My how the time does fly. Originally released in 1982, Tron was, to my much younger sensibilities, a beautiful looking film that was ultimately a chore to sit through. However, having heard of the sequel ( Tron Legacy, the trailer of which can be seen here), I was intrigued enough to finally, after nearly a lifetime, giving the original film another look. I've seen snips of it here and there over the years, but I truly hadn't sat down and watched the entire film from beginning to end since it originally premiered. Besides, it was in HD, so what did I have to lose? As the film began, I had plenty of trepidation based on what I said above. My main recollection involved the quite beautiful, for their time, graphics. They may now look aged, but consider that at the time of this movie's release the most sophisticated video games, and therefore the most sophisticated video graphics, were found in arcades in such games as Asteroids or Pole Position. Home computers were just starting to appear, and their graphics were quite primitive compared to what we saw in the arcades. Thus, the graphics in Tron were, at that time, nothing short of a revelation. Not so much today, I'll grant you, but I still, even after all these years, found the film's look intriguing. Further, I was rather surprised to find that the movie had something of a Metropolis vibe to it, both in the looks and in the idea of this monstrous megacity (in this case, of course, a computerized megacity) wherein our heroes valiantly fight the good fight against oppression and free the world from it. But what surprised me the most was that film proved remarkably watchable. What bored the hell out of me as a young teen I found oddly engrossing today. However, let me hastily add that the film is not without some serious issues. The idea that the computer world is populated with programs that look like the people "outside" remains rather silly, and as the movie progressed it seemed that the script was far from nailed down, as certain elements were inserted but subsequently dropped as the film played out. For example, Dr. Walter Gibbs, one of the elderly founders of the video game company, is introduced in the "real world", makes an appearance in the computerized world, but is never seen again. There's also a scene involving Jeff Bridges encountering a floating bit of information (or whatever that was) in the sentinel like contraption he restored and commandeered. We're introduced to this element and its subsequently dropped completely from the film (Why bother introducing it at all?). There's also the question of Jeff Bridge's "powers" in the computerized world. He can do certain things, perhaps like an early version of Neo from The Matrix, but those powers are never fully described or explained. Finally, the movie's epilogue on the rooftop of the video game building that Bridges has reclaimed felt awfully truncated. His character flies in on a helicopter and lands, then hugs his two companions, and suddenly...it's over. But enough snipping...this is one of those films that you'll either sit back and enjoy (and try to ignore all those issues listed above) or find the whole endeavor silly and, if you have no tolerance for old video effects, outdated. While I found the movie pretty awful way back in the day, I find it far better today. Not a classic, perhaps, but a decent enough piece of Disney entertainment. I look forward to the more muscular looking Tron Legacy.
When I walked into the original The Matrix, its fair to say I was totally blown away by what I saw. Sure, there were points one could quibble with, but the action was intense and well designed, the destruction massive, and the excitement palatable. Then came the sequels. The only sequels more discouraging and disappointing than those were, perhaps, Superman III and IV. Worse, the films they have been involved in, with perhaps the exception of V for Vendetta (I have it on Blu Ray AND DVD and I have yet to see the damn thing!), have earned considerable critical scorn, including their last film, Speed Racer. Well, apparently the brothers (now brother and sister) have been working, very secretly, on another project. And it sounds, to say the least, rather...odd: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/10/jesse-ventura-also-filmed-role-in-secret-wachowski-brothers-futuristic-war-movie/Truly, I don't know what to make of this. Will it be a war movie with inserted commentaries from other personalities? Are they using the feelings people have about the Iraq war to create "realistic" commentary about their fictional work? Time will tell...
Not a download, rather a free (and legal) way of perusing the soundtrack album, should you be interested in purchasing it when it is released: http://www.spinner.com/new-releases#/2(I'm certain this will be available only for a limited time).
