Did I Miss Something??

2009-06-07T08:58:00.000-07:00

last night

No, not the Don McKellar film that I love (and highly recommend). The last night I want to talk about is mine. I hosted a dinner party for a small group of my dearest friends, and it was amazing. I regret that (A) I a drank a little to much, and (B) my loved one was not feeling well and could not attend. Otherwise, the evening was a great success. I slow-cooked ribs on the bbq with an apple wood smoke pouch, homemade bbq sauce, and a spice rub that I applied some twenty hours before grilling. Marinaded mushrooms, a salad with "Green Goddess" dressing, and sweet tasting, deep fried onion rings accompanied the meat. Oh, and I also grilled up a few chicken breasts for the sake of pleasing the anti-bone palate.

Sadly, and very possibly due to (A), we never got around to watching a movie. I didn't necessarily think we would anyway, but dinner and a movie is as classic a combination as peanut butter and chocolate, so I feel an incompleteness. I was more than happy to engage in our poignant conversations, but somewhere in the back of my mind I was constantly thinking about what I want to do with my life, and the answer fell between just this (entertaining friends with my incredible food) and visiting the picture shows (whether they be at the cinema or "On Demand").

Yes, there are jobs that I know would satisfy me: teaching film, English, pop culture... Exploring my creative side and writing and/or making movies. But the more I think about it, the more I long to be a housewife. In an ideal world I would enjoy the cooking and suffer the cleaning in exchange for the opportunity to pop in a DVD once or twice a day, the way that some people commit to their soap operas.

My friends all asked if I would consider going back to school for culinary training. As much as I enjoy preparing meals, I'm not a big fan of high pressure kitchen situations. I do love Hell's Kitchen, but I don't want to be the "donkey". Their idea to open up a Bed and "Dinner" is slightly appealing, but not necessarily realistic. I like being the host, and good friends always make the hard work seem worthwhile. So please, send your dollars to me so that I can fulfill my dream of being a stay-at-home movie watching, meal-preparing house man.

2009-03-28T08:25:00.000-07:00

hot/not fun in the summer time

A couple of months ago I drove past the remnants of a bad traffic accident on a nearby highway. Tragically, a man had been killed and, as grotesque as it may sound, my traveling companions and I could not help but gawk at the tattered bits of clothing and the pool of blood that had been left on the road. It's probably callous of me to compare this sense of morbid curiosity to my feelings about the summer/blockbuster movie season, but I swear that the carnage I witnessed on the 401 was far less unnerving than my encounters with The Love Guru and You Don't Mess With The Zohan last year. Inasmuch as I would like to avert my eyes from such car wrecks, I can never seem to muster up the will to look away.

I'm not quite certain what it is about these warmer months that makes me ignore better judgment and shell out funds to see so many lackluster films on the big screen. Sure, there are always a few big budget pictures that stand to exceed my expectations, but I am also drawn to the films that (95% guaranteed) I know will disappoint me. Childhood nostalgia is not enough to explain my willingness to endure two Hasbro toy inspired movies this summer (G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and Transformers 2), especially knowing that I writhed through Transformers not so very long ago.

My inability to engage in a conversations that don't involve the movies, coupled with the fact that most of my peers watch more films during the summer than any other time, may account for a fraction of this drive to see all of said season's releases. I don't blame my friends for catalyzing my desire to be "in the know," but I do have to acknowledge my chum over at Big Thoughts from a Small Mind for inspiring me to take a look at the top 10 summer movies that have caught my interest so far. Having his template to outright steal makes it all the easier to talk about the following flicks:

10. X-Men Origins : Wolverine

As a comic book fan who grew up reading X-Men and Wolverine almost exclusively, my expectations going into this movie are kind of low. The character has a pretty comprehensive history, and I worry that there's a bit too much story for one film to tackle (even without the extra burden of incorporating Gambit). Still, my connection with the material ensures that I will be amongst the first in line to witness Logan's first claw pop.

9. The Boat that Rocked

If you're keen on quality romantic comedies, you probably know the work of Richard Curtis: Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, & Love, Actually. Although Hugh Grant is suspiciously absent from Curtis's latest cast, the writer/director has nevertheless assembled a delightful troupe of British actors and managed to throw Philip Seymour Hoffman into the mix, to boot. It looks as if love will take a backseat to rock 'n' roll in this picture, but I am just as eager to see Curtis romanticize the past.

8. Drag Me to Hell

How good is it to see Sam Raimi return to his horror roots? Some are touting this as an Evil Dead remake, but I tend to think that these "critics" are simply Jonesing for Bruce Campbell. As much as I would like to see ol' Bruce take the lead role in another Ash project, I am more excited to see what kind of thrills and chills Raimi can muster up with a budget that honors his Spiderman-free vision.

7. Whatever Works

I'm no expert when it comes to quantum physics, but movies and T.V. have taught me that if one meets oneself in the past, present, or future, the world will implode. So I am dying with anticipation to find out what culminates when renowned neurotic Woody Allen works with Larry David, star of Curb Your Enthusiasm, and the man upon whom Seinfeld's George Costanza is based. This will either be one of Allen's most entertaining pictures or a catalyst for the apocalypse.

6. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

It's not nostalgia that urges me to see this movie so much as my desire to find out how the filmmakers have managed to make any of these characters look straight. Generally, I prefer homosexual undertones to blatant American propaganda, but I'm currently on a mission to support any film that's based on a line of action figures in hopes that we will one day see a live action adaptation of Thundercats. (Sorry, Courtney; it's how I feel)

5. Public Enemies

My thanks goes out to director Michael Mann for casting Johnny Depp in a role that forced him to get a badly needed haircut, and for providing a professional working environment for the tantrum-prone Christian Bale. Moreover, I'm excited to see some tommy guns back up on the big screen, especially in what appears to be a film of exceptional quality-- even outside the realm of summer standards.

4. Inglorious Basterds

I'll never understand what people felt was so ingenious about Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, but I've really dug Quentin Tarantino's subsequent films. He seems to be at his best when paying homage to arcane genre styles, and Inglorious Basterds stands to be his most gritty ode to the Giallo pictures of the '70s. If you're squeamish about blood, you might want to skip this flick, but I for one am intrigued to see Brad Pitt collect some Nazi scalps, especially through the eyes of Q.T.

3. The Time Traveler's Wife

Bearing in mind that the book is always better than the movie, I am cautiously interested in this adaptation of one of my all time favorite novels. The cast doesn't necessarily mesh with the images in my head, but since no official trailer has yet been released, I'll reserve my ultimate judgment for the time being. Author Audrey Niffenegger's complex story may be a challenging one to translate for the screen, but in the hands of the guy who penned Deep Impact and Stuart Little 2, what could possibly go wrong?

2. The Limits of Control

Counter programming tends to be futile during the summer months, but film goers like me who need a break from being marketed to like we're mindless will likely glom on to this picture from director Jim Jarmusch. Indie fans (not to be confused with Indy fans) will appreciate the cast that has been assembled, including Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Gael García Bernal, and Isaach De Bankolé. The trailer suggests echos of Jarmusch's earlier film about the code of the criminal, Ghost Dog, which was equal parts art film and entertainment. I expect The Limits of Control to be a breath of fresh air amongst the typical mid-summer stinkers.

1. Star Trek

I can hardly contain my excitement for J.J. Abrams reboot of the only Star Trek incarnation I have been a fan of: the one where the captain is Kirk. I've never been big into any of the subsequent Treks, including any of the feature films, but I am a product of syndicated reruns and grew up with my eyes glued to the T.V. screen once a week for the adventures of the original Enterprise crew. I always thought these characters deserved better treatment after the show was untimely canceled, and despite my fondness for Shatner, I do believe that this film and its cast stand a very good chance of exceeding my expectations. Abrams has proven his talent both on television (Felicity, Alias, and LOST) and on film (with a surprisingly engaging third installment of the Mission: Impossible franchise). Given his track record, I am quite convinced that he can satiate the hunger of rabid Trekkies and deliver enough creative dynamite to attract and/or win the attention of more reluctant viewers. In honor of the film's release, I have spent the past few months attempting to grow eyebrows like Zachary Quinto. Problem is, my pet tribble keeps trying to hump my face.

2009-03-07T13:28:00.000-08:00

who's watching the watchmen?

Apparently, at a one o'clock Saturday matinee on opening weekend (here in Windsor, Ontario), only me and fifty-or-so other movie-goers. It's a smaller number than I would have anticipated given the intensity with which fans of the graphic novel cherish this material. Watchmen, the book, may have something of a cult following, but in terms of niche markets, it's one that is considerably large and unwaveringly loyal.

Though I understand its significance, I am not as endeared to Alan Moore's masterpiece as some of my fellow comic book junkies, and I have often been the recipient of heaping amounts of flack as a result. Still, morbid curiosity overwhelms me when a property as notoriously unfilmable as Watchmen sees the light of the projector, and the power of cinema compelled me to grab a seat in the theater as soon as time would allow. Inasmuch as I dislike Watchmen (again, the book), I was equally concerned for its fans; I felt certain that a film adaptation of such a complex work would almost certainly disappoint in terms of their rabid expectations. It may sound absurd, but I wanted the movie to be good enough to appease Watchmen's devoted audience.

And I think it is. For me, however, the cinematic adaptation is, in some ways, faithful to a fault. I have read the graphic novel several times now, always with a sense of laborious effort, and many of the issues that I consider problematic with the book emerge in the film, as well. With its dense mythology, both in terms of the origins and legacies of the costumed heroes and the sophisticated politics of the alternate historical world they inhabit, Watchmen might very well be the only comic that begs out for a supplemental Cole's Notes companion (that's Cliff's Notes, for you Staties). Even with a generous running time of 163 minutes, the film struggles to accommodate the sheer volume of exposition that Moore's story contains; in spite of the richness of its themes, the movie, like the graphic novel, is often burdened by sluggish pacing.

The film is a bit more efficient than its printed counterpart in summarizing the way that Watchmen's historical time-line diverges from our own. Of course, a reviewer must exercise even greater economy, so here goes: A naked blue man who can manipulate matter and energy intervenes in the Vietnam war, enabling the U.S. to win. Subsequently, President Nixon's popularity skyrockets and laws are altered to allow re-election for a third term in office. The Soviets, who don't much like that the United States has a nuclear man under contract, continue to stockpile munitions, and by the mid 1980's, distopian Cold War paranoia has reached new heights. Now, I know that a society disillusioned with government and living in fear of seemingly imminent nuclear war is not really a foreign concept to contemporary audiences, but having seen so many blank reactions from the crowd to numerous Cold War references in Indy and the Crystal Skulls, I suspect that the film will prove to be as inaccessible to many viewers as the book is to me.

Having said that, I admire the nuanced details that director Zack Snyder employs as a means of illustrating his/Moore's/artist Dave Gibbons' hyperbolic vision of this alternate era. For instance, living caricatures of prominent figures-- Henry Kissinger, Pat Buchanan, John McLaughlin, Truman Capote, Fidel Castro, Annie Leibovitz, David Bowie, Eleanor Clift, Ted Koppel, and so on-- litter the scenery, contributing not only to the overall design of the film, but greatly to the politically rebellious sensibility of Watchmen's narrative. This device, however, operates on the assumption that audiences will perceive such details.

The film's stunning production design is probably its most significant saving grace. While the dull color palette and stiff panel layout of the comic tend to compete with, well, everything else in the room for my eyes' attention, the movie is visually dynamic and intricately textured, and it remains captivating even when the plot lacks similar energy. The main through-line of Watchmen, you see-- The murder of costumed vigilante The Comedian prompts several of his fellow exiled crime fighters to investigate who-dunnit, why, and whether or not they might be next-- is of secondary importance to the characters' personal/philosophical struggles and paralyzing memories, and certainly to the material's explicit moral critiques. In essence, this revisionist superhero tale is quite poignant thematically, but Alan Moore's writing style tends to be cumbersome, and when transposed directly to dialogue, sounds clunky and stilted.

So it seems that most of the elements that fashioned my antagonistic attitude toward the book have prevented me from engaging with the screen adaptation of Watchmen to a notably greater degree. Still, I have revisited this story on a number of occasions, and each time I do, I experience highly charged intellectual and emotional reactions that make me wonder if something isn't resonating after all. I'll never admit to that, of course. I have a reputation to maintain as the sole Windsorite to denounce Watchmen, not as one of the few who showed up to see it.

2009-02-15T10:46:00.000-08:00

my ballot

I may have been a tad harsh towards the Academy Awards the other day. Now that we're in the home stretch, the one week countdown has begun, I'm beginning to feel the symptoms of Oscar fever. You see, what those tricksters over at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do is, rather than announce which films deserve awards for achievement, they select a number of movies for each category and then make us wait several weeks until the winners are declared. Thus, an aura of suspense is established. I have once again fallen prey.

Of course, Alfred Hitchcock once said, “There is no terror in a bang, only in the anticipation of it.” So I will maintain my position regarding the sedative qualities of the show itself (although I am intrigued to see what Hugh Jackman has to offer as a host; an interesting hire, to be sure). But I'm a sucker for the competition itself, and every time I glance over the list of nominees I feel the urge to grab a pen and start filling out my Oscar pool ballot. This year, for the first time, I'm going with the heart instead of the head. Though I have had considerable success anticipating who will win in the past, it makes me feel dirty when I have to put a check mark next to a movie like Gladiator just for the sake of winning a few dollars. In order to clear my conscience, I'm focusing this time on the pictures and performers I want to win... (for the full list of nominees, click here)

Best Motion Picture of the Year
MILK
I know that SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE will take the trophy, and that's alright by me, but I can't ignore my appreciation for Gus Van Sant's bold and significant film.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
FRANK LANGELLA (FROST/NIXON)
Sadly, I have not seen THE VISITOR or THE WRESTLER, so I don't have all the evidence I need to make a super informed decision. Sean Penn was great, but I prefer the subtlety of Langella this time 'round.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role KATE WINSLET (THE READER) Actually, I think she should win for REVOLUTIONARY ROAD. Her performance in that film, however, was snubbed. Not to worry. Her work in the nominated title is also spectacular.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
HEATH LEDGER (THE DARK KNIGHT)
Posthumous awards always depress me a bit. Is Michelle Williams still single?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
PENELOPE CRUZ (VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA)
I'm not her biggest fan, but she was good in VCB. Plus, I tend to lean towards anything Woody Allen.

Best Achievement in Directing
DANNY BOYLE (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE)
What a wonderfully envisioned and beautifully crafted film.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
MARTIN McDONAGH (IN BRUGES)
I haven't seen HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, and I hear it's really good. When done right, though, dark comedy is my favorite genre, and In Bruges is spot on.

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
SIMON BEAUFOY (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE)
This may be one of those rare cases in which the movie is as good as or even better than the book.

Best Achievement in Cinematography
ANTHONY DOD MANTLE (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE)
There's tough competition in this category. As I mentioned before, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON is a worthy adversary, and THE CHANGELING and The Dark Knight certainly hold their own. The Reader is a bit weak in comparison, but by no means shabby. The camera work and lighting in Slumdog just seems a little bit more ambitious, and it's flashy without being distracting. The technical work in this film really invigorates the narrative.

Best Achievement in Costume Design JACQUELINE WEST (THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON)
Although Costume Design is not the most exciting category of the evening, it is one that I feel quite passionate about this year. Button's sprawling scope, a story that spans several decades, poses a particular challenge, and every visual element, including the clothing, is authentically detailed.

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
JOHN NELSON, BEN SNOW, DANIEL SUDICK, SHANE MAHAN (IRON MAN)
If what I've heard is true, the elderly Benjamin Button is brought to us via motion capture technology and computer animation. He looks so real it blows my mind. But the transitions between practical effects and CGI in Iron Man seemed flawless to me, and it's not often that a summer release is able to deceive my eyes.

Best Animated Feature
WALL-E
I know I railed against this movie in a previous post, but there's no denying that its sophisticated animation out trumps the competition. Still, I would like to live in a world where a greater variety of animated films are made to challenge the notion that Pixar is next to godliness. Was RATATOUILLE really better than PERSEPOLIS?

Obviously I have left out a few categories, partially because no one gives a rip about Best Achievement in Sound Editing and/or Makeup, but also because I have (unfortunately) not seen a one of the Foreign Language films that are nominated. As for the ones I have committed to, well, I might be a tad reluctant to wager money on my selections, but I can rest a bit easier this year knowing that I have been true to myself (and the nominees that really should win).

2009-02-14T11:54:00.000-08:00

a nod to the oscars
I muse about this year's best picture nominees...

The other day it occurred to me that for the last few years I have really only watched the Oscars out of habit, perhaps even because it is expected of me. In my younger days it was a real event night; friends would gather at my apartment and we would fill out our own ballots, guessing the winners with a close eye on the Vegas odds. My famous nacho dip never lasted long, but the bar was fully stocked, and I would inevitably drift into a state of fuzzy headedness by the time the Best Picture category was announced.

Rather than having to be reminded who won the next morning, I watched the last couple of Academy Awards ceremonies stone sober, only to realize that I was better off when I was half in the bag (or better yet, two thirds). Harder drugs are recommended if you plan to abide those vapid red carpet interviews. Seriously, the whole thing's a yawn fest.

While my mind is not yet made up whether to watch this year's broadcast or not, I have managed to see the five films that are nominated for best picture, and in good time, which is not always an easy task in a city that won't run The Wrestler because we need to reserve screen space for The Pink Panther 2. To the Academy's credit, they generally nominate five movies that are amongst the better films of the year, and over the past couple of weeks I have been exceptionally satisfied as a patron of the cinema:

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

I think Slumdog will take the award this year, and rightly so. It's better than three of the nominees, and just a bit more cohesive than the fourth. Apparently this film was nearly released straight to DVD, which would have been a shame not only in terms of limiting audience exposure, but also because director Danny Boyle's visual techniques are so vivid and exciting on the big screen. The picture has more than a handful of tragic moments, even scenes that are difficult to watch; ultimately, though, Slumdog Millionaire is tempered with themes of love, sacrifice, and destiny that should appeal to reluctant viewers. The film also ends with a Bollywood dance sequence that could put a smile on anyone's face.

