Mondays with Buster

Sherlock Jr. (1924)
part one




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

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

entry #2: Father Goose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

links to imdb.com:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

links to purchase:
Father Goose
The Muppet Movie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


links to imdb:
Woody Allen
Cassandra's Dream

links to purchase:
Match Point
Crimes and Misdemeanors

a little more hope

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

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

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





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

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

i bought hope for $11.99 (cdn + tax)

... And he's worth every penny.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

johnny depp in Tim Burton films

wanted: The Big Sleep and Sin City

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

notes:

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

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

mid-summer round-up


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

IRON MAN

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

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

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL

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

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

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

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

GET SMART

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

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

you can't choose your relatives...

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

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

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

















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
















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
















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

















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

















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

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.