So I'm feeling pretty damn sick over the weekend and, as the illness drains from my body and I'm feeling up to some light TV fare, I turn the television on and, on the IFC channel (or was it Sundance?!) a movie begins, entitled Anamorph. The movie is from 2007 and has nothing at all to do with the kiddie shows featuring a similar title. It's also hardly what I call "light TV fare". In fact, this is an overly ambitious film that can be, accurately alas, billed as something of a rip off of both Se7en and Fight Club. However, lest I sound too critical right off the bat, it does also feature plenty of food for thought on its own, even if its influences are there. The movie features Willem Defoe as Stan Aubray, a NY detective who is currently something of an introverted...weirdo. He lectures at a school while (barely) working at the department. Five years before he was involved in the "Uncle Eddie" serial killer case, and it now appears that "Uncle Eddie" might be back. But things aren't always what they seem... Before I get into more details, let me put out a clear SPOILER warning for what follows. It's almost impossible to get into details of this film without giving away (or analyzing) elements that unfold as the movie progresses. Suffice it to say, if the above very brief description of the movie makes you interested in seeking it out, do so. Otherwise, beware the SPOILERS that follow... Still there? Ok, here we go: I enjoy almost all types of films, but often those that make me think, or rather those that don't spell everything out, intrigue me. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic film in that respect. There is little dialogue but there is SO much story presented. But you, as the viewer, have to connect the dots. The same goes for Mulholland Dr., perhaps my favorite David Lynch film. I was absolutely confused by what was going on until we arrived at the audition scene. Suddenly, I understood what Mr. Lynch was doing, and the film became, at least to me, absolutely fascinating. With Anamorph we start with what appears to be your typical serial killer situation. The serial killer is brilliant. The serial killer poses his victims in increasingly bizarre scenarios. The killer appears to be "talking" to his pursuer, bringing him into his insane world. But, as it turns out, these "standard" perhaps even cliched serial killer conventions hide a deeper story. As mentioned before, "Uncle Eddie" first showed himself five years before. Through the course of the movie, we find that a group of cops, including Defoe's Stan, thought they knew who the killer was. They broke into his house to arrest the suspect and one of the cops, thinking the suspected "Uncle Eddie" was holding a gun (he wasn't) shot him dead. And the "Uncle Eddie" crimes suddenly ceased. For five years. But when new victims appeared, things became muddy. Was Stan, the lead investigator in the original case, wrong in fingering who "Uncle Eddie" was? Did the raid five years before kill an innocent man? If so, were these new killings the work of "Uncle Eddie" or were they the works of a copycat killer? And what exactly happened to the last female victim of "Uncle Eddie" some five years before? Whatever it was, the young woman's death and fleeting flashbacks and dialogue suggest Stan and this woman had a very strong relationship. What follows are more victims, including one of the original officers on Stan's group, and hidden messages in the scene of each crime. Anamorph, as it turns out, relates to clues left behind by the killer. In this case, he is referring to old paintings that, when viewed head on, reveal an image, but when looked at from a severe angle, a hidden image within the painting becomes apparent. Thus, our killer is hiding clues in his artfully designed slaughters. Which should also clue you in that we're dealing with a movie with hidden meanings, as well. As the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Stan may have dirtier hands in this whole affair than is first apparent. To begin, and as mentioned before, he has flashbacks to the events of five years before, from the raid to the last murder attributed to "Uncle Eddie", the young woman Stan had some kind of vague relationship to. In the flashback to that last murder, Stan arrives at the scene of the crime after the fact. She lies on the dock beside the water. However, later in the film, Stan recounts to the woman's friend that HE pulled her out of the water, that HE held her until she let out her last breath. Yet clearly in his earlier flashbacks Stan appears to arrive AFTER she's removed from the water. Adding further confusion to the whole thing is that later still in the film, Stan appears to have flashbacks of the woman being stabbed and falling into the water. Did HE kill the woman? The implication seems to be that this is the case. But where the film ultimately, sadly, fails is that too much is left for the viewers to sort out, and details are left so vague that arguments can be made for several alternatives. For example, one could assume that Stan had an affair with this woman, and it went sour while he was investigating the original "Uncle Eddie" crimes. Now (and I'm guessing here) it is possible, perhaps even probable, that Stan killed the woman and made it look like it was the work of "Uncle Eddie". After all, his police task force already had an idea who "Uncle Eddie" was. After Stan commits this crime, his group raids the suspected "Uncle Eddie" house and the man is killed, thus "resolving" the crimes without anyone suspecting that Stan performed that last act... ...and there my theory goes bad. For you see, if this was indeed the case, then Stan, to cover his tracks, would/should be the one to kill the suspected "Uncle Eddie" in the raid. After all, Stan wouldn't want the man taken alive. The suspect might admit to all the crimes he committed but that last one, and given Stan's hinted relationship with the last victim, wouldn't the police begin to eye him as a possible suspect in that particular crime? But the fact is that Stan DOES NOT kill the suspected "Uncle Eddie". Another cop does it. So the mind wanders again...Perhaps Stan IS "Uncle Eddie", and the man who has appeared after a five year absence is, effectively, a copycat "Uncle Eddie", albeit one that knows Stan was the original. But that also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The crimes are so damn elaborate that it seems impossible someone could simply copy this idea. And, further, if Stan was the real "Uncle Eddie", then wouldn't he have figured out the copycat and his methodology a lot quicker? Add to the mix at least one character, an art dealer, who may or may not be a figment of Stan's imagination and you've got even more confusion. But despite all these criticisms, I still have to admit the film kept me there, watching it to its (admittedly vague) ending. As such, I would give this film a recommendation with a very big caution: While it is well made and will draw you in, the journey ultimately leads to such a vague ending that it can't help but cause irritation. If you're still curious to see it, do so. But this is one case where I can't help but wish the filmmakers offered more solid clues as to what path they wanted the viewers to follow.