THE READER

My opinion of this film is a bit skewed due to the fact that I saw it very shortly after having read the book. The adaptation is very faithful to Bernhard Schlink's novella, both in plot and tone, but I feel as though the movie lacks some of the crucial details that define the characters' motives. The book is not one that easily lends itself to a cinematic treatment, and I am eager to hear the thoughts of others who have seen The Reader, both those who have read Schlink's work and those who have not.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the extraordinary Kate Winslet. I can't say that it doesn't appeal to me to see her naked for a considerable portion of the film's first act, but what I really noticed was her performance. Between The Reader and Revolutionary Road, she has proven herself a force to be reckoned with, and is deserving of the attention that has been cast upon her this Oscar season.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON

"Life isn't measured in minutes, but in moments." The tagline to Benjamin Button reminded me that the movie is, in fact, several moments too long. You would think that a film chronicling the lifespan of a man who ages backwards have more interesting moments, too. It doesn't, really. And even if it did, Button would still suffer from the fact that screenwriter Eric Roth basically regurgitated the formula he used when he penned the script for Forrest Gump. Still, I wasn't surprised to see this film nominated for best picture; the Academy seems to have a soft spot for anything with an epic scale. From a technical perspective, Button does trump some of the competition, but its chances of winning in this category are severly hampered by its tendency to induce sleep.

Having said that, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button certainly rivals Slumdog Millionaire in terms of cinematography. I don't generally recommend a movie just because it looks good, but Button is really something to see. Also, the special effects will give Iron Man a run for its money, and I think it would be a shame if this picture isn't recognized for its amazing costumes. Benjamin may walk away with a couple of statues, yet.

FROST/NIXON

I find it hard not to be a little bit critical about Frost/Nixon. For one thing, it seems like an easy movie to make: it's based on a play which was largely composed from transcripts of the actual Frost/Nixon interviews, and the bulk of it takes place in one room. It also seems a bit redundant given that video tapes, internet clips, and DVDs of the original broadcast are readily available, and quite intriguing to watch.

On the other hand, Frost/Nixon is compelling in its own right, and I think the dramatization of events is particularly helpful in terms of engaging viewers, like me, who did not live through Nixon era politics and the subsequent decade-or-so of heightened paranoia and disillusionment. And unlike The Reader, the tale of David Frost, underdog, is one that seems to cry out for narrative treatment. Of course, the film really belongs to Frank Langella whose interpretation of Nixon neither glamorizes the ex-president nor attempts to elicit our sympathies, but does provide some speculative insight into the nature and degree of his self-delusion. While, Frost/Nixon may not be as strong a contender in the Best Picture category as some of the other nominees, it is one of the more engaging films I have seen this year.

MILK

If I were a voting member of the Academy, this is the nominee that would make me hesitate before ticking the box for Slumdog Millionaire. It sounds strange to say so, given my general distaste for biopics, but the decision to limit the film's scope to the eight years during which Harvey Milk was politically involved with the gay rights movement and elected to public office was one that allowed director Gus Van Sant to avoid the kind of superficial portrait that I have come to expect from this type of movie.

In my opinion, Milk is a far more important film than Slumdog, not only because of its subject matter, but also in terms of the images we see on screen. Van Sant is not shy about including scenes of male sexuality, sometimes affectionate, other times far more carnal, and I can't think of another mainstream movie that portrays this kind of intimacy as authentically and unapologetically. I know a lot of people will be uncomfortable with these images, but I believe that visibility of this sort is a step towards humanizing people who belong to a highly oppressed and misunderstood minority, and whose rights are still inadequately protected.

Of course, a subject of this magnitude is not easily condensed into a two hour package. Nothing in the film seems to be dispensable, but it does feel a bit long, and there are a few scenes towards the end that appear to have been designed to facilitate a path towards the conclusion rather than mesh with Milk's established tempo. The acting is a bit hammy in some of these later scenes, too, a minor quibble given Sean Penn's otherwise stalwart performance as Harvey Milk (who, in all fairness to Penn, tended to be an exuberant figure himself).

Are these moderate criticisms enough to deny Milk a shiny bald man-statue? Well, it's enough to tip my own personal scale towards Slumdog Millionaire. Ultimately, though, I'm more interested in watching quality films than seeing who wins awards and who's wearing who. So while I may not watch the Oscar broadcast this year, I would like to thank the Academy for their viewing suggestions... It was an honor just to screen your nominees.

2009-02-11T10:55:00.000-08:00

STINK-E

A myriad trusted critics, including the likes of Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott, have plunked WALL-E into their lists of the top ten films of 2008. According to rottentomatoes.com, the latest Disney/Pixar release is amongst the top reviewed movies of the annum, garnering a 96% approval rating from some 200+ contributing writers. It was also a top-grossing film, fifth in the U.S. last year.

Now, I get the money thing; by and large, consumers are willing to throw wads of cash at products that are sentimental and shiny (never mind the fact that WALL-E's narrative is rife with anti-consumerist themes). And I understand the film's appeal to children, whose underdeveloped minds allow them to appreciate entertainment without it having to maintain coherent sense. What perplexes me, I guess, is the number of rational thinkers (read "critics") who were willing to take the intellectual leaps of faith that WALL-E's logical inconsistencies demand.

Before you accuse me of over analyzing children's fare or, worse yet, of suffering a stagnant imagination, let me explain some of my personal Pixar peccadilloes. First of all, Pixar’s creative team is known for injecting some pretty sophisticated humour into their films, a brilliant device that engages grown up viewers and increases the lifespan of their pictures (a child of ten can watch Toy Story in his/her teenage years and glean so much more). Since the writers, animators, and filmmakers strive to appeal as much to me as they do to mini-me, I have no qualms about assessing Pixar flicks as seriously as I would any other film.

And, certainly, some of their movies are more juvenile than others. Finding Nemo, A Bug’s Life just aren’t as sharp as the Toy Stories, Monsters, Inc., or The Incredibles. and To be fair, I consider the formers to be above par in the category of family films; they are simply less interesting to the part of me that likes the nutritious side of a Frosted Mini-Wheat. So forgive me if I hold WALL-E to a high standard.

Secondly, I am prone to childish wonderment. I can suspend disbelief when it comes to populations of sentient aquatic life and insects (Anthropomorphism or bust!), and I can certainly dial into past fantasies of toys coming to life and monsters under the bed. I have never seen Cars; can’t get passed the fact that if there are no drivers, there is no evolutionary reason for a race of vehicles to evolve. (Perhaps this is why I am more critical of the Transformers cartoon than I was at age eight.)

In the case of WALL-E, my issue is not one of premise. The film may smack viewers like you and me in the face with its all-too-obvious environmental messages, but I think the plot serves as an effective allegory for the younger crowd. No, for me the devil is in the details on this one; from beginning to end I just couldn’t get past the nonsensical “logistics” of WALL-E world. Par example:

1. Why is WALL-E the only remaining WALL-E unit in service? We see the mangled remains of his peers, but no coherent reason is given as to why they can’t recharge just as he does. Our WALL-E is frequently replacing his own burnt out appendages with parts salvaged from his former coworkers. For lack of any other evidence, I have to assume that the prequel will feature a murderous rampage sequence.

2. Whose idea was it to program a waste allocation droid to be curious? This robot equivalent of a trash compactor collects—and is fascinated by—such objects as an egg beater, rubber duckies, and bubble wrap. It’s as sensible as constructing a vacuum cleaner that wants to learn opera.

3. For that matter, why program a utility robot to feel emotion at all? Like fear… WALL-E makes C-3PO look butch. And the stupidest thing of all, integral to the narrative mind you, is that WALL-E falls in love with another robot. What is the point of gender coding your appliances? “Yeah, EVE’s primary directive is to probe the earth for evidence of sustainable life, and we’ve also given her mercenary capabilities in case she runs into danger, but she has a real soft spot for show tunes.” The mobile dumpster seduces EVE by screening scenes from Hello, Dolly! To what end? I used to bang pots and pans together when I was a kid… I doubt they ever received any sexual gratification out of it.

4. Now, the earth is covered with mounds of rubbish, so the humans take off on a space cruise leaving a squadron of Johnny-5’s to clean up by crushing the trash into cubes and assembling the blocks into columns. If so much as a bean sprout appears, mankind will return. But there will still be towers of garbage!!! “Yeah, this planet used to be a hole, but now that all of those oil drums and used tampons are stacked vertically, I think it’s kinda homey.” Launch the refuse into space and plant a frickin’ garden, people.

5. Which leads us to the physical state of Homo sapiens in the WALL-E universe. A cute expository gag details man’s evolution from Fred Willard to immobile butterball, but I think Darwin would be hard pressed to posit a survival of the fattest theory that would account for our newly acquired cartoon features.

Yes, if we relinquish the burden of walking in favor of hover-chairs, there will be a significant chance of weight gain; but the people in WALL-E look more like Barbapapa than that guy who had to have his trailer wall torn down on Jerry Springer.

6. Furthermore, the Willard character's video recording from some 700 years prior clearly informs the ship's captain that, "Due to the effects of micro-gravity, you and your passengers may have suffered some slight bone loss." Well, yes, and I'm not a doctor, but I have enough common sense to determine that if there are any muscles surrounding those ostio-toothpicks, they will have atrophied. Nevertheless, when these tubbies are thrown from their floating hammocks, they are able not only to support their own girth, but to traipse about with only the slightest bit of effort. The medicine practiced by Gregory House is more plausible.

And these are only six of the many things that make me go hmmm (In fact, several warrent a "What the-- ?!?"). I won't claim that I'm not a bit nit-picky, but my disbelief can only be suspended for so long when my intellect is being chided to the Nth degree. I also admit that there are probably more dire issues to discuss, like the position a friend of mine took when he wrote that: "In making a film that is ultimately cute and adorable and feel-good, Pixar has shown that it has the ability to make even the most pressing, important and dire issue of our time into fodder for mere escapism." Ultimately, though, I have too much trouble taking the film seriously enough to bother. I suppose if I had children, I would be more concerned with WALL-E's potential harm and/or foul. As it stands, I'm content to inhabit the role of curmudgeon. The critics can continue to play the wide-eyed fools.

2009-02-04T07:46:00.000-08:00

the not-top ten project
a series of posts in which an amateur film critic discusses ten movies he loves, in no particular order, that may or may not be his favorites.

entry #3: Casablanca

Narrator: With the coming of the Second World War, many eyes in imprisoned Europe turned hopefully, or desperately, toward the freedom of the Americas. Lisbon became the great embarkation point. But, not everybody could get to Lisbon directly, and so a tortuous, roundabout refugee trail sprang up - Paris to Marseilles... across the Mediterranean to Oran... then by train, or auto, or foot across the rim of Africa, to Casablanca in French Morocco. Here, the fortunate ones through money, or influence, or luck, might obtain exit visas and scurry to Lisbon; and from Lisbon, to the New World. But the others wait in Casablanca... and wait... and wait... and wait.

Having received a new DVD copy for Christmas and already watched it twice, it seems inevitable that Casablanca should be included in a list of movies that might possibly be my favorites. As I was telling a friend the other night, this is the one film that I can watch at any time, whether I feel like it or not. The moment it begins I am hooked, swept right in, and captivated all over again... And I have seen Casablanca a lot of times.*

I thought I would be a bit more reluctant to write about it than I actually am, though. The pretentious part of me feels like it's too obvious, maybe even redundant, to heap more praises upon such a popular, mainstream film. My insecurities make me question whether I am qualified to address a film about which so much has been said by critics, scholars, and loads of people who are far smarter than me.** And my nostalgic instincts urge me to revel in my feelings for Casablanca privately, rather than share them with anyone else.

Ultimately, it is my passion that inspires this love letter to Casablanca; whenever I see it, even think about the film, certain praises want to burst out of me (Wow. I think I just came a little). Okay, I'm on the verge of composing a sonnet right now, and no one wants that. So I will spare everyone by simply expressing some of my thoughts about the film in the more accessible literary tradition of "point form."

- For all of its indelible performances, famous moments, and oft-quoted dialogue, the first thing that comes to mind when I think about Casablanca is the Marseillaise sequence. I can't believe the number of times I've been choked up while watching this scene:

- I first saw Casablanca when I was 12 years old. I had to watch a classic movie for a school project, and I chose this film because I was intrigued by a cartoon that came enclosed in an old edition of Trivial Pursuit. It was a one-panel caricature of Bogie and Dooley Wilson with the caption, "Play it again, Sam." It hung in my locker all throughout high school.

- One of my fondest memories of the time I lived in Vancouver is the night I watched Casablanca on the big screen at a repertory theatre. It was enhanced by the atmosphere: an old cinema house with a balcony, and an ashtray at every seat.

- I know a lot of trivia, history, and behind the scenes stories about the film. This has never affected my being absorbed by the story.

-The minor characters in Casablanca are as interesting as their leading counterparts. Every role is well drawn, and the faces in this film are mesmerizing.

-Mr. Leuchtag: Mareichtag and I are speaking nothing but English now.
Mrs. Leuchtag: So we should feel at home when we get to America.
Carl: Very nice idea, mm-hmm.
Mr. Leuchtag: [toasting] To America!
Mrs. Leuchtag: To America!
Carl: To America!
Mr. Leuchtag: Liebchen - sweetnessheart, what watch?
Mrs. Leuchtag: Ten watch.
Mr. Leuchtag: Such much?
Carl: Hm. You will get along beautiful in America, mm-hmm.

- I'm not a huge fan of Ingrid Bergman, but I am addicted to her in this film. The precision with which her face is lit is a testament to the art of cinematography.

-I pray to the gods of cinema that Casablanca will never be colorized or remade. Rumors (a while back) that Madonna and Kevin Costner were to star were very distressing.

-In Roger Ebert's insightful DVD commentary, he addresses the debate about whether or not Casablanca is a "perfect" movie. He cites a couple of lines of clunky dialogue and a few unconvincing special effects as evidence that it is not, but I have never labored over these glitches. I love Casablanca, imperfections and all.

I could go on forever lauding Casablanca and reminiscing about the fond memories and life experiences I have that are intertwined with this picture. Suffice it to say, Casablanca does not fall into the ambiguous region in the category of "what may or may not be my favorite films"... We're in the midst of a beautiful friendship, I like to think. So I prefer not to be one who is fortunate through money, or influence, or luck. I'm not looking for an Exit Visa anytime soon.

* Second only in viewings to The Muppet Movie.
** Who would undoubtedly have phrased it "...than I."

2008-10-28T16:26:00.000-07:00

forgive me, reader(s), for i have sinned... it has been over a month since my last blog entry

And, yes, I have been watching copious episodes of Mythbusters rather than fulfilling my duty as an amateur/fake movie critic by watching and offering commentary about every film ever released. Hopefully this unplanned hiatus is nearing its end, and I will soon be back with my self-beloved insights.

In the meantime, readers in the Windsor area may be interested in checking out this week's episode of The Comic Book Syndicate (airing on Cogeco channel 11, Friday and Saturday at 11:00 pm). Look for a handsome mustachioed fellow impersonating Commissioner Gordon.

Everyone else, please Google search and/or Facebook search The Comic Book Syndicate and demand that the show extend its viewing area.

2008-09-21T10:01:00.000-07:00

Who is The Batman?

So, as far as lame disguises go, it's probably fair to say that Superman's ranks pretty high on the "really?!?" scale. I mean, Clark Kent takes off his glasses, puts his underpants on the outside, and he's suddenly unrecognizable? It seems as if wearing some sort of mask would be considerably more effective as a means of hiding one's identity.

Then again, if you think about this issue far more seriously than it warrants, you might, like me, come to the conclusion that Batman's cowl is only marginally superior. Say that your uncle or, like, your barber or somebody was Batman. Don't you think you would be able to identify his jawline? Even if a real-life billionaire-- Donald Trump or Bill Gates-- decided to fight crime, chances are you've seen enough photographs and/or television footage of these guys that their chins would ring some bells, even if you didn't know Don or Bee-Gee personally.

Well, lets put it to the test... How many of the following Hollywood jaws can you identify? If one of these actors was, indeed, The Batman, would you know?

2008-09-08T16:23:00.000-07:00

mondays with buster
from The Scarecrow (1920)

2008-08-29T21:12:00.000-07:00

the rest-of-summer round-up

Some brief thoughts about the movies I have seen during the latter half of the summer.

HANCOCK

Great premise, poor execution. The film doesn't want to alienate viewers who think Will Smith's ears are cute (read "the general public"), so it avoids confronting superhero conventions or the psychology of its main character with the depth it would require to be satisfying. It's kind of a shame that Hancock missed the mark because now that the 2008 summer season, with its deluge of comic book movies, is over, the moment for Hancock's timely themes has passed.

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY

I'm struggling to recall whether I liked this film or not, which suggests that it was not particularly memorable. Honestly, though, I had the same response to Hellboy numero uno. Both installments pass the time without making me wish I was elsewhere, knitting or something, and offer minor delights, mostly visual. Every review of the Golden Army that I have read speculates that director Guillermo del Toro either had leftover creatures from his previous film, Pan's Labyrinth, and/or had recently spent some time in the Mos Eisley Cantina. Had I bothered to review Hellboy II at the time, I would have likely blurted out similar quips. The creature designs, though, remain quite faithful to the style of Hellboy artist Mike Mignola, too. So, yes, there's optical splendor that probably works best on the big screen, but my overall indifference towards the film makes it difficult to recommend.

THE DARK KNIGHT

You know what The Dark Knight needs? More buzz. Really, though, what am I going to add to a discussion of the film that hasn't already been said? I belong to the camp that thinks The Dark Knight is not quite as wonderful as it has been raved to be, but most of my quibbles are minor. The first time I saw the movie, I spent the initial forty minutes wondering what was so great about the film, but then it kicked into gear and wowed me like it did so many other viewers. I left the theater with the same kind of buzz I felt after seeing The Empire Strikes Back so many years ago. I saw The Dark Knight again in IMAX, and was not as bored during the opening scenes, but I recognized that there are a number of sequences that seem to be over before they're finished. What happens at Bruce Wayne's dinner party after the Batman jumps out the window, for instance? Heath Ledger: very good. Christian Bale: deserves more recognition for how good he is, also.

TROPIC THUNDER

For better or worse, Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, and their cadre of regulars have set the bar for contemporary comedy with their series of successful R-rated flicks (in which nothing is sacred, except maybe pot). In comparison to movies like Superbad and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Tropic Thunder has an air of gentility that belies its attempts to skewer its targets with significant audacity. The film opens with some clever gags, including the parody advertisements and trailers that introduce the main characters. In general, though, the jokes are kind of lame.

