre pleasures with efficient, thematically resonant storytelling and moreover gives its audience a call to action.” Finally, if you get the DVD, check out the deleted scene involving Abbey Road that Curtis was sad to leave out of the movie (no longer available on YouTube).

    {Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}

    What did you think of About Time? Leave your two cents in the comments.


  • End-of-the-World Movies . . . Without Special Effects
  • Missed Movies: The Man From Earth
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt Travel Space in “Passengers”
  • Is “Captain Fantastic” Fantastic?
  • “Westworld” is Coming to HBO

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    End-of-the-World Movies . . . Without Special Effects

    Science Fiction Without Special Effects In the last several years, there have been a number of interesting science fiction films that manage to avoid using special effects, or use very limited special effects. Maybe it is a response to the prominence of CGI, where so many movies are weighed down by images that you know just are not “real.” Maybe it is an attempt to return to using science fiction elements to actually say something besides blowing up things. In this genre, Chimesfreedom has discussed three films that we really liked: Robot & Frank (2012), Another Earth (2011), and The Man from Earth (2007). Another film that was interesting was Melancholia (2011). Two other films to add to this list are It’s a Disaster (2012) and Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012), both now available on DVD and Blu Ray.

    Of the two, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World has the bigger stars, featuring Steve Carell and Keira Knightley (as well as a small appearance by Martin Sheen). The film begins with Dodge (Carell) and his wife listening to the announcement that an asteroid is going to crash into earth in three weeks, resulting in his wife making a mad dash to leave her husband. Thus begins Dodge’s quest to find some company for the end of the world.

    The movie, directed by Lorene Scafaria, has some laughs and some interesting thoughts on different ways people might react to the end of the world. The film avoids going the expected route of going for an all-out fantasy comedy or for going for futuristic reality. But because the movie tries to walk a middle ground between comedy and tragedy, it seems to zig zag back and forth, making for interesting but somewhat unsettling viewing, especially as the movie becomes more serious toward the end. Still, I enjoyed the film and the fact that it aimed for something a little unusual.

    By contrast, It’s a Disaster is clearly a comedy. The film follows the interactions of several couples during a Sunday “couples brunch” as they gradually come to learn that someone has set off some dirty atomic bombs not far away and, inevitably, they are all going to die, probably within the day. But the film centers less on the morbid future and more on the relationships between the couples as they go about their afternoon finding things out about each other, occasionally taking some time to come up with ideas to figure out what they should do.

    The low-budget film directed by Todd Berger pretty much stays inside the house for most of the movie, but it makes you laugh at the characters and what you would do in the same situation. As when you watch Seeking a Friend, at some point you also will start wondering how the movie might end. If you go into the film with modest expectations, you might enjoy the comedy of manners that takes place. To reveal much more would ruin your fun. It’s a Disaster stars Julia Stiles, David Cross, Rachel Boston, Kevin M. Brennan, and Laura Adkin.

    Conclusion? Seeking a Friend for the End of the World and It’s a Disaster are two interesting minimal special effects end-of-the-world movies that are worth your time on a lazy rainy afternoon. While they are not great movies, they are somewhat unusual and might make you think a little while entertaining you. Of the two, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is more ambitious, while It’s a Disaster is a little more light-hearted take on a serious subject.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Listen to Me? Rotten Tomatoes has mediocre ratings for Seeking a Friend for the End of the World from both critics (56%) and audience members (54%), perhaps reflecting the unevenness of the movie. By contrast, on Rotten Tomatoes, the less ambitious but more consistent It’s a Disaster gets a decent audience rating (68%) and an even better critics rating (77%). Jason Bailey at Flavorwire sums up It’s a Disaster as an “odd, funny, invigorating little movie.”

    Buy from Amazon

    What did you think of these films? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • It’s About Time to Watch “About Time” (Missed Movies)
  • Missed Movies: The Man From Earth
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt Travel Space in “Passengers”
  • Is “Captain Fantastic” Fantastic?
  • “Westworld” is Coming to HBO

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    “Paul Williams Still Alive” (Missed Movies)

    Paul Williams Still Alive If you grew up in the 1970s, you could not have missed singer-songwriter-actor-showman Paul Williams. He was everywhere. Williams wrote songs like “We’ve Only Just Begun,” the Oscar-winning “Evergreen” (co-written with Barbra Streisand), the theme to Love Boat, and the Muppet classic “Rainbow Connection.” He also wrote one of the first 45 rpm singles I bought as a kid, Three Dog Night’s “Just an Old Fashioned Love Song.” He appeared in movies like Smokey and The Bandit (1977) and Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973).

    Additionally, Paul Williams was a regular on Johnny Carson’s late night show and appeared on many other TV shows like The Muppets. And, just as suddenly as he came into our lives and dominated TV, movies, and radio, he disappeared.