Found this article regarding what the author feels are the "10 worst injustices" in Academy Award history: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/7360378/Oscars-2010-the-10-worst-injustices-in-Academy-Award-history.htmlAs I've said before, hindsight is a great thing, and what feels like the right choice at that time can, over the course of years, fade away into insignificance while another work rises above. This is certainly the case of 1941's Citizen Kane versus How Green Was My Valley. The later film won the Academy Award and the former didn't. Of course, few today recall How Green Was My Valley. Granted, the film has its fans and reviews of it are generally very, very positive. However, that doesn't change the fact that many consider Citizen Kane the best film ever made!
Arguably the most memorable -and by far controversial- sequence in Tropic Thunder was the so called "full retard" bit, wherein Robert Downey Jr. tells Ben Stiller about the...uh...finer points regarding receiving kudos for your acting while playing someone with developmental...issues. The sequence was humorous because it was like a guided missile hitting its target with pin point precision, and made people look back at certain movies (such as Radio, which may well have been one of the bigger, most obvious targets of the gag) in a far more humorous light. But lest we set our sights too narrowly, there have been other instances wherein it appeared actors purposely try stretching themselves and act in a role where they (perhaps) hoped the Academy, and audiences, would reward them. In roles that perhaps on paper looked grander than they ultimately appeared on the big screen. In roles destined to never quite reach the heights hoped for... The link below takes you to Eric Hynes' Slate article "12 high-wire performances that pandered to the academy but didn't even get a nomination". Many of his choices are most apt. http://www.slate.com/id/2246557/
...and this time they focus on actors: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/03/unsatisfying-oscar-winner_n_482975.htmlI have to return to the fact that sometimes, in the so-called "heat of the moment", you feel for a certain thing and, over time, these good feelings may evaporate entirely. Of the list presented, one has to look hard at Cuba Gooding Jr. for Jerry Maguire. I suspect that, even if you feel he was very good in this particular role, you can't help wonder how he won over William H. Macy in Fargo. (While I thought Edward Norton was pretty damn good in Primal Fear, the movie really let me down about halfway through. Can't give too many specifics as I only saw it once back when it was originally released, only that I have a vague recollection the film became more ludicrous as it went along) Still, an interesting conversation piece.
An amusing entry into the "How it should have ended" field. Particularly loved the bit beginning at 1:10.