The semi-controversial retard material is less shocking than protesters made it out to be, and whatever shock-value was intended in the casting of Tom Cruise to play studio exec, Les Grossman-- oh my god, he's so playing against type-- is undermined by the fact that Tom Cruise really stinks. If the humor was as outrageous as it needed to be, it might be easier to accept the ridiculous plot: actors who think that they're filming in the jungle, guerrilla style, end up doing battle with an Asian drug cartel. As it stands, however, this movie offers no incentive for me to suspend any degree of disbelief.

If Tropic Thunder is valuable in one regard, it would be its contribution towards catapulting Robert Downey, Jr. to A-List fame. Along with his recognition for Iron Man, Downey's performance in this film has been appropriately lauded as one of this summer's highlights. I think we can look forward to seeing him in future projects that are not as easily summed up as:

2008-08-28T07:42:00.000-07:00

Dennis Cozzalio keeps me occupied for fifteen hours with his latest quiz for hard core cinephiles at Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. Here are my answers to:

DR. ZACHARY SMITH'S LOST IN THE SPACE AT THE END OF SUMMER MOVIE QUIZ

1) Your favorite musical moment in a movie

Whenever someone asks me what my "favorite" anything in a movie category is, I immediately come up with a list of at least 25 answers. I am willing to commit to a favorite movie musical, as I am inordinately fond of An American in Paris, but a musical moment? Here's a smattering of moments that immediately jumped into my head: Movin' Right Along from The Muppet Movie; the last supper scene (Suicide is Painless) in M*A*S*H; Deadfall's symphonic heist; the Hooray for Captain Spalding number in Woody Allen's Everyone Says I Love You; Rick's customers rallying behind Le Marseillaise in Casablanca; the Flying Trapeze song from It Happened One Night; and oh-so-many more... (I haven't even addressed musical scores)

2) Ray Milland or Dana Andrews

Gotta say, neither actor is particularly compelling to me. Looking over their filmographies at imdb, I can confess to only having seen one of each performer's movies (The Lost Weekend and Laura, respectively). My response to both was ho-hum. I like the name Ray Milland, though. It rolls off the tongue nicely: Ray Milland. I'm gonna go with Ray Milland (born Reginald Alfred Truscott-Jones).

3) Favorite Sidney Lumet movie

I'm going to go ahead and classify Network as a Paddy Chayefsky movie so that I can throw this bone to The Verdict. Lumet, Newman, Rampling, Warden, Mamet, Mandel, and a sophisticated plot that puts most legal dramas to shame. The world needs more movies about alcoholic ambulance chasers, too.

4) Biggest surprise of the just-past summer movie season

Nicky Katt is in The Dark Knight.

5) Gene Tierney or Rita Hayworth

Rita Hayworth, but I have a poster of Tim Robbins hanging on my cell wall.

6) What’s the last movie you saw on DVD? In theaters?

The last movie I saw on DVD was Prom Night (2008), because internet piracy makes movie watching so affordable that I no longer have to be discerning about what I choose to see.

The last movie I saw in the theater was Tropic Thunder. It was retarded.

7) Irwin Allen’s finest hour?

The Poseidon Adventure.

8) What were the films where you would rather see the movie promised by the poster than the one that was actually made?

'nuff said

9) Chow Yun-Fat or Tony Leung

I really enjoy watching Chow Yun-Fat shoot people in the early John Woo films, but Tony Leung blows me away as an actor. At his best, so far, I think in Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love. The man has a face that can make your soul cry.

10) Most pretentious movie ever

pretentious adjective 1 making an excessive claim to great merit, importance, fashionableness, etc. esp. without cause. 2 ostentatious, showy. (Canadian Oxford Dictionary)

You would think that some artsy foreign film would jump to mind, but a couple of mainstream movies tie at the top of my list:

Gladiator: a picture that wants you to believe that it is an historical epic in the vein of Braveheart or Lawrence of Arabia, but is actually just a sports film. In fact, it's not even Rocky... It's like ancient WWF.

Forrest Gump: a picture that wants you to believe that it is an insightful human drama that examines ideological perseverance in the face of political and personal adversity, but is actually emotionally manipulative, sentimental pap.

11) Favorite Russ Meyer movie

I'm not much of a Meyer fan, so I'll resort to the the title I like best, which is Wild Gals of the Naked West. I watched this flick on TV a few months ago, begging the question, what was I doing awake at 3:30 in the morning?

12) Name the movie that you feel best reflects yourself, a movie you would recommend to an acquaintance that most accurately says, “This is me.”

Cabin Boy. No, wait! That was an answer from your previous quiz... different question... I am uncomfortable with the idea of trying to describe my personality in relation to the content of a single movie, let alone someone else's art. It's a reductive and arrogant task. So I called my ex-girlfriend to ask which movie reflects me most accurately, and she said "Deconstructing Harry."

13) Marlene Dietrich or Greta Garbo

Wow. Both icons, both incredibly talented, both strikingly beautiful in such interesting ways. This question is more fascinating than the mundane case of Milland v. Andrews, but much more difficult to answer because the two actresses are so great. Because I hate to be uncommitted, I will give a slight edge to Greta, whose performance in the famous "Garbo Laughs" scene in Ninotchka had such an impact on me when I studied the films of Ernst Lubitsch. But I reserve the right to change my mind at any time without reason or accountability.

14) Best movie snack? Most vile movie snack?

Who decided that popcorn was the movie snack of choice. Yeah, I just love to hear those kernels squeaking between your teeth while I'm trying to watch a picture. Throw in those crackly candy packages and nachos?!? You might as well leave your cell phone on, 'cause the theater is beginning to sound like a STOMP! production. My vote is that we allow only pudding.

15) Current movie star who would be most comfortable in the classic Hollywood studio system

Jeremy Northam. While watching the film Cypher, I was struck with the thought that he could easily slip into a number of Cary Grant's roles.

16) Fitzcarraldo—yes or no?

Yes, but not without having first seen Herzog's 1999 documentary, My Best Friend.

17) Your assignment is to book the ultimate triple bill to inaugurate your own revival theater. What three movies will we see on opening night?

Steamboat Bill, Jr.
The 400 Blows
The Muppet Movie

18) What’s the name of your theater? (The all-time greatest answer to this question was once provided by Larry Aydlette, whose repertory cinema, the Demarest, is, I hope, still packing them in…)

Hmmm... The all-time greatest answer beats anything I could come up with. Is Aydlette looking to franchise?

19) Favorite Leo McCarey movie

The Awful Truth... no, Duck Soup. Or maybe The Awful Truth? (Stop, I'm both right!)

20) Most impressive debut performance by an actor/actress.

I don't know because I haven't seen them all, but recently I'd have to say that those kids in The Kite Runner were really quite good.

21) Biggest disappointment of the just-past summer movie season

Learning that Bill Maher's Religulous would not be released until the fall.

22) Michelle Yeoh or Maggie Cheung

Maggie Cheung. Every bit as good as Tony Leung in In the Mood for Love.

23) 2008 inductee into the Academy of the Overrated

Iron Man

24) 2008 inductee into the Academy of the Underrated

In Bruges (more underexposed than underrated)

25) Fritz the Cat—yes or no?

No to Ralph Bakshi in general. But yes to Robert Crumb.

26) Trevor Howard or Richard Todd

Too arcane. I wouldn't be able to pick either one out of a lineup.

27) Antonioni once said, “I began taking liberties a long time ago; now it is standard practice for most directors to ignore the rules.” What filmmaker working today most fruitfully ignores the rules? What does ignoring the rules of cinema mean in 2008?

If one adopts the attitude that everything has been done, then breaking the rules simply means chiding the unions, in which case Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez are our most prominent rebels.

I still believe, however, that there are narrative and stylistic frontiers yet to be explored. A fruitful rule breaker in 2008 is someone who proves that you can work against expectations and still connect with the audience on an emotional and/or cerebral level.

Some contemporary rule breakers:
Michael Haneke
Charlie Kaufman/Spike Jonze
Michel Gondry
Steven Soderbergh
Julian Schnabel
the Coen brothers
Thomas McCarthy

28) Favorite William Castle movie

I'm going with House on Haunted Hill because I have seen it.

29) Favorite ethnographically oriented movie

The Gods Must be Crazy (I am so not as racist as this answer would suggest).

30) What’s the movie coming up in 2008 you’re most looking forward to? Why?

Religulous. The world is in desperate need of perspective when it comes to religion, and Bill Maher has perspective in spades. Real Time doesn't air here, so I've been jonesing for a hit of Maher since Politically Incorrect was canceled.

Also, Bangkok Dangerous because I'm a sucker for hit-man movies.

31) What deceased director would you want to resurrect in order that she/he might make one more film?

Oooh. Toughie. I would love to see a modern day political thriller from Alan Pakula, but comedy has been on the decline for nearly two decades now, so I think I would have to resurrect either Ernst Lubitsch or Preston Sturges.

32) What director would you like to see, if not literally entombed, then at least go silent creatively?

Ron Howard. Lets cremate his lousy films while we're at it.

33) Your first movie star crush

Yes. I have admitted to this before: the very first poster I hung on my wall for reasons of crushiness was of Brooke Shields. I have no idea where it came from; in fact, I'm fairly certain I had never seen her in a movie previous to decorating my room with her visage. To be honest, though, I still kind of dig her.

2008-08-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

mondays with buster

2008-08-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

review: death at a funeral

dir. Frank Oz, 2007

In real life, it is difficult to get laughs at a funeral; in the movies, it's somewhat easy. Chaos set against the backdrop of a typically somber event is a fairly common base for a comedy writer's recipe. Consider, though, that onions, carrots, and celery are common to many soups. It is the additional ingredients, both familiar and unfamiliar, that determine how tasty the final dish will be.

Death at a Funeral has an air of predictability because it works within the comic formula of presenting its audience with a number of "uh-oh" moments. We know that trouble is ahead when a character, on his way to the funeral, takes a pill that he thinks is Valium but is, in fact, a narcotic hallucinogen: "Uh-oh!!!" What takes us by surprise, if a film's ingredients are fresh, is the manner in which these "uh-oh" scenarios play out. Alan Tudyk, for instance, gives a rather broad performance as the LSD-dosed character, but his elastic physicality and priceless facial expressions elicit more hysterics than one might expect from a somewhat conventional series of gags.

Even more outrageous is the thread involving actor Peter Dinklage , whose character work is always compelling enough to ensure that his diminutive stature is never exploited for cheap laughs. Dinklage is quickly establishing himself both as one of cinema's greatest treasures and as one of my all-time favourite performers. He doesn't disappoint in this role as a stranger to the family whose relationship with the deceased threatens to disrupt the solemn funeral proceedings if divulged.

Save for the two aforementioned actors, the cast of Death at a Funeral is predominantly British, and the script was inked by two English blokes, as well. Some of the dark humour reflects the film's place of origin, but it is not so steeped in the UK sensibility as to seem foreign to some North American viewers (a la Monty Python, for instance). Director Frank Oz is, of course USA born, and has a fair amount of experience in the field of making quirky but accessible comedies. While some of his movies (Dirty, Rotten Scoundrels, What About Bob?) are certainly better than others (HouseSitter, and blech The Stepford Wives), he has successfully flavoured this little picture with all the right spices.

what you might like: The film opens with a great gag that really sets the tone of the picture. After that, it seems for a while as if everything is a bit too familiar. Stick with it, though. As Death at a Funeral approaches its climax, it provides some of the most laugh-out-loud material you are likely to have encountered in some time. (I suggest watching it with others... The laughter is contagious).

what you might not like: There's no accounting for taste. I know that a small contingent of viewers will find the content and language offensive. If you tend to err conservatively, you may want to avoid this picture (although, I imagine one would have to be pretty uptight to not succumb to its offbeat charms).

what you might consider: Now that it is widely available on DVD, Death at a Funeral is easy to find and worthy of your rental dollars. It deserves some word-of-mouth recommendations, and I think you will find yourself eager to share the guffaws.

links to imdb:
Death at a Funeral
Frank Oz
Peter Dinklage

2008-08-18T08:13:00.000-07:00

Mondays with Buster

Sherlock Jr. (1924)
part one

links:
part two
part three
part four
part five
part six
part seven
part eight

2008-08-14T17:02:00.000-07:00

the not-top ten project
a series of posts in which an amateur film critic discusses ten movies he loves, in no particular order, that may or may not be his favorites.

entry #2: Father Goose

Catherine Freneau: [Eckland has sucked the "poison" from Catherine's "snakebite"] Tell me, I would like to know - what did my blood taste like? Walter Eckland: Delicious. Now come on.
Catherine Freneau: No, no, no, I'm serious. What did it taste like?
Walter Eckland: Well how would I know? I'm not a vampire,
Catherine Freneau: Um, was it salty?
Walter Eckland: Mmm, a little salty, yes.
Catherine Freneau: Too salty?
Walter Eckland: No, it was just right.
Catherine Freneau: Oh, no! You thought it was too salty, I can tell! You didn't like it!
[she seems on the verge of crying]
Walter Eckland: I liked it!
Catherine Freneau: Oh, really?
Walter Eckland: Uh-huh, I liked it!
Catherine Freneau: You're not just saying that?
Walter Eckland: Great blood!

It is merely coincidence that the first two entries in my not-top ten project happen to be family films (after all, these titles are brought to you in no particular order). Like The Muppet Movie, though, Father Goose (dir. Ralph Nelson, 1964) is not strictly a "family film," as the term is thought of by many to be synonymous with "kiddie-fare." In fact, while the content of numerous older movies tends to come across as chaste by modern standards, Father Goose has elements that may be perceived as being less suitable for children by (some) contemporary viewers than they were by audiences forty-some-odd years ago. That the film won the 1964 Oscar for Best Original Screenplay is enough to suggest that Father Goose is more sophisticated than the average kids' movie, and the fact that it has fallen into relative obscurity is indicative of the type of film that this project aims to celebrate and draw your attention toward.

To say that the plot is quirky may be a mild understatement: During WWII, a boozy scavenger, Walter Eckland (Cary Grant), is coerced into monitoring enemy aircraft from a small island in the South Pacific. He answers a distress call from a nearby outpost, and a reluctant rescue mission saddles him with unwanted company in the form of a prissy French schoolmarm (Leslie Caron) and the seven young girls whom she tutors. The disciplined lifestyle that this teacher espouses interferes with Walter's primary aim, which is to find and drink numerous bottles of whiskey that have been hidden around the island.

The premise is absurd, but the script is so cohesive that one cannot help but suspend disbelief and accept cinematic plausibility. Recent comedies like The Love Guru and You Don't Mess With the Zohan have proved that a wacky concept alone does not guarantee perpetual laughter or feature length interest from an audience. Too many filmmakers, these days, seem to think that they can extend a five minute sketch into a two hour extravaganza. Whereas these newer movies attempt to shock us with intermittent penis jokes and gags where we see fish clenched between the cheeks of bare bottoms-- simple gross-out humour-- Father Goose implores us to react to legitimately funny situations that are directly related to the story.

In the four and a half years that I have owned my DVD copy of Father Goose, it has been on loan to friends and colleagues more than it has been in my possession. I am particularly fond of lending this film to people who swear that they don't like "old movies." Rather than present them with a bona fide classic like Casablanca or Citizen Kane-- films they may feel as if they are supposed to like-- it is more fun to surprise them with this lesser known picture. The cover photo on the DVD (pictured here) is not particularly enticing; many people I know have been repelled from believing that the film might be, in any way, interesting... All the more pleasurable for me when they do finally watch and enjoy it. In one instance, a friend of mine put Father Goose on and, within ten minutes, her entire family had gathered around the TV and they all watched together. The success rate of my little lending experiment is, thus far, 100%. I'm proud of this statistic because I feel as if, in a way, I discovered this hidden gem, and that sharing my enthusiasm for the film with others will earn Father Goose some deserved recognition.

Of course, I have no interest in issuing a smug "I told you so" to reluctant viewers who find that they are, in fact, subject to the allure of an old-timey picture. The infectious charm of Cary Grant and Leslie Caron's performances, after all, is not a difficult sell. And there is an unexpected edge to the film's humour in scenes where Eckland interacts with the children that will likely appeal to fans of modern comedies that elicit laughter by means of politically incorrect scenarios and the celebration of social taboos.

Many of our favourite movies, books, musicians, etc. do make us feel as if we have some level of proprietary interest, that they are rare commodities, known only to a select few, and we are part of an exclusive group who happen to be in-the-know. Ultimately, though, we take as much pleasure in sharing these works with those closest to us and discovering that they are equally blown away, than we do from reveling in that special feeling of "ownership." Such is my relationship with Father Goose. So I urge you to seek out a copy, even if it means borrowing mine; perhaps you will be the next ardent fan who feels compelled to pass it along to others.

links to imdb.com:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

links to purchase:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

2008-08-03T11:26:00.000-07:00

review: cassandra's dream
dir. Woody Allen, 2007

Just over a decade ago, "The Beatles Anthology" was released on CD in the form of three two-disc volumes. Reviews were, by and large, positive. Unsurprising, I guess. Can you really pan The Beatles? What struck me as interesting, though, was the fact that many critics had the where-with-all to admit that these albums are not necessarily "must-have" items; the Anthology, it has often been noted, along with the earlier "Live at the BBC" compilation, is more likely to be of interest to die hard Beatles fans who long to hear every scratch and pop, every unused take, every variation on a song, and a whole lot of studio chatter, than it will be to the (comparatively) casual listener.

With the notable exception of 2005's Match Point, a similar critique is useful in reviewing the films that Woody Allen has released over the past decade. Allen has long been a polarizing figure in cinema-- a broad sector of film-goers hate his work, few are ambivalent, and those who like him, like him a lot. But even hardcore fans would be hard pressed to convince themselves that recent titles like The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Melinda and Melinda, and Scoop are anywhere near as satisfying or relevant as the thirty-some-odd films that precede them. As one of these fans, however, I find that I am perpetually drawn to Allen's films regardless of how minor, mediocre, and/or odious they may be (relative to his canonical high points). I think this has something to do with the fact that the writer/director's most disappointing misfires reveal more about his working process than some of his masterpieces.

