Sidney Pollack: 1934-2008

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.

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.

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).

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

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/

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!"

21

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.

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.

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.

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.