What is it with books that are pretty well written, pretty engrossing, yet seem to let you down when all is said and done? A short time ago (you can read it here) I reviewed Glasshouse, a science fictional mystery/action novel that ended with such a big, BIG hole in its plot that it was difficult for me to understand how the author had missed it. Seven days later, and after letting it sit on my shelf for a while, I decided to give The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a try. The book has a seriously fascinating background. Author Stieg Larsson, a journalist from Sweden, delivered three novels (this was the first) and, before they any were published (the third and last of them, The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest will be available in the U.S. on May 25th), died. A background story like this was bound to draw interest, and early reaction to the first novel was quite positive. This word of mouth prompted me to buy the first book in the series, but it wasn't until a couple of days ago I finally sat down and read it. Like Glasshouse, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (for brevity's sake, I'll refer to it as TGWTDT) was a good read. In some ways, its central mystery reminded me of Fredric Brown's far superior The Far Cry, which I've strongly recommended before (check that out here). TGWTDT focuses on a crime committed years before, and our protagonist(s) solving of this crime. But what ultimately hurts TGWTDT are things that are apart from the story itself. As I noted before, Stieg Larsson, the book's author, was a journalist. I suspect that TGWTDT's main character, journalist Mikael Blomkvist, is a thinly disguised proxy for Mr. Larsson (or, as James Cameron has recently made the term popular, an avatar). His character and his situation (and life in general) is presented as such a fantasy that at times it took me away from the novel's story. Allow me to backtrack just a little bit: When I was much younger, some of the first "adult" novels I read and enjoyed were those by Clive Cussler. Specifically, I was blown away by Vixen 03. Many years later, when my wife was looking for something to read, I recommended she try the book. She had a far different reaction to it than I did as a youth. She was totally turned off by the novel's main character, Dirk Pitt. Author Clive Cussler presented Dirk Pitt, she felt, as if he were some kind of God: irresistible to women, incapable of doing any harm (or anything wrong), and pretty much the greatest guy on the planet. Shocked by her statement, I re-read the novel after all those years and, to my great surprise, she was right. As a young man I missed it, but as an older reader it was so obvious...and annoying...the way Clive Cussler went out of his way to mythologize the character. From that point on, I simply couldn't read any Clive Cussler book. Sadly, the character of Mikael Blomkvist falls into that camp. Author Larsson presents him as this great guy who women find simply irresistible. Further (and most unbelievably), he's had a 20 or so year sexual and business relationship with a married woman. The woman's husband knowns of the affair but he's an artist, so therefore doesn't mind "sharing" his wife (how likely is that?!). But that, my friends, isn't enough. In the course of the book Mr. Blomkvist beds another couple of women and gets sideways/longing looks from at least another few. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude, but these sexual (fantasy) forays became as distracting as they are unbelievable (trust me, Blomkvist doesn't deliver any superlative seduction lines to the women he encounters, either!). But even if we ignore this aspect of the novel, we stumble upon the next part: Blomkvist is some kind of journalistic knight errant, out to slay the financial scoundrels, and becomes a victim of one of his own reports. He needs to cleanse himself, to show he's on the side of right, and by the end of the novel he does just that in the most magnificent way possible, further presenting him as the everyman Superman. The second "main" character in the novel, Lisbeth Salander, is a far more fascinating character. She's an emotionally troubled 24 year old who also happens to be a terrific computer hacker (this part of the novel, sadly, reminded me of one of the more lucid criticisms offered regarding, of all things, figure skater films, which I talked about here. The point that author made is that in those films the "good" figure skater has some kind of "innate" talent in this sport. Such a thing simply cannot exist.). Salander and her story are, moreso than Blomkvist, the reason I would ultimately recommend the book despite the criticisms presented above. She is such an interesting, unique character that you are drawn to her just as I was drawn away at times from Blomkvist and his too perfect characterizations. However, (and, SPOILER!!!!) when Salander falls for Blomkvist, I just about lost it. The man, as he himself says in the book, is old enough to be her father, therefore noting any relationship with Salander could be viewed by others as...icky. Besides that, the girl is emotionally unstable and, indeed, even something of a ward of the state. Blomkvist must be aware of at least the emotional "strangeness" of the girld, yet this picture perfect journalist has the girl (of course) fall for him. I guess ordinary moral women (even the emotionally damaged ones) simply can't resist. To make it even worse (if that's possible), it is Salander who subsequently demands ( demands!) he sleep with her. What's our poor picture perfect journalist to do? This, more than any other event of the book, felt...wrong. Again, I don't want to come off as a prude, but we are dealing with someone who, while she's incredibly resourceful and more than a handful, is still not all there. Anyway, enough of the bad: What was the good? Well, the book was reasonably well written although it was clear that we were reading a translation. As such, some passages came off as oddly constructed, but that actually proved beneficial. After all, I wouldn't want to read a novel set in Sweden that "sounds" like it was taking place in New York. The mystery is also good, although again I wouldn't put it up there with Mr. Brown's The Far Cry. The prolonged epilogue could have been trimmed a little, but it also worked reasonably well (this is the part where, after the primary mystery is solved, Blomkvist comes out triumphant against the financial wizard/rogue who messed him up in the book's opening). So, all in all a recommendation with reservations. I am curious, I admit, to see the Swedish TV version of the book, if only to see how the actress chosen to play Salander handles that particular role. My understanding is that an American version of this novel is also in the works.