For instance, his comedies of late seem to be thrust into production before their screenplays are fully fleshed. Lines of dialogue that appear to be leading towards classic Allenesque punchlines tend to peter out as if the intended jokes were missing from the typewritten page, and the actors were too intimidated to improvise. One almost gets the sense that Woody has a drawer filled with outlines, "Idea for a comedy...", and early drafts that he can turn to when writer's block threatens to disrupt his yet unbroken track record of releasing (at least) one movie every year. It's possible that an avid fan will derive some pleasure from watching these skeleton films to discern what trade mark elements are missing when compared to Allen's more accomplished works, and ultimately develop a deeper appreciation for his process and style. Others are likely to feel as if they have simply wasted their time watching a crummy picture.

Cassandra's Dream, on the other hand, is neither a misfire, nor does it reek of incompleteness. Still, I think it is an Allen film that will appeal almost exclusively to Allen fans. This dramatic story of two brothers, Ian (Ewan McGregor) and Terry (Colin Farrell), wrestling with the moral consequences of a violent crime they have committed does not stray far from the themes that Woody Allen has explored in previous films such as Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point. The latter was quite successful in breaking through to audiences who were never much keen on Allen's oeuvre, but are these viewers willing to watch a movie that explores the same material with minor variations? I'm not convinced that a similarly wide demographic will be interested in Cassandra's Dream, but I do believe that this film will satisfy Woody Allen aficionados who are drawn to the filmmaker's penchant for revisiting grand questions of scruples and attempting to formulate answers.

Just because I think that Cassandra's Dream is more likely to resonate with Woody Allen fans who are interested in seeing how his exploration of familiar themes will play out within slightly different circumstances does not mean that I would discourage newcomers or (those rare) on-the-fencers to seek out this film and give it a look-see. It is a cohesive and sophisticated movie that has the potential to entertain and provoke thought, a combination that is far too rare in films these days. It is, however, a film that benefits from a certain amount of foresight from its viewers:

What you might like: There are some great performances in this film... and not just great "Woody Allen" performances (i.e. John Cusack in Bullets Over Broadway or Edward Norton in Everyone Says I Love You). Colin Farrell reminds us that he is not the vacuous Hollywood star that films like Daredevil and Miami Vice have made him out to be, and Ewan McGregor sheds his Jedi robes to reveal that he is much more comfortable in a psychologically driven role than in front of a green screen. Their combined charisma goes a long way towards ensuring that we are emotionally invested in the characters' interests when the film takes its dark turn. And the story is compelling enough to warrant our investment in Ian and Terry's fates.

What you might not like: It is not unusual for those who dislike Allen's work to attribute some of their negative feelings towards his nuanced dialogue. Cassandra's Dream is very much a writer's piece, and it is fair to assume that some viewers will find the rhythm and repetition of the line readings off-putting. Also, depending upon one's threshold for slower paced films, this character study may come across as a bit of a gloomy bore.

What you might consider: This film isn't really crying out for attention from those who would sympathize with these criticisms. Like any filmmaker, Woody Allen probably yearns for his work to reach the largest possible audience, but he doesn't often compromise his artistic integrity in pursuit of mass appeal. A film like Cassandra's Dream might resonate the most with an exclusive group of Allen anthologists who are familiar with the larger context of the auteur's work; but, like an alternate take of a Beatles' song, this film remains a solid (if slightly unpolished) piece of work with chords that may entice some new fans, as well.

links to imdb:
Woody Allen
Cassandra's Dream

links to purchase:
Match Point
Crimes and Misdemeanors

2008-07-20T10:53:00.000-07:00

a little more hope

"Family Guy" may be less a show than it is a reward for pop culture junkies who have accumulated a great deal of useless knowledge, but it should be noted that this animated series often references arcane source material with high regard and intellect.

Creator Seth MacFarlane has a peculiar affinity for the song and dance antics of vaudeville and the cinema it inspired. The demise of yuksters Vern and Johnny (pictured below), shot down by Stewie in Season 5, Episode 4, may indicate that a fair number of viewers were perplexed by McFarlane's frequent homages to vaudeville. This is only conjecture, but I can't shake the feeling that negative audience feedback on internet message boards may have influenced the writers' decision to retire these obscure gags.

On the other hand, the three "Road" episodes, which playfully recreate the formula of the old Hope & Crosby pictures, seem to have struck a chord with viewers. It helps that these episodes feature Brian and Stewie, whose chemistry is popular with fans, but the exactness with which MacFarlane and his writers translate material from the original "Road" movies suggests that the formula still works in a contemporary context.

It's not particularly surprising that the sensibility of these films from the 1940's and 50's continues to appeal; the humor in the Bob Hope/Bing Crosby pictures, like that of the "Family Guy" program, is irreverent and self aware. Of course, "Family Guy" is often as crass as it is sophisticated, but this also serves to make the "Road" gags work. When Brian and Stewie dance around the censors in their musical numbers (just as their cinematic counterparts did all those years ago), they also sidestep our expectations because we know that they are just as likely to follow through with a dirty joke.

It may be worth investigating whether or not audiences are backwards compatible. That is to say, would contemporary viewers who enjoy "Family Guy" be entertained by the Hope & Crosby films, or would they find the humor too benign and the references too outdated? (Perhaps an informal study and a future post will follow). For the time being, I am content in knowing that at least one forum remains, in these (post)modern times, for this rare brand of madcap comedy.

2008-07-19T11:10:00.000-07:00

i bought hope for $11.99 (cdn + tax)

... And he's worth every penny.

Oh sure, I like expensive things, but I can afford cheapy discount items, and thanks to some archaic copyright laws, there is no shortage of value priced DVD collections, largely comprised of films that have fallen into the public domain, to be found in stores. You, yourself, have likely passed by an aisle display and seen covers such as the one below, retailing for under ten dollars.

Now, to a certain extent, you get what you pay for. I have several sets produced by St. Clair Vision (including Classic Film Noir), and the quality of the discs is so poor that most DVD players have trouble reading them. On several occasions I have been half way through a movie when it suddenly digitizes, freezes, and will not restart regardless of how I tamper with the disc and/or the machine.

Also, no matter how much one loves a bargain, the average consumer probably harbors little interest in these old fashioned films. To the consumer's credit, it is often the case that only a few of the titles included in any given set are worth the time it takes to watch them.

Still, for all the rough, it is inevitable that one will stumble upon a few diamonds. Assuming that you can get them to play from beginning to end, pictures like "D.O.A."; "The Strange Love of Martha Ivers"; and "Detour" should provide you with a quantity of B-grade entertainment that exceeds the price of admission. It was with this in mind that I decided to take a chance on the affordably priced "Legends of Hollywood Bob Hope" collection: ten films on five DVDs for $11.99.

This nicely packaged set is not distributed by the dreaded St. Clair Vision people, but by a company called BCI Eclipse that seems to have put an extra few pennies into basic materials in order to ensure that the discs actually function. And while not every film in this compilation is a gem, it does provide a fairly comprehensive overview of Hope's big screen career, and includes a number of, what I consider to be, his best pictures.

Previous to buying this set, I had seen most, if not all, of the Hope/Crosby "Road" movies (two of which-- "Road to Rio" and "Road to Bali"-- are part of the package) and found them to be quite charming overall. I frequently lament the fact that vaudevillian style entertainment is no longer common within popular cinema and television. The "Road" pictures revel in the spirit of a sometimes hokey brand of comedy, and, in particular, the duo's musical numbers highlight the irreverence that makes this erstwhile genre so enjoyable. To be honest, though, in spite of the chemistry between Bob and Bing, I always found Hope to be more compelling to watch than his partner, Crosby.

So it was a joy to finally delve into some of Bob Hope's solo projects: "My Favorite Brunette"; "The Great Lover"; and "Paris Holiday". Though the names of his characters change, Hope's persona remains much the same throughout all of these pictures, and the plots of the films are always superfluous to the punchy one-liners. But the formula works: put Bob in an outrageous situation and watch him be a cad, a coward, an anxious lover, a hero, a victim, a ladies man, and a commentator, all in a single scene.

Other movies included in this package (like "Son of Paleface" and "The Private Navy of Sgt. O'Farrell) are considerably less delightful. These later works employ many of the same comedy devices, but the writing is far weaker and, at times, Hope appears to be justifiably disinterested in the material. Even his trademark direct address to the camera/audience cannot excuse the lameness of the events taking place on screen-- and nothing can excuse the broad racial stereotypes that are meant to serve as humor in these films.

In the category of good-but-not-great, "The Seven Little Foys," inspired by the true story of a family of vaudeville performers, offers a rare glimpse of Hope in a quazi-dramatic role, and for the purposes of the film, he competently fits the bill. There are certainly better movies from the era (circa 1955), but I think contemporary audiences would be surprised at how engaging and emotionally moving this story really is.

I have yet to watch the remaining two films in the compilation, "The Lemon Drop Kid" and the much maligned "How to Commit Marriage." By all accounts, it looks like I'm in for one decent picture and one that's a total stinker. For the money, though, I can't complain.

2008-07-05T11:51:00.000-07:00

johnny depp in Tim Burton films

2008-07-03T18:41:00.000-07:00

wanted: The Big Sleep and Sin City

In order to truly enjoy the new film, Wanted, one must check one's logic at the theater door. I mean, c'mon... A world where the names of baddies who are fated to die are delivered to a secret society of assassins via loom? Let's hope that the powers-that-be don't slip a stitch. Just because this film demands an obscene level of suspension of disbelief, however, doesn't mean that viewers should turn their brains off altogether.

That I enjoyed this film in no way forgives the fact that it revels in some fairly dubious morality. I think it would be difficult to justify my appreciation of Wanted if I was not consciously aware of the ideological elements that I find so objectionable. (In order to refrain from divulging any information that may constitute spoilers, allow me to limit my summarization for the time being and say that the movie celebrates misogynistic fantasies, rationalizes amoral [and sometimes immoral] violence, and masks the ambiguous value system its protagonist develops by suggesting that he is on a path of self growth.)

At the risk of sounding pompous, Wanted has been touted and marketed as mindless summer entertainment, and it is bound to appeal to a largely mindless audience. I'm not saying that the majority of the film's viewers lack the ability to discern from right and wrong, fiction and fact, or that they will adopt the movie's values into their everyday lives. To think, however, that the celebration of ideals such as Wanted presents does nothing to shape a spectator's notion of what traits are to be admired in a movie and/or its "hero" would be a mistake. Just look at these excerpts from fan reviews posted on imdb.com:

In all honesty, this movie is symbolizes what all action movies should be. Fun, HOT, testosterone-fueled... PLUS you get to see that sweet little bum bum of Angelina Jolie's! What's not to love about this movie? ... It starts off with James McAvoy playing Wesley Gibson as a bumbling nobody walking through his daily existence as someone who doesn't know the core of who he is. By the end of the film, he is a violent, magnetic presence that you can't take your eyes off. You'll truly understand why he is "The Man".

Off the chain look for an unexpected twist at the end. I didn't quite understand it but, was very good movie watching. Grab that bag of popcorn and soda in the other hand and enjoy ... An action picture that shows ingenuity in inventing new ways to attack, defend, ambush and annihilate. Wanted slams the pedal to the metal and never slows down.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, while the film scored a 7.6 out of 10 from imdb visitors who rated it, there are at least as many negative written reviews about Wanted as there are positive, and even the fans who enjoyed the film are, by and large, quite insightful in their commentary. One must grant, however, that most people who would be inspired to take the time to write a comment for the website have a vested interest in film analysis to begin with. I can't help but think that if you interviewed the audience as a theatrical screening lets out, you would get a lot of responses to the movie that are similar to the ones above.

In fact, I am reminded of a university tutorial I taught a few years ago in which the class was studying Howard Hawks' 1946 film noir, The Big Sleep. One of the goals for the hour was to examine sexist attitudes in the film, and my students were surprisingly reluctant to do so. When I asked them what they thought of the lead character, private eye Philip Marlowe, a young gent shouted out, "Dude, Marlowe's pimpin'" (in the most complimentary sense of the term). I was shocked, again, to see how many of my female students smiled and nodded in agreement.

The class was in no way opposed to examining the aesthetics of the film, but its ideology was decidedly off limits, as if discovering something objectionable in the fabric of the movie would destroy its entertainment value. Bear in mind that this is an introductory course for film majors, students who have committed to spending the next four years of their lives analyzing cinema. They were convinced that Marlow embodied every aspect that a movie hero should, and were able to brush off the fact that he slaps a few women around as a sign of the time in which the picture was made.

And it is true that such behavior would not fly as easily in a contemporary film, but they refused to see that these blatant images are not the only examples of outdated morality in The Big Sleep, or that the fact that they so easily accepted the character of Philip Marlowe as a typical on-screen hero illustrates that many of the film's values and ideals are still present in the movies we watch today. Ultimately, we all need to understand that enjoying a film as entertainment and recognizing its ideological flaws are not mutually exclusive.

The difference, I would say, between a movie like The Big Sleep and one such as Wanted is that the content of the former is largely influenced by the ethics of the time in which it was made while the latter, more often than not, means to entertain by way of hedonistic excess. This is not an admirable agenda, but I find it hard to dismiss the movie for this reason any more than I would poo-poo the early James Bond films. I don't admire Bond for being a womanizing brute, but neither do I deny the fact that his cinematic persona is the source of great amusement.

Wanted has been compared to films like The Matrix and Fight Club, and aptly so, since it owes a great deal of visual style and story content to both. But the feeling I got from watching the movie was more akin to my experience with Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller's Sin City. The visuals are stunning, and they subsume me the way only a comic book or video game can. The plot line (or lines) is (or are) both extreme and engaging. The film establishes a consistent mood and an enticing story world. And yet, the subject matter is often appalling.

It's not the violence or sexuality that I find offensive, but rather the way in which the film tries to misdirect us into believing that it is somehow progressive. For instance, I take particular issue with the segment entitled "The Big Fat Kill," in which we are supposed to imagine that the female prostitutes who occupy the Old Town region of Basin City are strong women who rule the turf and administer their own brand of justice: "The ladies are the law here. Beautiful and merciless. If you've got the cash and you play by the rules, they'll make all your dreams come true. But if you cross them, you're a corpse."

Forget, for a moment, that the only powers these women wield are their bodies and their guns, and consider that, in spite of the authority they are said to maintain, when the chips fall they need a man (Clive Owen) to save the day. Oh... and, best case scenario? If he saves the day, they get to continue being prostitutes!!! Wanted attempts to manipulate us in much the same way, presenting Angelina Jolie as an expert assassin who is, initially, far more capable than our protagonist. But the scene in which she reveals her ornate tattoos and supple buttocks to James McAvoy should alert us to the fact that her primary role in the film is to be sexy.

It is difficult, in a way, to begrudge a spectator for having a superficial reaction to a film when that film encourages just such a reaction. In the end, however, I believe that it is our responsibility as an audience to seek out and support films that are more ideologically sound, and to establish dialogues about the movies that aren't. I would hate to live in a world where an excessive, hedonistic, amoral extravaganza like Wanted couldn't be made, but I would be less tempted to live in world where its ethics are accepted, let alone championed.

notes:

The tagline for The Big Sleep is: " The type of man she hated . . . was the type she wanted!"

The day that my students and I discussed The Big Sleep was only the second class of the semester. As the year progressed, they proved themselves to be superb film analysts, and I wish them all the greatest success as they continue their education.

2008-07-02T06:44:00.000-07:00

mid-summer round-up

Some brief thoughts about the movies I have seen so far this summer:

IRON MAN

Director Jon Favreau has assembled a superb cast, admirably led by Robert Downey Jr. as rebel billionaire Tony Stark. Downey's performance in the film's first act is worth the price of admission, but the highlights of his ballsy comic take on the character are all in the preview, so most of us have already seen this performance for free. After Stark escapes from captivity he becomes sullen and self-righteous and, to be honest, a little bit boring. (my full review here)

REDBELT
Minor Mamet. This film, set in the world of mixed-martial arts competition is compelling due to the facts that it: (1) is written and directed by David Mamet, (2) is not about the sport as much as it is about a behind-the-scenes conspiracy, and (3) the actors-- the impeccable Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mamet regulars Ricky Jay and Rebecca Pidgeon, and a surprisingly capable Tim Allen-- deliver the writer's nuanced dialogue superbly. The inevitable plot twists, however, are far too predictable to anyone familiar with Mamet's work. Judging by the audience at the screening I attended, those who are not familiar with his previous films (and/or plays) were disappointed that Redbelt wasn't more like Jean-Claude Van Damme's Kickboxer.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

It's crap. If I get started on all of the film's flaws again, I'll be sitting here typing for hours. So please see my full review here.

YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE ZOHAN & THE LOVE GURU

I lump these two films together for a couple of reasons. One is that the premises of both movies are seemingly absurd. Zohan: an Israeli Special Forces soldier moves to New York to pursue his dream of becoming a hair stylist. Guru: a self-help author/spiritual advisor from India is asked to come to Toronto to rekindle the talent and love life of the Maple Leafs' star player. Another is that I read a lot of early speculation about these pictures that questioned whether or not Sandler and Myers are still relevant in the age of Seth Rogan/Judd Apatpow comedies. Well, critics have maligned The Love Guru because it relies upon only two gags: puns and penis jokes. Zohan has received considerably more acclaim; I suspect this is because it has an underlying message that Israelies and Palastinians should get along, but what they don't seem to acknowledge is that Sandler's film regurgitates two jokes, as well. Is hummus funny? How about sex with old women? Maybe the first time, but not the umpteenth. Jews and Arabs would be wise to unite in hatred of a movie that insults the intelligence of an audience to such a degree. The Love Guru is probably a better film, but it is more disappointing than Zohan because it had more potential to begin with. Guru has a lot of material that would have been funnier if better timed in editing (how can we not laugh at the idea that the Leafs' star hockey player is black and their manager a dwarf?). The main problem, though, is that Myers seems not to be sure whether the Guru Pitka is savvy or stupid. Had he made the character more specific, like the fish-out-of-water Austin Powers, The Love Guru could have been laugh out loud funny, and Myers performance may have been compared to some of Peter Sellers' work. Are Sandler and Myers still relevant? I believe that Myers has more humour and intelligence to offer, but neither comic has provided enough evidence this summer to indicate that they're still on the cutting edge.
THE INCREDIBLE HULK

Having now seen two film adaptations of this comic, I am convinced that the Hulk is just not interesting enough to warrant this much screen time. Furthermore, simply casting a talented actor like Edward Norton is not enough to ensure that Bruce Banner will be interesting, either. Throw an equally dull villain into the mix, and you've got a big budget recipe for boredom. The highlight, for me, was watching the two animated monsters wrestle their way down Toronto's Yonge St. in their climactic battle. Prominent background sites include Sam the Record Man and the notorious Zanzibar strip club.

