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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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/

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!!!

review: Murder by Death

1976- dir. Robert Moore
Starring: Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, David Niven, Peter Falk, Maggie Smith, & Truman Capote

Lionel Twain: I'm the greatest, I'm number one!
Sam Diamond: To me, you look like number two, know what I mean?
Dora Charleston: What DOES he mean, Miss Skeffington?
Tess Skeffington: I'll tell you later. It's disgusting.

I almost mused again. In fact, I have been musing, in my head, quite frequently. I do, however, want to devote as much of this space to reviewing films as I can... It's just that nothing I have seen in the past few weeks has fastened jumper cables to my analytical battery. My intention was to kick off with a magically perfect kind of film, something vaguely recognizable but under-appreciated, an off-beat treasure of the hidden gem variety. A must-see!

Murder by Death? Well, it doesn't quite fall into that category. But it's really funny. And it addresses an issue that I have been musing about recently: comedies, these days, generally aren't.

I have evidence to support this claim-- actually, it's just a list of movies-- but before I reveal who the culprits are, I shall examine the case of the cock-eyed crime spoof. Murder by Death is a clever parody of the detective genre performed by an ensemble of prominent comedic actors (note that they are actors, not "comedians" or "former Saturday Night Live cast members"). The famous sleuths that they lampoon, well known figures from both literature and cinema (Charlie Chan, Sam Spade, Miss Marple, Hercule Poirot, and Nick & Nora Charles), have been assembled by eccentric madman, Lionel Twain (Truman Capote), who aims to put their criminology skills to the ultimate test. Summoned to his creepy country estate via invitation to "dinner and a murder", the investigators arrive at the Twain manor doors with their trusty-rusty sidekicks and wacky associates in tow.

The plot is simple: Twain wagers a million dollars against the reputations of the world's five most famous detectives by challenging them to solve the murder of someone at the dinner table to be committed by someone at the dinner table at precisely midnight. Everyone is a suspect, and everyone a potential killer. This exposition is, however, more or less beside the point. The entertainment value of this film comes from its manic word-play and its masterful send up of the cliches we have come to expect from the detective formula. Murder by Death provides a healthy combination of dialogue and slapstick based jokes, and is anchored by a talented cast of actors who have mined the original characters for quirks that can be embellished to produce humour.

This is not to say that Murder by Death is a perfect film, let alone a perfect comedy. I get the feeling that the script, by the eminent playwrite Neil Simon, is much stronger than the actualization we see on screen. In fact, the style in which it is shot adheres too closely to the conventions of a stage play (long, static shots accommodate all of the action at once), and, as a result, the film's pace is a little bit slow. It lacks the ruckus perfection of a laugh-a-minute spoof like Airplane! And yet, it has a laugh every two minutes, which is a testament to the strength of the material (and, certainly, to the actors). Contemporary comedies seem to be able to provoke a laugh only once every twenty minutes at best.

Why is this so? Well, if you will allow me to muse for a moment... The success of genre films tends to come in cycles. You get a bunch of, say, detective films; we become familiar with their conventions, then, ten years later, we get a new slew of detective films that recreate and/or deviate from those conventions. Near the end of a cycle of popularity, we tend to see a film that spoofs the formula, i.e. Murder by Death (that ol' detective film) or Airplane! (tackling the disaster movie).

Nowadays, films tend to be self-reflexive anyway. There are "no new ideas," so filmmakers play with conventions on their own accord. Although it may be difficult to "spoof-a-spoof" (to put it that way), people still try, and, consequently, we get the Scary Movie franchise, and also Not Another Teen Movie and Date Movie.

But this is old news... Critics have been panning these movies on the premise that you can't parody a parody for years. What hasn't been addressed is the fact that filmmakers no longer seem to know how to direct, and therefore edit, a comedy. I suspect that this has to do with directors depending on their actors to be so funny that nothing else matters, so they just sit back and watch. Comedy, however, is much more complex. It is a combination of construction and talent. A director has to provide the kind of coverage that will allow his/her editor to build a rhythmic cut, and an actor must be able to do more than carry an SNL sketch.

Ultimately, it comes down to the writing. Audiences will forgive a bad performance if the idea shines through. Truman Capote does not play Lionel Twain particularly well, but his lines are fantastic. Murder by Death works because it spoofs the conventions of a very specific genre with, not only affection, but attention to detail. The Scary Movies, on the other hand, fail not only due to the fact that the source material is already self-aware, but because they attempt to parody anything. For godssake, Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch is bizarre enough... How could Craig Bierko doing the same thing possibly be funnier???

So... should you watch Murder by Death? Well, I'm not here to say yay or nay... But here's the low down:

What you Might Like:
This film is so funny that I laughed while watching it by myself. Out loud. If you're looking for a funny comedy, you might find it here.

What you Might Not Like:
It's old. I know a lot of people who will only rent from the "NEW RELEASE" section of their video stores. I understand why, but DEAR GOLLY,they are missing SO much. Surely, most people who are reading this have never heard of David Niven. And yet, you know who Rob Schneider is. I have discussed older films with a number of people who are genuinely surprised that motion pictures made prior to the 1980's might actually be entertaining.

Also, you may not have seen the films that this spoof borrows from. I think that Murder by Death still functions as a laugh-out-loud comedy whether you are one-hundred-percent familiar with the original characters or not, but there are a number of jokes that play upon the minute details of the detectives that are parodied.

What you Might Consider:
Consider, first of all: SEEING THESE FILMS!!! It is worth seeking out some of the classic noir movies (and Agatha Christie adaptations), not only for the pure enjoyment of screening some wonderful pictures, but to be surprised by the extent to which the contemporary films we all watch have been influenced by these formulas. I highly recommend The Maltese Falcon (starring Humphrey Bogart)and The Thin Man (a brilliant spoof of the detective genre in its own right).