    Director Stephen Kessler was a big fan of Williams as a child, and like many of us decades later, wondered what had happened to Williams and assumed he was dead. So he tracked down the singer, who was still touring in small venues, and began a documentary, Paul Williams Still Alive (2011).

    The movie is not a straight-up documentary about the career of Paul Williams, as Kessler ends up being a part of the story of the film. Surprisingly for someone who was everywhere in popular culture at one time, Williams does not seem to embrace being in what is in some ways a modern reality show, with cameras following him every place he goes.

    Williams is also somewhat resistant to analyzing his own life in front of the camera, putting off Kessler’s attempts to get Williams to discuss his feelings about how drugs affected his career. So we have lots of shots of Williams being slightly annoyed at the camera and Kessler’s digging.

    Instead of deep introspection from Willimas, Kessler shows his own feelings about traveling with Williams in the Philippines (Kessler is scared, while Williams seems to soldier through every adversity). And Kessler tries to provoke a response from Williams by getting him to watch a talk show where Williams was obviously high.

    How much you enjoy the film may depend on how you appreciate the focus on the director-subject relationship. It makes the movie a little less traditional and might engage some viewers more than a straight-up documentary. I appreciated the other part of the film that told us more about Paul Williams, his career, and his current life. But I must admit that it was the combination of the two film styles that told me other things about Paul Williams, such as the way he still perseveres and his refreshing desire to avoid revealing everything about himself.

    While Williams rejects the opportunity for self-analysis, you still get to see what happened to one of the big icons of the 1970s and learn a little about the man indirectly. If you ever wondered what happened to Paul Williams, Paul Williams Still Alive is worth your time.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me? Rotten Tomatoes reveals that critics liked Paul Williams Still Alive more than general audience members, giving the film a 97% critics rating and a 79% audience rating. Donald Liebenson at the Chicago Sun-Times found the movie interesting but was annoyed by the way the director inserted himself into the story. Meanwhile, Sodajerker has an audio interview with Paul Williams where Williams discusses his career and the documentary.

  • Trailer for “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”
  • Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop . . . Being a Jerk?
  • Dear Zachary (Missed Movies)
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • New Documentary About Guy Clark
  • Ray Charles & Barbra Streisand: “Crying Time” (Duet of the Day)

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Rocket Science (Missed Movies)

    rocket science One is tempted to compare Rocket Science (2007) to other quirky adolescent comedies like Rushmore (1998) and Napoleon Dynamite (2004). Rocket Science writer-director Jeffrey Blitz does appear influenced by Rushmore, using music that would not feel out of place in that movie, and he features a young hero, played by Reece Thompson, who looks a bit like Jason Schwartzman, the star of Rushmore. But Rocket Science is its own movie and one worth seeking out.

    Rocket Science tells the story of the 15-year-old Hal Hefner (Thompson), who has a bad stutter but joins the high school debate team to be near the team’s star, played by Anna Kendrick, who has gone on to star in other films like Up in the Air (2009). It took me awhile before I warmed to Rocket Science, but the film slowly draws you in. Despite featuring some cliche’s of this genre, like “the obnoxious brother,” the movie does not go for easy or predictable resolutions.

    At the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, Blitz won the Dramatic Directing Award, and the movie garnered some attention but not as much as other similar movies. I am tempted to say, “if you liked Rushmore, you’ll like Rocket Science,” but actually, if you go in looking for something like Director Wes Anderson’s Rushmore you will probably be disappointed.

    But if you are looking for a different kind of coming-of-age film that maintains a fair amount of realism, this film that is based in part on Blitz’s own adolescence is worth the rental. And at least for now, the full film is on YouTube, while the trailer is below.

    Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me?: Rotten Tomatoes gives Rocket Science an 84% Critics Rating and a 71% Audience Rating. (Rushmore has a similar Critics Rating at 87% but a much higher audience rating at 91%.) Margaret Pomeranz from Australia’s At the Movies said the film is “wryly funny in parts, poignant, interesting, frustrating, but never less than really engaging.” On the other hand, David Cornelius at DVDTalk praises the cast but said the film “toss[es] us attention-grabbing nuttiness that never once feels earned, or needed, or true.”

    {Missed Movies is our continuing series on good films you might have missed because they did not receive the recognition they deserved when released.}

    What did you think of Rocket Science? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • How Does Moonrise Kingdom Rank Among Wes Anderson’s Films? (Short Review)
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Is “Captain Fantastic” Fantastic?
  • Runaway Train (Missed Movies)
  • Tommy Lee Jones and “The Homesman” (Missed Movies)
  • Wes Anderson’s “Bottle Rocket”: The Short Film Version

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)