GET SMART

With Steve Carell stepping into Don Adams' phone shoes and five seasons of zany spoof material from the television show created by comedy legends Mel Brooks and Buck Henry to provide inspiration, Get Smart had every advantage it needed to be successful and funny. Sadly, it is neither. The movie has more action sequences than gags, and the Maxwell Smart character as interpreted by the screenwriters is competent when he should be clumsy. The handful of jokes that do work are the ones that reference the TV show, suggesting that the filmmakers would have done well to stick closer to the source material in the first place.

WANTED
Critics have looked favorably upon this summer flick, albeit with a qualification of the film as "mindless entertainment." I, on the other hand, would encourage viewers to remain mindful while they watch this movie, as it champions some rather suspect ideology. Having said that, I really dug the film. The action is invigorating, the dialogue is sharp, and James McAvoy is funny as hell. To say that the premise, a disgruntled young man in a dead end job is recruited by Angelina Jolie to train as a super-powered assassin for a secret agency, plays into base male fantasies might be too mild a statement. It is likely that the original story was born of a comic book writer's wet dream. (The film is an adaptation of the Millar/Jones graphic novel.) Wanted is "Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality," and takes full advantage of that classification by refusing to shy away from excess. In spite of its abject morality, this film won me over in terms of sheer excitement. Definitely the high point of the summer so far.

2008-06-12T19:38:00.000-07:00

you can't choose your relatives...

...do you mind if I give it a shot? In a recent letter to Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man, a film viewer suggests that hiring actors who bear little to no resemblance to one another to play kin is no way to win over an audience:

My wife and I recently saw "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" on video, and while we greatly enjoyed it, there was one aspect that bothered both of us: Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke play brothers involved in a botched robbery. Our problem is that while both men are very good actors, they hardly look like members of the same species, let alone siblings. I think this incongruity prevented us from completely getting into the story and marred what was otherwise an excellent film.

I feel bad for Mr. and Mrs. Schwind from Martinsburg, W. Virginia; it seems as if filmmaker Sidney Lumet really let them down. The Schwinds were so close to enjoying a well crafted picture, only to find their suspension of disbelief sabotaged by this awkward selection of talent. Well... what's done is done, but these folks deserve a little more consideration in the future if they are ever again to believe that actors who are not related are related. Here are some of my suggestions for actors who could play family (pay attention, casting directors!):

Cameron Diaz as Ellen Barkin's daughter:
When I first saw Diaz in The Mask, I did a double take. "Jeez," I thought, "Ellen Barkin had a lot of work done!" There was, of course, no way she could have been stretched and/or lifted enough to appear as a 22 year old in the 1994 production. Cameron's sexiness in the film is amplified by the fact that she looks like a younger Barkin, and I have to admit that I find the now 54 year old Barkin kinda hot 'cause she looks like Diaz.

Albert Brooks as Ben Savage's father:
The resemblance was certainly there during the Boy Meets World years. Has anyone seen Ben in the last eight years? For that matter, anyone who has seen Brooks lately may contend that he is more apt to be cast as Savage's grandfather.

Jason Lee and Scott Patterson as brothers:
Surly, laconic, and scruffy... With such masculine vibes emanating from both of these actors, why do I constantly wonder if the same beautician tweezes their eyebrows? Given Lee's experience working with director Kevin Smith and Patterson's seven year stint on Gilmore Girls, we can be fairly certain that their project will be dialogue driven.

Ving Rhames and Michael Clarke Duncan as cousins:
Identical cousins and you'll find, They laugh alike, they walk alike, At times they even talk alike -- You can lose your mind, When cousins are two of a kind.

Renee Zellweger and Ellen Pompeo as sisters:
I can't watch Grey's Anatomy without noticing that Pompeo is becoming increasingly squidgy faced. She and Zellweger may not be twins, but their citrus-reaction like expressions are enough to convince me that they could be wading in the same gene pool.

2008-05-27T09:24:00.000-07:00

Sidney Pollack: 1934-2008

2008-05-22T08:46:00.000-07:00

Indiana Jones and the Phantom Menace

It is with a heavy heart that I prepare to malign the summer movie I had most hoped to enjoy. I say "hoped" rather than "expected" because, as a "purist" fanboy, the manner in which George Lucas disappointed me with his revisiting of the Star Wars franchise is still fresh in my mind. I have been conditioned to expect that any contemporary film he has a hand in will likely sully one or more of the cinematic traditions that I hold dear. It is the genius of director Steven Spielberg that kindled my hope when I learned that the oft rumored fourth installment of Indiana Jones was to become a reality. In spite of Spielberg's recent hit-and-miss record, the craftsmanship of his first three Jones pictures is consistent and impeccable. I thought to myself, he can do this again.

So what happened? My sneaking suspicion is that he didn't really want to. In an insightful post regarding overblown pre-release speculation about the film's potential, critic Jim Emerson blogs about Whiplash: Indiana Jones and the Lowered Expectations:
"Now, I think Spielberg is a movie genius (and "Close Encounters" and "E.T." are masterpieces about the language of film, written in light), but the idea of him making a fourth "Indiana Jones" movie does not excite me even a little bit. One of the masters of the medium has now devoted roughly one sixth of his feature-film output to Indiana Jones movies. Meanwhile he could have been exploring new territory, as he did with "A.I.," "Always," "Munich"..."

I find there to be a certain laziness permeating The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that makes me wonder if Spielberg himself wasn't thinking the same thing. The desire to venture forward may explain his decision to alter the look of the world of Indiana Jones so drastically from its precursors. I know from reading interviews that Mr. S. opted to "pay homage" to the 1950's B-Movie aesthetic rather than mimic the classical style that influenced the first three Indy films, but the tragic result of shooting primarily on sound-stages-- and what's with the awkward back-lighting? --is a film that feels as if it could have been shot in a small room with a green curtain. The epic scale that the other Jones pictures are known for is further diminished by an over abundance of close ups; most of the action takes place in such a limited geographical space and is so tightly framed that it is not easy to discern what's going on.

Wider shots reveal computer generated scenery that is no less confusing to the eye. Well, at least to the eye of an old-timer like me who wasn't raised on movies that take place in murky digital environments. The Phantom Menace/Lord of the Rings/Speed Racer generation will not recognize that the texture that comes from shooting on location-- with practical scenery, real vehicles, and humans doing stunts-- is missing. These children are more capable of suspending disbelief when they see Shia LaBeouf's digital avatar straddling two animated jeeps than I will ever be. And I don't envy them.

As an admittedly stereotypical fanboy, I am likely to have more beefs with this movie than the average viewer. But I have to say that the youthful audience at the midnight screening I attended, many of whom were mere tots when The Last Crusade was released, seemed to be even less impressed than I. There are clever moments in The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that should provoke laughter, maybe even a gasp or two; this demographic sat through the movie silently from beginning to end. A number of people stayed until the credits finished rolling, hoping for an additional scene. There isn't one. When the lights went up, one fellow turned to his friend and, in an ambivalent tone, said "Huh. So it really did suck then." Yeah, it kinda did, and I don't think many folks over the age of twelve will be fooled otherwise.

I have some qualms with the silliness of the plot, but I would have forgiven them if the story had been better executed (after all, the Jones pictures are, to some extent, meant to be silly). Nods to the earlier films begin as one-liners and homages, but a fair amount of blatant copying is evident, too. The opening sequence is executed quite well-- let me digress for a moment to say that I would have preferred a cut of the film that does not include the prairie dogs-- but following this return to the secret warehouse that holds, amongst other treasures, the Ark of the Covenant and a magnetic alien corpse, the fluidity of the film is compromised because scenes and sequences are not tied together with enough human interaction. The exposition needed for this silly plot to make sense is glossed over. Some of it hides in dialogue that can scarcely be heard for all of the action taking place simultaneously. Often the film seems to assume that we will just "get it" because we have seen the same relationships and character trajectories in parts I, II, and III. The film's tagline could be: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

My final gripe, at least for now, is the shitty role proffered for Karen Allen. There are no good roles for women in Hollywood, and this is one of them. I don't blame Allen for taking the paycheck, but Lucas and screenwriter David Koepp should be ashamed of their flippant reduction of the Marion Ravenwood character into a part that might just have well been played by a cardboard cutout. Marion doesn't need to be an icon for feminist representation in cinema, but it would be nice if she had some of the vim and vigour that personified her character in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Actually, it would have been nice if she had a scene or two that required Allen to act rather than simply be there.
Like the three Star Wars prequels that so alienated purist fans, Indiana Jones will find a new audience with the Crystal Skull, youngsters whose familiarity (or lack thereof) with the original product has not shaped their opinions of what a Star Wars or Indiana Jones movie should be. I can't help but feel that the core fanatics, those of us who waited a combined 49 years for new installments of these franchises, deserve a bit more than Lucas and Spielberg have delivered. At the very least, these directors could have remained true to the visual worlds they created for their characters. It may seem like a bold statement, but if they weren't going to make these films for us then maybe they shouldn't have bothered making them at all.

2008-05-08T21:30:00.001-07:00

2008-05-08T07:38:00.000-07:00

review: iron man

To be perfectly honest, I think I liked the trailer better (see the ONION's take on Iron Man below). The summer's first blockbuster is certainly better than some of Marvel Studio's previous offerings, misfires like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and The Fantastic Four. Iron Man even sails above other super hero movies that had budget enough to achieve more than they did: Ang Lee's Hulk and Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. But recent franchises such as Spiderman, the X-Men, and Batman have set the bar pretty high, particularly in terms of their screenplays, and everything that works in Iron Man is somewhat undermined by its lazy plot line.

Director Jon Favreau has assembled a superb cast, admirably led by Robert Downey Jr. as rebel billionaire Tony Stark. Downey's performance in the film's first act is worth the price of admission, but the highlights of his ballsy comic take on the character are all in the preview, so most of us have already seen this performance for free. After Stark escapes from captivity he becomes sullen and self-righteous and, to be honest, a little bit boring.

Jeff Bridges, one of my favorite actors, is capable as the villain, Obadiah Stane; his appearance, I would argue, lends more menace to the role than his lousy dialogue. And Gwyneth Paltrow rarely takes an acting gig these days, so it would have been nice if the script gave her something more to do.

Most deserving of kudos is the special effects team. Iron Man looks spectacular as he soars through the skies, and the CGI is more seamless than I have ever seen. Favreau is known for using as many practical elements as possible, and he seems to have paid a great deal of attention to making sure that details that needed to be animated are visually authentic in comparison. There are, however, many scenes dedicated to the construction of the Iron Man suit that could have been forfeited in service of character development and/or action. Normally I prefer the former, but in this case, I think the movie is lacking an additional sequence featuring Iron Man in the field.

I know that there are limitations in telling what is essentially an origin story, and Iron Man is slightly above average in the ways that it attempts to satisfy both fans and newcomers. Nevertheless, the right scribes have introduced us to other characters with more efficiency. At times, I simply felt that not enough was happening on screen to grasp my full attention. I suppose that Iron Man is satisfying enough to launch us into the summer season, but with heavyweights like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and The Dark Knight nipping at its heels, it is likely that the metal man will soon be forgotten... That is, until the inevitable sequel appears.

2008-05-05T06:32:00.000-07:00

just a sample

I am told by a reliable source (my mom) that, not so very long ago, Harrison Ford visited a bar my hometown of Windsor, Ontario where a friend of our family was waitering. The story goes that this waiter chum approached the table and Harrison "Han Solo" Ford said, "You can ask me one question." I'd like to think that if I was the server, I would have been nonchalant enough to say, "OK. What would you like to drink?" But really... if Indiana fuckin' Jones said that to me? I'd be caught off guard and bumble around accordingly.

Hypothetically, my hypothetical reaction could be attributed to the fact that Ford is an icon of the silver screen, an indelible hero figure to guys like me who were cinematically weaned on the films of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. I suspect, however, that such a statement could be uttered by any celebrity and throw a person off. "You can ask me one question." It's an unnerving thing to say.

Knowing that such an encounter could occur at any moment, though, I have prepared a list of questions for potential run-ins with famous people. Par example: "Samuel L. Jackson, do you ever sleep?" Maybe it's just my imagination, but it seems like Jackson is in every movie I've seen in the last decade. In 2006, he appeared in four films, two of which had the word "snake" in their titles. He is also credited as the narrator of a television special and Bob Saget's straight-to-video "Farce of the Penguins" that same year. Dude, I get tired after watching six movies, let alone making them.

Practice must indeed make perfect, because two of Jackson's strongest performances are in recent films: Resurrecting the Champ (2007), co-starring Josh Hartnett, and director Renny Harlin's Cleaner (also '07). These small scale productions likely slipped under most people's radars; I, myself, had not heard of either one until I stumbled upon them in a stack of DVDs I received from a pirate friend of mine. Diamonds in the rough.

Cleaner
Any time you see Sam Jackson's name attached to a Renny Harlin project, you're in for a treat. Now, Cleaner is certainly muted in tone when compared with previous Harlin/Jackson collaborations like Deep Blue Sea and The Long Kiss Goodnight, but what it lacks in over-the-top action, it makes up for in taut, suspenseful storytelling. Oh, and Luis Guzman is in it, too!!

Jackson plays Tom Carver, a former cop who now runs a business dedicated to cleaning the gory remnants of crime scenes. He finds himself embroiled in conspiracy when he discovers that his latest job was orchestrated to cover up a murder. Elements of this mystery begin to intersect with controversial events that led to the end of Carver's career as a police officer, and he wrestles with the moral repercussions of hiding evidence in order to ensure his daughter's safety and protect his own reputation.

The "King of Cool" delivers a subtle performance in this film, free of the "motherfucking" rants that typify so many of his roles. Jackson conveys as much about his character's emotional baggage through his physicality and weighted movement of his eyes as George Clooney does in Michael Clayton. Clayton is, by far, a better movie, one with much more substance, but Cleaner offers a plot that is easier to follow after a couple of beers, and an intriguing glimpse into a world not often depicted on screen.

what you might like: While the story is not one of ground breaking originality, it is extremely interesting to embark on a journey with a character who cleans crime scenes. The detailed depiction of this job is eye-opening and somewhat new to cinema (the only other film I can think of that deals with the subject is the comparatively "artsy" Curdled). Jackson is fantastic. Oh, and Luis Guzman is in it, too!!

what you might not like: The plot is formulaic enough that if you don't know who the baddie is early on, you are likely to have a sneaking suspicion that turns out to be correct.

what you might consider: Either way, at an economical running time of 88 minutes, this film is not a waste of an evening. Quality acting and a respectable mystery combine to make this movie worthwhile.

Resurrecting the Champ
This film resurrects the wig Jackson wore in 2001's The Caveman's Valentine; fortunately, it resists further comparison. "Based on a true story, that was based on a lie," this film tells the story of a struggling reporter (Hartnett) who thinks he has struck story-telling gold when he discovers a homeless man who coulda been a contender. Jackson plays "Champ," a down and out hobo who may or may not have been a one-time boxing legend who almost made the big time. The reporter's career is dependent upon the success of his latest article, and issues surrounding the authenticity of the Champ's identity threaten to ruin the newspaperman's future.

Jackson's performance in this film is more flamboyant than in Cleaner, but it is no less realistic. If you have ever had a significant encounter with the homeless, you will not question the authenticity of Samuel L.'s portrayal of a man of the streets... let alone one who has taken a few blows to the head. The film's budget doesn't allow for seamless make-up effects, but I forget about the artificial scars as soon as Jackson starts to speak.

what you might like: You can watch this film with your girlfriend or boyfriend. It's not a sports movie, nor is it a chick flick. The honest emotions portrayed in Resurrecting the Champ are universal.

what you might not like: This is a movie that wears its themes on its sleeve. It is obviously about father/son relationships and is likely to make fathers and sons watching together feel uncomfortable.

what you might consider: Hartnett and Jackson both prove their acting abilities. This film may manipulate the heart strings, but it is not a sappy mess. It's type of movie that I like to celebrate: one that will appeal to a greater audience than it will ever receive. Resurrecting the Champ is well worth the price of a rental.

note: The success of The Incredibles (2004) enabled Jackson to surpass Harrison Ford as the actor whose movies have grossed the most money in the world - in excess of $3 billion. (January 2005).

2008-04-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

Iron Man: Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You

This just in: Iron Man trailer will be made into a full-length film. Will the feature adapt the material faithfully? The ONION reports...

Wildly Popular 'Iron Man' Trailer To Be Adapted Into Full-Length Film

2008-04-15T15:51:00.000-07:00

MURDER!!!
Do I like killing children? Am I a closet serial killer?? The answer to these questions and more on my new book-review blog: http://bookemjohno.blogspot.com/

2008-04-08T16:10:00.000-07:00

versus: 21 v. Deal

It seems as if the average amateur poker player stands a better chance of copping a squat at a WPT final table than Hollywood does of making an captivating movie about the game. Maybe it's a moot point; Texas Hold 'Em was still the rage a couple of years ago, but obsessions wax and wane, and based on the number of 75% markdowns I've recently seen, I'd have to reason that stores are clamouring to unload their professional poker sets and make room for the next fad (my vote's for bocce). Showbiz may have missed the showboat on this one.

And yet they keep trying. Remember 2007's Lucky You? Well, you'll probably just as soon forget this year's Deal, and it's likely worth your while to ignore 21 while you're at it. Neither of these films is abominable, but both are tremendously predictable and formulaic, and they fail even to portray the basic tension inherent to the game. I get sucked into watching these poker tournaments on television to the point where I won't even go to the bathroom until the river card is turned. At the cinema, however, I found myself chanting the words of Homer in The Simpsons Movie like a mantra: "I can't believe we're paying to see something we get on TV for free! If you ask me, everybody in this theater is a giant sucker!"

I wish this movie was a whole lot worse. Really bad movies can be fun to critique, but 21 is so steeped in mediocrity that it left me bereft of the initiative to compose any zingers, so I'll rely on Jim Emerson's 1 1/2 star review to detail the film's flaws:

"'Inspired by' the real-life story of the M.I.T. students who took Las Vegas casinos for millions, '21' has been reshaped to fit a simple movie template -- and it's nearly as much fun as watching an insurance professional compute actuarial tables ...

If you want to see how a formatted screenplay looks when it's actually on the screen (you can just about count the page numbers as they flip by, and maybe measure the margins, too), "21" may provide a practical lesson: How to follow all the "rules" and end up with zero. It's not unwatchable, but you could watch it with your eyeballs tied behind your back and enjoy it just as much.

Here's another example of a good story turned into a purely generic one -- no doubt with the aid of a Bob McKee screenwriting seminar and textbook."

And so it goes: Boy needs money, professor offers him an opportunity to learn how to count cards and beat the house at blackjack... Boy reluctantly agrees, enters the world of casino gambling, is successful at first but indulges too much, too arrogantly, and loses everything (his money, his mentor, his real friends, and the girl of his dreams). Boy gets a second chance, redeems himself, and walks away a winner.

21 has only one twist to speak of, but as Emerson notes:

"The movie itself has a tell: Watch for the moment when somebody obviously pulls a punch. If you hadn't figured out the rest of the movie by then, it gives away the whole thing."

Prepare yourself for 120 subsequent minutes of yawning and checking your watch.

Deal

...or no deal. The "BUZZ" about this upcoming release (according to imdb.com) is as follows:

"Texas Hold'em, like NASCAR, is one of those pop-culture obsessions from which Hollywood is yearning to make a profit. But let's be honest: The actual-real "World Series of Poker" TV broadcasts will for years bring in bigger audiences than this ill-cast, small-time production could ever dream of."

Actually, I think Burt Reynolds is quite suited (no pun intended) to play leathery erstwhile poker champ, Tommy Vinson, but I get where one might question his status as a bankable star. Bret Harrison's performance as Vinson's protege, on the other hand, seems to be derived from the Fred Savage school of acting, and his facial tics are more distracting on the big screen than Kevin Arnold's were cute on T.V.'s The Wonder Years.

Of course, a stone-face is not particularly effective cinematically (unless you are Buster Keaton), so cameo appearances by real life players such as Antonio Esfandiari, Phil Laak, and Isabelle Mercier fall flat. But the movie's real problem is the same as 21's: you know what's going to happen and when. I would summarize Deal if I hadn't more-or-less described the plot when discussing the previous film.

the winner

There is clearly no real winner here. If pressed, I would have to recommend Deal based solely on its 80 minute running time, which allowed me an extra 43 minutes to waste playing a Hold 'Em tournament on-line. Followed by two hours of Celebrity Poker Showdown on Star TV... Oh, and then I watched NBC's Poker After Dark. I hope they make that bocce movie soon, 'cause I really gotta pee.

2008-04-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

the not-top ten project
a series of posts in which an amateur film critic discusses ten movies he loves, in no particular order, that may or may not be his favourites.

entry #1: The Muppet Movie

Robin the Frog: Uncle Kermit, is this how the Muppets really got started?

Kermit: Well, it's sort of approximately what happened.

The first copy of The Muppet Movie that I owned was a VHS recording of a CBS broadcast from the early 80's. Although I have since purchased it on DVD, the film feels, to some degree, incomplete without commercial interruptions. I miss the kids with afros hawking Apple Jacks, the passionate families discussing the care they received from the Ronald McDonald House for sick kids, and the delightful jingle wishing me a "Merry Christmas, Merry-Merry Christmas, from your K-mart savings store".

But even without this, The Muppet movie more than stands on its own two feet as a superbly entertaining film for viewers of all ages; after all, The Muppets were never strictly children's fare in the first place. What brings me back time and time again (I've never counted, but I'd wager I've seen it near a hundred times) is the sophistication of humour. Yes, the Muppets are irreverent and slapsticky, even absurdist at times, but they combine all of this chaotic energy with intelligent wordplay and esoteric references:

Bernie: You, you with the banjo, can you help me? I seem to have lost my sense of direction!
Kermit: Have you tried Hare Krishna?
-----------
[when seeing Fozzie perform for the first time]
Kermit: This guy's lost.
Waiter: Maybe he should try Hare Krishna.
Kermit: Good grief, it's a running gag.

The film's quest sends Kermit the Frog on a cross country journey to Hollywood, where, he has been informed, a major studio is holding "open auditions for frogs wishing to become rich and famous." Along the way, he is joined by a rag-tag band of familiars. Fozzie is persuaded to come along (Kermit: If they need frogs, they must need bears, too.), and provides transportation in the form of his uncle's old Studebaker. Gonzo is next:

Fozzie: You can come with us.
Gonzo: Where are you going?
Fozzie: We're following our dreams!
Gonzo: Really? I have a dream, too.
Fozzie: What?
Gonzo: You might think it's stupid.
Fozzie: No we won't.
Gonzo: Well, I want to go to Bombay, India to become a movie star.
Fozzie: You don't go to Bombay to become a movie star. You go where we're going, Hollywood.
Gonzo: Well, sure, if you want to do it the "easy" way.

Miss Piggy, Rowlf the Dog, Dr. Teeth & The Electric Mayhem, and the rest of the gang follow soon after.

Naturally, there's a fair amount of song and dance interspersed throughout the film. Now, as an adult, I tend to be turned off by a lot of the tepid soundtracks that pepper "children's" films, but the music and lyrics in The Muppet Movie never fail to set my toes-a-tappin' and my mind-a-hoppin'. Actor/Composer-- or Composer/Actor-- Paul Williams (who wrote classics like "Rainy Days and Mondays" and "We've Only Just Begun") provides songs that are catchy as heck (Movin' Right Along), clever as all get out (I Hope that Something Better Comes Along), and touching, to boot (i.e. The Rainbow Connection and I Hope to Go Back There Someday). The songs don't feel like interruptions as many do in much of today's fare.

If there is an element of The Muppet Movie that might suffer the test of time, it is likely to be its celebrity cameos. Guest appearances by the likes of Bob Hope, Milton Berle, Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Elliot Gould, Mel Brooks, Carol Kane, and Orson Welles (amongst others) will never have the impact they did when these performers were more familiar to audiences. Their scenes are no less amusing,and young viewers are not prone to care about how famous the actors in a film really are. I suspect, however, that some of The Muppet Movie's "wow-factor" will diminish as recognition of these stars of yore continues to wane, and the film will lose some of its appeal to the older demographics.

Perhaps the release of the original Muppet Show on DVD will do something to keep the vaudevillian flavour of the Muppets and their human guest hosts alive for contemporary and future generations to enjoy and appreciate (seasons 1 & 2 are available to purchase as I write this).

I maintain full confidence that The Muppet Movie will continue to entertain regardless of any aspects that might become dated. The film is evidence that Jim Henson perfected fun, and he has infused his creations with a sensibility that is, at once, unique and universal. In order to ensure that new audiences are introduced to his genius, it is up to Muppet fans to share Henson's work with friends and family, which is why The Muppet Movie holds the rank of entry number one on my not-top ten list.

2007-10-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

The answers to: Substitute teacher, Richard Clark's easy-ass,
movie related pop quiz... Part deux

...and now for something completely similar:

5. Discuss a movie you were totally hyped about seeing that left you kind of empty and/or disappointed upon viewing.

I created a short list for this question that was made up mostly of sequels and prequels. Seems that most of you were on the same page:

amanda said: Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix - It was the longest book and the shortest movie. They took out so many important parts of the book that I thought it was hard to follow.

athena said: Star Wars Episode One because it shat upon all the things I listed above that I loved. My Top 5 non-Star Wars related disappointments are: Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, both Matrix sequels, Oceans 12 and the horrid adaptation of From Hell (a.k.a. From Ass) that I refuse to talk about anymore.

Both Ocean's 12 and 13 appeared on my list, as did-- of course-- Episodes I, II, and III. I loved Pirates of the Caribbean- The Curse of the Black Pearl, but that ship left nothing in its wake. Dead Man's Chest was disappointing, and the reviews of At World's End (both from critics and friends) convinced me to wait for the DVD. The James Bond franchise has long been one of my favourites, but apart from a moderate taste for Tomorrow Never Dies, the Pierce Brosnan years left me kind of cold (we wont even mention Timothy Dalton).

I was, however, more disappointed by the follow up to The Mummy. Yes, The Mummy Returns hit me kind of hard... I'm not a bit embarrassed to say that I loved the former. The Mummy was great because it knew what it was; it was a smart film because it realized how stupid it should be. I remember thinking that, just as George Lucas paid homage to the old serials when he wrote the Indiana Jones pictures, the folks behind The Mummy were aware that they were having fun with the "B-movie" formula, rather than making a B-movie.

A wink goes out to the audience to imply that "you are smart enough to follow our intentions... we're going to make this film as over-the-top as we can, and the fun we're having will translate to you." The result is a CGI blockbuster film that never forgets how important things like characters, plot, wit, and performance really are. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the two films that followed. The Mummy Returns was not only a mess of animation without the same amount of attention paid to story... It also had a kid. C'mon now, people. This is a device employed by sit-coms that have jumped the shark.

And as much as I would like to have tea and scones with the charming Dwayne "THE ROCK" Johnson (he seems like a cool guy), I don't want to suffer through 92 minutes of his attempt to carry a movie. The Scorpion King is even more abysmal than The Mummy Returns. I had high hopes for The Mummy franchise that were swiftly dashed.

6. Discuss a movie that you figured you'd be damned before seeing that subsequently impressed you more than you could have imagined.

Ok. So I wavered over a number of movies that might adequately answer this question. But it was not until I saw a DVD on the shelf at Blockbuster that I knew what to say. I was more than surprised to find that 12:08 East of Bucharest has been released, and even more surprised to find it at Blockbuster.

I saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival two years ago. I had to wake up early because it was an 8:00 a.m. screening, and I thought "Fuck... I chose this film because it's Romanian, and my dad is Romanian... I want to sleep. I don't want to watch some morose, eastern european movie. Romanians suck. Kill me now."

Well, as it turns out, Romanians don't suck, nor are they necessarily morose. 12:08 East of Bucharest is a delightful comedy, and I am pleased to see that it is readily available to rent. I urge you to check it out (and please let me know what you think).

amy said: Not White Chicks. This is a hard question because if I really thought I wouldn't like a movie I wouldn't go see it. Closer? Yeah! Closer. I thought I wouldn't like Closer because it's all about infidelity which I'm opposed to, but then it was so well done and so real and got under my skin. And now I love it.

mary said: Tremors. All of them. I hate creature movies and they're so cheesy and low budget but I love them. They're really clever and funny. They're basically buddy movies with giant man-eating monsters running around. Man I want them all on DVD!

athena said: It’s a toss up between The Notebook and Roadhouse. I can’t decide today…>

7. Ben Affleck or Matt Damon?

A lot of support for Damon in this category... some of it quite fervent:

mary said: Matt Damon, hands down. Ben Affleck has this shit-eating smirk and when he talks I feel like he hisses a little, spraying his spittle everywhere out of his big ol' mouth.

Wow.

Personally, I'm an Affleck man. Matt seems to be the better actor, and he certainly has a stronger portfolio of films, but Ben wins me over with his cheeky attitude and rugged good looks.

8. What movie would you hide between your mattresses because you fear people will discover that you like it?

I am rarely embarassed by my taste in films. In fact, I have been known to praise Cabin Boy in mixed company. I will, however, admit to being a little ashamed of the degree to which I enjoy Bring it On. If I had to choose between never seeing Bring it On again or never rewatching The Godfather, I would have a lot of thinking to do.

andreus said: I'm not very shy about things I like, trashy or not. I think Erik the Viking is one of these. And Dude, Where's My Car?, which is a cinematic triumph.

elle said: Island of Dr. Moreau (1996). It’s compulsive, if it comes on TV I have to watch it.

athena said: I just admitted to liking the Notebook and Roadhouse so I really don’t have a lot of shame.

mary said: Harry Effin Potter. I love those movies way too much, and not in an entirely pure way.

amy said: Adventures in Babysitting. I watched that movie a hundred times when I was a kid and it has so much nostalgia. Upon a viewing as an adult it's actually pretty crazy racist and homophobic and terrible. But I still can't not watch it. Plus Mark from Rent is in it!

9. Favourite, or least favourite, Steven Spielberg film? Why? (see, you know the test is easy when there's a Spielberg question!!!) Extra credit for describing both.

Judging by your comments, War of the Worlds is the strongest contender for least favourite. I don't know about that. For me, War of the Worlds sails right past bad into the category my former roomate dubbed "crap-tacular". It was like Spielberg suddenly forgot how to make movies, and I so enjoyed it as I do the work of Ed Wood.

I hate A.I., mainly because it had such potential. I don't know if it would have been much more successful had Stanley Kubrik lived to film it, but it couldn't have been any more disappointing. It needed to be darker, and Spielberg's just not into dark. In fact, now that I think about it, I disliked Minority Report for much the same reasons. Plus Tom Cruise.

As for a favourite, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Jurassic Park come close, but neither of them have Indiana Jones.

andreus said: I haven't seen Hook all the way through but what I did see seemed to be disasterous.

athena said: Catch Me if You Can is my fave. I loved the book, and I loved the film. It was the first time I ever liked Leo in a film.

mary said: Favourite: Casper. I had such a crush on Casper when I was little. He's like my ultimate boyfriend!

Least Favourite: E.T. OH MAN E.T. I maintain that my childhood would have been at least 35% healthier had it not introduced the idea of aliens to me. I was terrified.

10. Which actor(s)/actress(es) do you have the biggest crush(es) on, and why?

Apparently Ben Affleck (who knew?).

The very first celebrity poster I hung on my wall for reasons of crushiness was of Brooke Shields. I still kind of dig her. If I could choose anyone living or dead, though, I'd have to go with Myrna Loy. She's beautiful, to be sure, but so spunky and adorable in the Thin Man series. The fact that she is not currently alive does little to deter my feelings.

In terms of celebrities who actually breath, Keira Knightley, Rachel Weisz, and Rosario Dawson top my list. I am also willing to make certain comprimises if George Clooney ever calls.

elle has interesting choices: Callum Keith Rennie since Hard Core Logo (1996) Billy is defiantly Talent. Gerard Butler since Dracula 2000 (2000) I wanted to be bit, bad. Last but Certainly not least David Tennant I mean he’s The Doctor who does want to be taken aboard the TARDIS???

joanne does, too: Steve Buscemi, Vincent D'Onofrio, Michael Pitt, Juliette Binoche, cause they are either funny of very attractive or both.

amanda and athena are very convincing: Ryan. Reynolds. Is. The. Hottest. Man. Ever. I. Know. That. Isn’t. A. Good. Explanation. But. Who. Cares. & All time crush is Ryan Reynolds. He's absolutely beautiful.

anonymous throws in a vote for: Brad Pitt, he's gorgeous and can act in a variety of roles.

and amy might be schizophrenic: Colin Firth. Natalie Portman - We're involved her and I. Jodie Foster - She's so badass and was totally the inspiration for Scully.

2007-08-31T07:43:00.000-07:00

The answers to: Substitute teacher, Richard Clark's easy-ass,

movie related pop quiz... Part 1

1. What is your favourite romantic comedy, and why?

Really great romantic comedies are few and far between. We seem to average one per decade these days: When Harry Met Sally in the 80's, French Kiss in the 90's, and Love, Actually in the oughts. Notting Hill (1999) also ranks amongst the highlights, but films that I enjoyed the first time around like Pretty Woman and Sleepless in Seattle have failed to impress me upon repeat viewings.

Most everything else-- and there are a lot of romantic comedies churned out every year-- falls into one of two categories: mediocrity or dreck.
When properly executed, the romantic comedy is my favourite kind of genre picture, and it's a shame to see so many half-assed productions (and I do see them all).

For complete satisfaction, I find myself going back to the screwball comedies of the 30's and 40's. There are so many great films to mention, but my absolute favourites ('cause it's a tie) are It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story. The dialogue junky in me appreciates the rapid fire exchanges between Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert in the first picture. Their lines are charged with sexual undertones, embedded with subtext in order to skirt the rules of censorship governed by early production codes. It Happened One Night is very much a movie of its time, but its charm and wit is sure to appeal to contemporary audiences, too.

Equally appealing is the powerhouse trio of Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and James Stewart, as cast in The Philadelphia Story. I can't claim to be Hepburn's biggest fan, but her performance in this film is pitch perfect. The two leading men are equally adept, Grant with his mastery of both verbal and physical comedy, and Stewart bringing his trademark charm and sensitivity to the table. Plotwise, the movie delivers a number of surprises, and with each viewing I am reminded how fresh and funny this 1940 production is, and just how many of our modern day comedies are not.

amy said: Bridget Jones's Diary. Because when I saw the movie for the first time and Mister Darcy told Bridget that he likes her, just as she is, all of my romantic ideals were created. And now my expectations are through the roof...Stupid movie.

jaclyn said: When Harry Met Sally because I love how determined they are to remain good friends and nothing more just to prove a point and also because I learned a lot about how men and women think! Plus Meg Ryan is so stubborn and silly and lovable!

athena said: Say Anything because Lloyd Dobler has ruined me forever. (Which after a lot of therapy and time I’m ok with.) But I also loved the part where Diane grows up and learns that her dad is fallible. So yeah, true love, parental fallibility and John Cusack make me a happy girl.

2. Name a movie that you watch over and over again without getting tired of, a film that you could put on at any time and enjoy. Reason(s)?

I have to mine the past to answer this question, too. There are many rich films out there that deserve repeat viewings, but the only one I can put on anytime, night or day, whether I want to watch it or not-- and get completely sucked in-- is Casablanca. Simply put, I don't think a more compelling story has been written for the screen. I wouldn't go so far as to claim that it's the best movie ever, or even my favourite, but every element of the screenplay functions to maintain intrigue. Once it's on, it's on... I can't press stop before the end.

amanda said: Shawshank Redemption - I've seen this movie more times than I can count and each and every time I watch it I love it even more. I always cry a little, laugh a little and when it's over I'm impressed that it gets me every time.

athena said: I feel like Star Wars (original trilogy only!!) is self-explanatory but I’ll do my best-

a) It’s full of mythology and spaceships. I like that…

b) It’s full of evil guys in cloaks and Han Solo. Them too….

c) R2-D2 and C3-P0. It has true love too!!

d) It’s full of redemption and friendship- my 2 favourite things in movies, with mythology and spaceships running a close second.

e) “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for … He can go about his business … Move along.”. Yes sir…
(athena rocks)

joanne said: (and this kills me!!) Troop Beverly Hills. I don't think I even need to explain why.

3. What is the first film you remember seeing in the theatre?

Like most of you who commented, my first cinematic memory is of a Disney film: The Fox and the Hound. I would've been four or five years old. Every so often my mom reminds me how much I loved it. If I've seen it since, though, I can't remember. Mayhaps it's time to rent it for the sake of nostalgia... and perhaps a review?

4. Woody Allen: yes or no?

Love him or hate him-- there doesn't seem to be any middle ground (save for a few people I know who say that they hate him but really dug Match Point). For me, it's a "yes." The first Woody Allen movie I saw was the first he directed: Take the Money and Run. I was hooked by this neurotic, witty nebbish... I related to him (for better or worse), and proceeded to watch the rest of his films in near consecutive order. Yes, there have been a few missteps, but surprisingly few considering that he's made (at least) one film a year for nearly forty.

amy said: Meh. I haven't seen any of his 'greats' only that detective sleuthy one with Scarlett and Wolverine. And it was meh.

2007-08-31T07:25:00.000-07:00

link: a particularly amusing youtube video

Thanks to the good people at boingboing.net (a directory of wonderful things), I have not only been linked to some of the most interesting sites the web has to offer, but also to a handful of the strangest videos on youtube.

Xeni Jardin posted this link to the Japanese "Butt Biting Bug" song (Oshiri kajiri mushi) a couple of days ago.

"It gives me acid flashbacks. "Tight asses and hard asses and beaten asses and shriveled asses." In what universe do these constitute appropriate lyrics for children's music?" (Jardin, sept 29)

It is, in fact, difficult to imagine what universe these lyrics come from in the first place. Enjoy the subtitled video for yourself.

2007-08-15T09:59:00.000-07:00

Substitute teacher, Richard Clark's easy-ass, movie related pop quiz...

DIMS steals from SLIFR to bring you this exam... Our academy feels that Clark's test is simple enough to approach without studying or sneaking to the bathroom to consult your hidden cheat-sheets. Remember: there are no wrong answers... only flawed opinions. (kidding!!)

number two typing fingers ready? Begin:

1. What is your favourite romantic comedy, and why?

2. Name a movie that you watch over and over again without getting tired of, a film that you could put on at any time and enjoy. Reason(s)?

3. What is the first film you remember seeing in the theatre?

4. Woody Allen: yes or no?

5. Discuss a movie you were totally hyped about seeing that left you kind of empty and/or disappointed upon viewing.

6. Discuss a movie that you figured you'd be damned before seeing that subsequently impressed you more than you could have imagined.

7. Ben Affleck or Matt Damon?

8. What movie would you hide between your mattresses because you fear people will discover that you like it?

9. Favourite, or least favourite, Steven Spielberg film? Why? (see, you know the test is easy when there's a Spielberg question!!!) Extra credit for describing both.

10. Which actor(s)/actress(es) do you have the biggest crush(es) on, and why?

See... pretty easy. I await your answers with bated breath, and I am eager to list my own. Please leave comments, even if you only want to address some of the questions. Results of the quiz to be posted soon.

2007-08-11T08:18:00.000-07:00

musing: sergio leone and the infield fly rule, mr. shoop's surfin' summer school midterm, & the movie answer man

As much as I would like to be a brilliant conversationalist, nothing could be further from the truth. Small talk has never been my forte, and as a result I have an anxious streak when it comes to meeting new people, running into old acquaintances, and/or getting my hair cut. I also suffer from a deep rooted inability to discuss my feelings, which creates obstacles in terms of developing close relationships. These issues are, however, comparatively inconsequential when measured against my limited range of interests: film, books, cooking, and film. What else, dear lord, is there to talk about?

I am fortunate, in a sense, that the subject of film is a fairly universal one. Over the past decade most of my peers have been fellow students of the cinematic arts who are more than eager to spend hours on end dissecting, debating, and criticizing along with me. During these same years I have also mingled with other friends, family members, colleagues, etc., and-- save for the rare exception-- they all tend to be avid movie-goers with insightful opinions of their own. And yet, there are times at which I feel the desire to trudge deeper into the chasm of celluloid mania than either party may be willing to venture. In instances such as these, I arrive at my destination via the world wide inter-web.

My first stop (not incidentally my "home-page") is rogerebert.suntimes.com, headquarters of-- you guessed it-- film critic Roger Ebert. In recent time, due to well publicized health issues, Mr. Ebert's contributions to the site have been few and far between. This summer, however, he has returned in top form, with a full slate of print reviews appearing both in the Chicago Sun-Times and on-line. Roger's website (I met him once... I can call him that, right?) was, albeit temporarily, a veritable ghost town. It is, once again, a bustling metropolis. If memory recalls, I have discussed my life-long admiration for Ebert in previous posts, and I'm sure I will regale him with praise again in the future. For the sake of brevity, though, let me confine myself to saying that, as excited as I am to have him back as one of our most literate film critics, I am even more elated that he has resurrected the Movie Answer Man column.

It is difficult to stifle my sense of glee when Roger Ebert responds to people-- whether they be fans or filibusters-- with his trademark wit and self-assuredness. His supporters sound as if they have established a sacred kinship based on the fact that they, well, agree with his opinions. Those who correspond in order to challenge his views seem to think that a cocky attitude will, not only impress him, but also persuade him to see the light. In either case, they seem to think they know the man intimately... What a thing to presume (I understand how it happens, but that's material for a different musing...). A thread will often continue for weeks on the same subject, allowing Ebert to address reader inquiries such as "How could you not like Transformers the movie?" and "Why do you refer to the good Transformers as 'Transformers' and not Autobots???" This little exchange regarding The Bourne Ultimatum tickled me:

Q. Is the movie critic for the Washington Post embarrassed that he was the only critic of the "cream of the crop" on Rotten Tomatoes who gave "The Bourne Ultimatum" a negative rating? He's got to be questioning himself. Carey Ford, Corsicana, Texas

A. I think it’s a badge of honor for Stephen Hunter. When only one review disagrees, read it. I did, and understand his point, even if I disagree. I asked Hunter himself, who replied: “I'm far too shallow to have doubts.”
-----
Q. You gave "The Bourne Ultimatum" 3.5 stars. How much did the studio pay you for that? Not enough to compensate for your lost credibility. I'll never read you again. Milt Heft, Colorado Springs, Colo.

A. See above letter. There is now only one major critic in the country you can read.

The link to Ebert's Movie Answer Man can usually be found near the bottom of his page, not too far from the link to my second on-line destination: Jim Emerson's Scanners :: Blog. A brief apology is due, I think, for my referring to Roger Ebert's site as a "ghost town" during his absence. Emerson is the dutiful editor of this site, and he contributed essays and reviews quite frequently while Ebert was away. He is also an accomplished writer whose insights into film, politics, pop culture, etc. never cease to convince me that movies really matter.

Emerson strikes me as a film scholar, more than simply a critic (in the journalistic sense) or a "blogger." At the same time, his entries never read like text book passages. Well, almost never... The ongoing "opening shots project" provides a forum for both Emerson and his readers to sharpen their analytical skills:

Any good movie -- heck, even the occasional bad one -- teaches you how to watch it. And that lesson usually starts with the very first image ... The opening shot can tell us a lot about how to interpret what follows. It can even be the whole movie in miniature. I'm going to talk about some of my favorites, and how they work, and then request that you contribute your own favorites for possible publication in future Scanners columns.

(June 16, 2006)

For more than a year now, Jim's readers have been contributing on a regular basis, and their insights are posted quite frequently. It's encouraging to see such widespread interest in active spectatorship, and-- had I not found something even better to steal-- I may have thieved some of Emerson's ideas for my own blog...

I was, however, linked some time ago (through a posting on the scanners :: blog) to a site called: Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule. It was here that I took the test. An exam, to be sure, but not the kind one can necessarily pass or fail. What lay before me was a compendium of questions designed to infiltrate my mind and scoop out the useless knowledge that I hold so dear. Never, in all my years as a film fanatic, had I been on the receiving end of questions so thought-provoking and, at times, obscure. I had arrived, for certain, deep within the chasm that I sought to explore.

The latest exam to appear on Dennis Cozzalio's SLIFR site is: Mr. Shoop's Surfin' Summer Midterm-- you see, all of the tests are administered by teachers from the cinema-- and it's another doozie. Take a look at a few sample questions:

1) Favorite quote from a filmmaker

10) Whether or not you have actually procreated or not, is there a movie you can think of that seriously affected the way you think about having kids of your own?

20) Name a performance that everyone needs to be reminded of, for whatever reason.

25) Is there a movie you can think of that you feel like the world would be better off without, one that should have never been made?

24) Favorite Dub Taylor performance. (Okies, even I had to look this guy up on imdb, and I still don't think I'd recognize him...)

I haven't gone so far as to reply with my answers (reader response is often posted on SILFR), but I find that many of the questions stick with me for days: "A good movie from a bad director," for instance, or, " If you had the choice of seeing three final movies, to go with your three last meals, before shuffling off this mortal coil, what would they be?" And, yes, I am geek enough to believe that my opinions should be solidified in my mind as if life or death depends upon it. But in this chasm, I am very much alone. Who, in their right mind, would accompany me on a journey into this realm of cinematic mania?

Well, perhaps I can convince a few folks when I pilfer Cozzalio's exam formula for my own purposes. While I can't expect my friends and family to have stalwart platforms regarding their favorite Rosalind Russell performance, or whether they prefer Louis B. Mayer or Harry Cohn as a studio head, I can assume that they would be eager to answer some of the more general questions, and I am genuinely interested to hear what they think.

So I will steal this "exam" idea... albeit for more elemantary purposes. I will plagarize the format in hopes that my limited readership will be inclined to respond to my questions... I will post again soon, review any comments that may have been left, and usher in the thoughts of anyone who sees it fit to contribute. As I mentioned up front, everyone sees movies, everyone holds their opinion(s), everyone wants to be heard. My apologies to Cozzalio for bastardizing his concept; please remember that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

And, to my readers: please make me feel loved. If I pour myself into the creation of this "exam", I hope to get feedback. Your comments are treasured, whether you're a film buff or an intermittant movie-goer, or, of course, anything in between. The chasm is deep, but we can meet at the entrance...

2007-05-05T08:20:00.000-07:00

link:

'kay... I dunno why I'm such a big sucker for photoshop contests and the like, but I am. I frequent the site www.worth1000.com to indulge in the wacky world of photograph alteration. Whether it's making a celebrity look like a puppet or putting fur on food... always good times. Today, however, I cheated on my baby by following this link. The sex was great. "Something Awful" has a thing called "photoshop phridays" (I'm also a sucker for replacing an "f" with a "ph"), and yesterday's category was movie posters remixed in the grindhouse style. Many of the entries are quite clever. If you have a few minutes to procrastinate-- and who doesn't --I recommend checking them out.

2007-04-01T09:02:00.000-07:00

review: closer
dir. Mike Nichols

starring: Jude Law, Natalie Portman, Clive Owen, & Julia Roberts

Don't believe your friends when they ask you to be honest with them. All they really want is to be maintained in the good opinion they have of themselves - Albert Camus

I Cancelled my cable T.V. back in October. It took Rogers a while to catch up with me, however, and I have been the luck recipient of free television until just a few weeks ago. Now, I like t.v. quite a bit; a handfull of shows that are currently airing rank amongst the cream of the entertainment crop, and the garbage that is broadcast in between tends to either grip my attention (like a car wreck) or raise my ire (which means I am employing my critical skills as a viewer). Yes, the boob tube can be a pacifier for the mind, but sometimes that's necessary. The mindless flipping of channels gives me comfort in the wee small hours of insomnia.

And yet, in some ways, I feel grateful for my loss. Don't get me wrong; if I had access to the Food Network right now I'd be funneling my energy into salivating rather than this. But if there's a boon, it's that this lack of instant stimulation has re-introduced me to my own DVD collection. I tend to be selective in what I buy. I own a lot of good movies, but I am discriminate in that I will only purchase films that I know I can watch over-and-over again.

Closer, for me, is one of those films. I will concede that this is the kind of movie that you have to be in a particular mood to watch. There are certain films that you can pop in your DVD player at any time, and even if you don't feel like watching them at the time, you get sucked in. As for me, I could do Casablanca, Chungking Express, or Jurassic Park with only a breath of hesitation.

But Closer is ferocious in its examination of human behaviour, and despite the extreme nature of the relationships in the film, the emotions are identifiably true-- and not particularly easy to confront. The characters enter their relationships with a great deal of insecurity, seeking external validation, but never fully trusting the partner who claims to love them; how can someone so wonderful be in love with me? An act of infidelity becomes a catalyst for the film to explore the mind-games "lovers" will play, both with each other and with themselves, in order to preserve a relationship that is void of trust.

In many ways, Closer is painful to watch. On the one hand, it is not easy to digest the cruelty and manipulation that the characters inflict upon one another; what is, perhaps, more disturbing is recognizing that our own insecurities are apt to have led us to some similarly dark places. But the film is successful precisely because it is so honest in its depiction of the psychology that can corrupt relationships, and the all-too-common anxieties that initiate self-destructive behaviour. I wouldn't subject myself to Closer on a whim, but it provides a powerful viewing experience and I know I will return to it often.

what you might not like: this is by no means escapist film... More than one person has expressed ill will towards me for exposing them to this movie because the subject matter hit a little too close to home. So, WARNING: Objects on screen may be closer than they appear.

what you might consider: Closer is tremendously rich. It's not a roller coaster ride, but it will take you on an emotional journey. Sometimes I need to sit down and watch a "depressing" film just as I might feel like listening to a sad, sad song. I prefer not to live in sorrow, but to vacation there from time to time is not unhealthy. Human nature is complex and interesting, and a film with these same traits might be worth experiencing.

2006-09-15T13:22:00.000-07:00

an ober update

the good news: the trailer for Ober is available on-line
the bad news: it's kind of in Dutch. In fact, it's pretty much totally in Dutch.

but don't let this deter you!! It's still worth a watch, and it's available in various formats, such as:

Windows Media (Middelgroot)
Windows Media (Groot)
Quicktime (Middelgroot)
Quicktime (Groot)

or, download it from the film's official website:

http://www.oberdefilm.nl/

2006-09-14T16:16:00.000-07:00

TIFF review: the fountain
dir. Darren Aronofsky, 2006

starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, & Ethan Suplee (the guy from My Name is Earl)

I really didn't think I'd be back this soon, but just as one Toronto International Film Festival screening prompted me to sing my highest praises, another was so bad that I can't resist the urge to sling a handful of poop in its general direction. If memory serves, I seem to recall rumours (a few years back) that director Darren Aronofsky was in the running to helm a live-action Batman Beyond picture. Well, that film never surfaced, but The Fountain, Aronofsky's labour of love-- the project's inception dates back to 2001/02-- marks his first release since Requiem for a Dream, some six years ago.

Requiem was released at an exciting time, when filmmakers like Steven Soderbergh, Christopher Nolan, and David Fincher were experimenting with (somewhat) unconventional cinematic techniques that serve to remind us that film is, primarily, a visual medium, and that even a familiar story can seem fresh when it is approached with attention to style. For a moment, it seemed as if Aronofsky would join their ranks; in retrospect, however, Requiem feels trite. The performances are strong, but the subject of drug addiction has been handled with such graphic realism in other films that, upon multiple viewings, Aronofsky's efforts start to reek of style over substance. He has a talent for aesthetics, no doubt, but his sensibility seems to be more suited to music videos than to feature films.

The Fountain only emphasizes this sentiment. It is an ugly film, but I can imagine that any band with a penchant for teenage angst might benifit from Aronofsky's style. Neil Gaiman fans will also be impressed with the kind of pseudo-mythology this director vomits up ... Strike that. I like some of Gaiman's work. Gaiman is literate in his exploitation of mythology, while Aronofsky simply repeats the names "Adam & Eve," as if his vision of creation-via-love-via-death-via-special effects is somehow deep.

In reality, The Fountain plays as an unintentional comedy. Sperm pours from a tree into Hugh Jackman's mouth, and instead of receiving everlasting life, flowers sprout from his every oraface. Good golly. And the outrageously emotional performances-- many of which take place between man and tree-- are over the top, even within this fantastical story-world. This is only a minor concern, given the fact that the story-world looks an awful lot like a sound stage.

This is a film that will have a significantly wide release ... After bemoaning the fact that Ober won't, I can't help but feel that the injustice is palpable. All I can do is to urge the Aronofsky fan-boys and fan-girls not to defend a substandard film, simply because you admire the filmmaker ... That's how we got Star Wars episodes I through III.

2006-09-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

TIFF review: ober ("the waiter")
dir. Alex van Warmerdam, 2006

If anyone has stopped by my little site here over the last several months, they will have noticed that I have been remiss in actually posting anything. I have been on an undeclared hiatus as I struggle to finish the schoolwork necessary for the completion of my Masters degree, and must reserve as many words as possible for the purposes of essay writing. Though it is still in its infancy, this blog has become one of my favorite tools for procrastination (second only to watching films), and when one has a readership of three, it is hard to justify one's blogging efforts as anything but frivolous. So Did I Miss Something?? was relegated to the back-burner for a little while.

Now, this post represents only a brief hiatus from my hiatus ... The 2006 Toronto International Film Festival is in full swing, and it's the most wonderful time of the year; after a summer of schlock, movies are suddenly worth raving about again. Perhaps once I've seen all ten of my selected films, I will recap the experience with a few summaries. One screening in particular, though, prompted me to take a break from real life and return to cyber-criticism in an effort to share the wealth.

Alex van Warmerdam's Ober was well received by the audience at yesterday's TIFF presentation. Spectators can be fickle at 9:45 a.m., and it is a testament to the director's talent that his film elicited a laugh-out-loud response from beginning to end. Sadly, this is a film that will never garner the mainstream spectatorship that it deserves-- When's the last time you saw a movie from the Netherlands at a theatre near you? In all fairness, I tend to be skeptical of films from the Netherlands (which are similar in style to Scandinavian cinema). I'm no philistine, but I have encountered several movies from these regions that I can only describe as "weird." Now, I won't claim that there aren't unusual elements in this film, but they are employed in the service of comedy rather than abstraction.

Warmerdam, himself, plays Edgar, a middle-aged waiter who suffers through confrontations with his belligerent customers, unruly neighbours, his chronically ill wife, and his demanding mistress. Warmerdam's dead-pan performance is so consistent that the passivity that defines his character is not compromised when Edgar visits Herman, the screen-writer who is controlling his destiny; he is simply worn out, and has come to request, not demand, that his life might be propelled in a more agreeable direction.

Herman concedes, mainly to protect his own privacy (he doesn't feel that it's appropriate to have a fictional character visit his apartment). He strikes the plot line involving the invalid wife, and grants Edgar temporary solace in the arms of another woman. But, as any screen-writer will attest, a compelling narrative requires conflict, and Edgar is not off the hook in terms of the misery he must bear. As I mentioned, some of the circumstances in which Edgar is placed are unusual-- there's an hilarious scene in which he purchases a bow-and-arrow set from an eccentric hunchback, for instance. It sounds strange, yes, but don't mistake Ober for some kind of surrealist art film; scenarios like this are outrageously funny because they are unexpected, and refreshing because most contemporary comedies are ridiculously predictable.

Another film playing at TIFF this year is Stranger than Fiction, starring Will Ferrell and Dustin Hoffman. It has a similar premise: the destiny of a character (whom we perceive as real) is controlled by an author who is writing fiction. I had wanted to see this movie at the festival, but tickets are issued by way of a lottery system and it was sold out before my selections were considered, so I can't assess whether or not it is as successful in its execution. I have talked to a number of people who have seen Stranger than Fiction, and their feedback has been positive. I suspect, however, that Ober is the better of the two. I say this, not because I am snobbishly pro foreign films, but because I honestly believe that mainstream audiences will respond to the "gags" in Ober with more pleasure.

I know: you're afraid of subtitles ... And, yes, subtitles take some getting used to; but it is a mistake to discount foreign films as erudite or pretentious. Alex van Warmerdam's film has the potential to satisfy a wider audience than it will ever encounter, and I would urge people to seek it out. It is a film with great depth, but it needs to be emphasized that, first and foremost, Ober works as an accessible comedy that even the most skeptical movie-lover will enjoy. So, please, don't forget this title ... It may surface at a specialty video store in your neighbourhood, and I guarantee that it will provide a satisfying night of entertainment.

(note: this commentary contains excerpts from a review I posted on imdb.com)

2006-06-20T13:39:00.000-07:00

review: kiss kiss bang bang
2005- dir. Shane Black
starring- Robert Downey, Jr., Val Kilmer, & Michelle Monaghan

Not long ago, a wise e-mailer responded to my mission statement, suggesting that I should: "try to keep in mind that many people want "just entertainment" from films rather than a lot of deep stuff, especially after a stressful work week." While many of the films that I intend to review in upcoming posts are, perhaps, a wee bit deeper than anything you might see at your local multiplex (especially during these summer months), I have no plans to recommend an Ingmar Bergman retrospective as an alternative to your regular screening schedule.

The word "deep" is both arbitrary and suspect to me. What makes a film "deep"? Must it be depressing and abstract? Inaccessible to the "masses"? Maybe it has to be "arty" (or even "artsy"), preferably in Black & White and subtitled, with plenty of loooooong close-ups on sorrowful-looking faces or, even better, barren landscapes!! And if I am not a part of the elite group of spectators who enjoy these films, I must be stupid. But I'm hard-headed. Instead of considering why I don't like these deep, deep movies, I choose to ignore them. If I give my opinion, them artsy folks will just make me feel even stupider.

So I'm gonna go see Date Movie, 'cause that's a film made for "ME"... Or is it? You, the reader, are smart. More often than not, you know a shitty movie when you see one... But do you seek out anything better? Again, more often than not, "no." It's not entirely your fault. Better movies (films that I honestly believe would appeal to wider audiences don't get the release that they should) aren't advertized on the sides of HUMMERS, like SUPERMAN RETURNS is.

I do think, however, that a better term than "deep" is "SOPHISTICATED". Here's a word that puts the onus on the film, rather than the viewer. Let me explain: a summer film that I loved, a few years back, was The Mummy. Arguably, The Mummy is a movie that provides "just entertainment". And yet, the filmmakers seem to be aware enough to realize that they are making a modern day "B"-movie. This film is "sophisticated" because it is self-aware. And, yet, you don't need to know how self-aware the film is in order to enjoy it.

On the other hand, I really feel that a film can be too self-aware, so-much-so that the filmmakers think that they are smarter than you. Which brings us to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. I am honestly surprised that this film was never released as a "BIG" motion-picture. It was well received by the audience that I saw it with at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it has been praised (big-time) by cult critics like Harry Knowles (of Ain't it Cool News). In addition, it reeks with the elements of success: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a fast paced, accessible caper-comedy with a few good laughs and a couple of top-notch actors (Kilmer & Downey, Jr.). It's written and directed by the guy who penned all four Lethal Weapon's!!! Surely there' would be interest in a film such as this...

So why haven't you heard of it? Well, my theory is that the filmmaker vigorously pumped it up as an "intelligent" movie-- to the point that studio execs felt that it would soar above viewers' heads and they panicked. What they didn't seem to realize is how low-brow this comedy actually is.

The film follows-- and is narrated by-- Harry Lockhart (Downey, Jr.), a career criminal who accidentally stumbles into a Hollywood casting session and finds himself living the life of a hot-new-commodity on the acting scene. He is paired with a professional consultant, a Private Eye who has been dubbed "GAY PERRY" (because he is GAY), in order to prepare for an upcoming role as a detective. "Things" are, of course, complicated when a legitimate crime-- involving Harry's lost love-- eclipses pre-production.

The plot begins to mirror that of a pulp crime novel (which is explicitly defined, in the film, as a story wherein two seemingly unrelated cases converge to reveal ONE ludicrously elaborate conspiracy). To say more would be difficult and would, perhaps, spoil the lame surprises.

I have taken a lot of flack for criticizing this film. People seem to love it, and they seem to think that it is subverting a number of elements of the "crime-comedy" genre... I disagree. I honestly think that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is trying to fool us. This is a film that pokes fun at the conventional crime genre without realizing that it ends up adhering to the formula that it seeks to challenge.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is neither an outright success, nor a failure; it tends to alternate between the two. It begins with some wry subversion of the crime movie formula, but falls into those very conventions for most of the second and third acts. It then over compensates at the end as if to convince us that it's really smart... But is it? The filmmakers strive for satire. At best, however, they achieve parody.

I would like to think that audiences realize the difference, but, it has been my experience, with this film, that they often don't... So, once again, I offer my take:

WHAT YOU MIGHT LIKE: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is pretty funny. You might like the fact that the film takes some chances that a "normal" film wouldn't.... I Iiked that a certain injury never heals... and that a guy pees on a corpse. But, these are the very elements that allowed the filmmaker to say "my film is ground-breaking" when, really, he was only going for cheap laughs.

WHAT YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE: This film ultimately follows the FORMULA... I respect what it subverts, but IT ENDS WITH A CAR CHASE!!! I cannot recommend a film that pretends to be something "new," but presents you with the "same-old", as if you can't tell the difference.

Also, you might be aware of the fact that two of the greatest actors working today(Robert Downey, Jr. & Val Kilmer) are simply phoning in their performances. I'm not too surprised... They must realize that the characters, as written, are one-dimentional to-the-extreme (especially Kilmer, whose "gay-ness" is articulated when his ring tone plays "I Will Survive"... Oh!! ha ha ha.)

Ultimately, I think that this film is one that you should be embarassed to like. It's not the worst picture ever made.... but it depends on stereotypes for laughs and, even worse, tries to make you feel smart by employing cheap gags.

And,yet, I'm also "WRONG"... I know a lot of people who like this movie... If you have feed-back, this is a great opportunity to send some "spite." I'd love to hear from you.

2006-05-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

review: once upon a time in the west
1968- dir. Sergio Leone
starring- Henry Fonda, Charles Bronson, Jason Robards, & Claudia Cardinale

Circa summer 1991, my dad reluctantly John-Henried a contract that would allow cable television to be installed in our home. His decision was, perhaps, inspired by the fact that our family was embarrassingly behind the times-- we had just upgraded from a floor unit T.V. that took thirty-or-more minutes to "warm up"-- but I am inclined to believe that the company was offering a fantastic deal, 'cause we didn't simply "get cable"; we got "the whole package."

This included, what was known at the time as, "First Choice" (now, The Movie Network, or "TMN"... Basically it was "Rogers' on Demand" without the Rogers or the Demand). Regardless, we suddenly had movies pumped into the house, and video tapes ready to capture them. Instead of forming an addiction to the 40-channels of "boob-tube," as dad had feared, my sister and I found ourselves in need of a "Young Guns II" "hit" every day, and we watched that VHS recording over and over and over again. By the end of the summer we could recite the dialogue verbatim.

The source of our fascination remains enigmatic to me. I recently conducted an un-scientific poll, and the results seem to suggest that a majority of viewers aged 18-30 have never seen a western, let alone devoted an entire summer to one. Of course, Young Guns II has a contemporary flair that undermines many of the stigmas we might attach to more traditional westerns.

I, myself, grew up believing that the western genre was archaic in league with our floor unit. My resistance to these films was based on the superficial grounds that they looked old and boring. It was only two years ago that I finally shed the last of my preconceptions and pitched a wagon towards the western frontier.

For fear of carpal tunnel syndrome, I will resist the urge to recount the entire journey. It is, however, important to point out that I discovered a wealth of entertainment; my expectations were blown to pieces when, over the course of watching forty-some-odd films, I marked a range of plot-lines-- more diverse than I ever would have fathomed. These were not the "cowboy and 'injun'" pictures that had fettered my imagination for nearly two decades... No, these are films that depict a variety of universal human conflicts against a backdrop of stunning vistas, riveting action, and intricate gun-play.

In order to convince you, dear reader, that this is so, I can either describe every western I have seen, or review the one film that contains almost every element that deems this genre worthy of your attention. Once Upon a Time in the West was not the first western I saw, nor is it necessarily the best. This Leone opus, however, is a great picture to start with if you are a reluctant inductee. In line with his previous "spaghetti westerns," Leone envisions the Wild West as a grimy half-wilderness where bounty hunters and entrepreneurs, alike, aim to earn their capital via blood-money. The burgeoning towns depicted in his films are so remote that they are virtually lawless; consequently, the stories explore human morality from a refreshingly carnal point of view.

I am purposely avoiding plot detail-- not because this film doesn't have a cohesive story-line (it does), but because Once Upon a Time in the West follows a kind of episodic structure, each sequence playing homage to classical Hollywood westerns that inspired Sergio Leone's filmmaking career. In a certain sense, OUaTitW might be described as "Baroque," rather than "revisionist" ; but it's over-the-top in the best of ways... Even without any western fore-knowledge, you will appreciate the humour and subversion that has been injected into the plot:

Frank: How can you trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders? The man can't even trust his own pants.

As I have previously mentioned, the point of my reviews is to provide the kind of fore-knowledge one might need to appreciate, if not enjoy a film. Once Upon a Time in the West is the picture that first affords me the opportunity to really cut to the bone with my "YOU MIGHT" categories:

You Might Not Like: a few things... First, it's a WESTERN. I really believe that this is a big obstacle for a lot of people-- I was one of those people!!! Once Upon a Time in the West will cost you, maybe, $3 to rent... I bought it for less than $15. Either way, it's worth the low, low fee.

#2: It is a slow moving film-- compared to what you are used to. There are scenes that pop, but Leone has a cinematic style that favors long close-ups on actors' faces, and wide, vista like, location shots that are equally detailed in their terrains.

and #3... I suspect that the dubbing may turn a few people off. Once Upon a Time in the West was recorded in Italian (and some of it silent...) It was dubbed in English for American audiences, and you can tell the difference. Or can you? The dubbing is fairly well done, and the story is strong enough that you might forget that there is a lot of post-sound-work.

WHAT YOU MIGHT LIKE: This film has modern touches that you might find surprising. It is funnier and more tension-packed than most contemporary movies... Even though it is a '68 production, it feels surprisingly fresh.

WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER: The western genre has provided the basis for most movie story-telling. The A-B-C'S of human behaviour and morality are examined and debated in these films... They are almost Shakespearian in nature. Westerns employ understandable language, though... Don't be afraid. I will publish a list of "must-see" films soon. For now, if you enjoy Once Upon a Time in the West, you will want to check out Rio Grande, Winchester '73, and/or The Quick and the Dead, just for a taste.

2006-05-14T08:59:00.000-07:00

musing #3: j.j. versus joss

I went to see Mission: Impossible III last week and, in spite of the many warning signs that led me to believe it was going to be a disaster, I really enjoyed the movie. My low expectations may have furnished the entertainment factor to a point, but ultimately, my demands of a summer blockbuster are no different than those of any other film; no matter what I might expect, I always hope it will be good.

Which is why I tend to avoid films starring Tom Cruise. There are actors with less talent, but then Tom's not really an "actor," is he? He's a "movie star" whose infamous personality tends to impede any suspension of disbelief; my constant awareness that he IS Tom Cruise almost always throws me out of the picture. This, however, is where expectations become interesting. Walking into the latest installment of the M:I franchise, I harbour no illusions about this being a character study. I am fully aware that Ethan Hunt has less psychological depth than, well, cardboard, for instance. The role is physically demanding, but the first two films make it evident that Cruise is adept at performing action, and that he is photogenic enough to compel audiences to watch him do just that.

So I was less concerned about Cruise, in this case, than with the film's biggest unknown element: director J.J. Abrams. As evidenced by his television track record (Abrams is creator of the hit shows Felicity, Alias, & Lost), J.J. ain't no hack, but directors who cut their teeth on the boob tube don't always chew their way onto the big screen as effortlessly as one might expect. I had hoped for more, par example, from Joss Whedon's Serenity, the motion picture follow-up to his ill-fated Firefly series.

Now, don't get me wrong... I am a Whedon-ite in the geekiest sense of the term. I consider Joss to be the master of genre television, and although he is best known for the horror-comedy-film noir-melodrama-screwball hybrids Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, I really feel that he has never come as close to perfection as he does with Firefly. It comes as no surprise that the series was prematurely cancelled (only eleven of the thirteen episodes filmed actually aired); it's difficult to peddle a Space-Western in today's market. But damned if this isn't the best show that no one's ever seen.

Whedon's quippy, stylized dialogue is delivered with a natural rhythm by the cast of Firefly (whereas it periodically sounds a bit stilted in his previous series). The stories also flow quite organically-- less frequently interrupted by the choreographed fight scenes one finds at the 35 minute point of a Buffy or Angel episode. The characters are rich and complex (as they are in the Buffy-verse), and the show establishes a fully textured world (multiple worlds, actually) that yearns to be revisited. There are details in the production design that introduce plot-lines that may not have surfaced for seasons to come.

In keeping with tradition, Whedon's show looks spectacular. One of his signatures is to bring a complexity to camera movement and editing that stands apart from the traditional television formula. Compared to most T.V. shows, Firefly is cinematic; compared to cinema... Well, therein lies one of the problems with Serenity. Although I admire Joss for maintaining visual consistency with the series, I feel that the motion picture adaptation of Firefly bears too close a resemblance to really, really good T.V., and consequently fails to hold up as a cinematic experience.

J.J. Abrams has offered up similar quality with his television programs. Though I was never a fan of Felicity, I would certainly remark that the show's cinematography is quite stunning, that it is visually distinct from other fare. The premise of Alias intrigued me more, but I was too busy to watch when it first aired, and by the time I made time for it, I felt that too much had happened for me to catch up. Lost, on the other hand, blew me away with its two-hour series premiere; the production value and visual splendor of the show was like nothing I had ever seen on T.V. I do have some issues with the way that Lost has progressed, but it has its hooks in me; I have been a committed viewer for nearly two seasons now, and the story-lines are still more riveting than most everything else on the dial.

His talent, however, is unleashed like never before in the M:I 3 action sequences. I think I may have held my breath a little during the helicopter chase sequence that weaves through a field of wind turbines. There's also a fantastic gag that plays with that old cliche of the oil tanker barreling sideways down the street towards imminent explosion... The style of the film is cinematic in the blockbuster mode, and I daresay that this installment is far better than its two predecessors. The drama is okay, too. Philip Seymour Hoffman may be slumming it, but his intensity proves that he's still bringing full efforts to this performance, and he more than makes up for the ridiculously convoluted plot.

In addition to being a film that works on the big screen, Mission: Impossible III is also instantly forgettable. I suppose it's not meant to resonate much (mission: accomplished), but this brings me back to the issue of the Whedon works. In many ways, adapting a show as sophisticated as Firefly for the cinema has more insurmountable obstacles than producing a sequel. Serenity picks up where the series left off (or shortly thereafter), and basically attempts to wrap up plot-lines that would have composed the second half of season one. How do you effectively cram eight or nine episodes worth of material into two hours? Well, you don't. Whedon's film has to jettison a great deal of the core character interation in order to make room for exposition. The series has a large cult following, but the movie must be accessable to newcomers, also.

From discussions with a number of people, I have discovered that those who have never seen an episode of Firefly tend to enjoy the movie more than the die hard fans. So, Serenity is not an all and out failure. My position is that, if it entices viewers to look at the thirteen episodes available on DVD, then all will be right. Honestly, Firefly is one of the most re-watchable shows you will ever come accross (I myself have participated in no fewer than eight marathon sessions).

I look forward to the next motion picture J.J. Abrams directs, but I won't be purchasing M:I 3 on DVD. The film more than entertained me for two hours, but as far as I am concerned, Joss Whedon has delivered a life-time's worth of satisfaction in a four-disc box-set. "Satisfaction" is, perhaps, an iffy term... If and when you seek out this hidden gem, you may be disappointed that it ends. I guarantee that you are likely to crave for more, but as Joss ponders aloud on an episode commentary: "Wouldn't it be great if someone watching the movie said, "Hey... This would make a fantastic T.V. show."

In any case, the J.J. versus Joss battle results in something of a tie. Each has entertained to the extreme in an individual way. The best we can hope for is that both of their talents continue to reach our screens, be they 1.33:1 or 1.85:1.

p.s. I secretly hope that Joss Whedon will ultimately win!!!