Of course, the opinions presented relate to the people offering them. But I do find it curious sometimes to consider films that won the Oscar for Best Picture and then compare them to other pictures that were in the running. Sometimes, time has a way of making the original winners/choices look, in retrospect, as the wrong one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/27/undeserving-best-picture_n_469525.htmlA note about Shakespeare In Love vs. Saving Private Ryan: While I would agree that Ryan probably should have won over Shakespeare, the gut-wrenching war picture was also, sadly, quite cliched, at least IMHO. We get not one, but two "slow deaths" of characters, wherein they get to say some emotional things before they pass away. Don't get me wrong: The scenes of battle, particularly the D-Day invasion, were some of the more harrowing footage ever made. I just wish the film itself had risen a bit above certain war movie cliches... ...which brings us to one of the films that SHOULD have won best picture: Apocalypse Now. It lost to... Kramer vs. Kramer?! While Kvs.K wasn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, and AN was at its best up to the eerie bridge sequence and got a little too convoluted (again, IMHO) once we meet Marlon Brando's Kurtz, I think its a no-brainer which film stood the test of time and emerged as a modern classic.
OK, so I said Cop Out didn't appeal to me based on the commercials. There is one film, however, that seems to be floating just under the radar, also in release today, that does look intriguing (again, based on the commercials): The Crazies. It's a remake of George A. Romero's 1973 film, and the critics have been pretty kind... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1205380-crazies/Of note: A critic who didn't like this movie wondered why it made it to the theaters while The Signal went pretty much direct to DVD. An interesting question. I bought The Signal when it was released and, one day a while back, started watching it. Unfortunately, something came up and I never finished it...if I don't find the time to see The Crazies in the theater (very likely), I'll have to give The Signal another try.
An amusing (and pretty brief) article that explores a topic that is ripped ( ripped I say!) from today's front pages: Why are figure skating movies so awful?! http://www.slate.com/id/2245094/pagenum/allOk, all jokes aside, author Torie Bosch does make some good points in this article, especially with regard to ice skating movie cliches (the "hero" is often an outsider who skates for fun and has some kind of natural predisposition to great skating, something that is pretty much impossible in the real world. Meanwhile, the "villain" is often a skating robot with no life and an unhealthy desire to win it all). Of course, if that article doesn't tickle your fancy, then how about this one: Dannish Men have smaller testicles than Finnish Men. Why? The answer lies but one click away... http://www.slate.com/id/2245110/
Let me be up front here: I have little interest in seeing this film. I have nothing against director Kevin Smith (he's done some really, really good films and a few that haven't been quite so good, IMHO) and I certainly have nothing against either Bruce Willis (ditto!), Tracy Morgan, or Seann William Scott, the trio that make up the protagonists of this film. No, I don't have an interest in seeing it for one simple reason: The commercials for it were simply not all that compelling. Further, I have such a backlog of films on DVD to catch up to and so little free time as it is that, even if Cop Out turns out to be the opposite of what EW critic Owen Gleiberman thinks, I still don't envision making the free time (at least in the near future) to see this. But I point out this link because after Mr. Gleiberman offers his generally negative views on the film, we get a series of replies in the feedback section from "Kevin Smith". If the replies are indeed from him, they're amusing to say the least, although they subsequently border on being a little too much. Again, if it is him, I can't help but wonder if the pressure to deliver a "hit" is starting to get to Mr. Smith... http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20346557,00.htmlUPDATE (2/26/10): If it was Mr. Smith arguing about Mr. Gleiberman's review, he won't be too happy to read this one: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/25/1498967/review-cop-out-r.htmlAs for Rotten Tomatoes... http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cop_out/Sadly (for Kevin Smith anyway), this movie is sounding worse and worse.
This according to /Film: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/22/shane-black-to-direct-doc-savage/Sadly, the information presented doesn't address some questions that occur to me, like will this Doc Savage movie be set int he 1930's/40's like the pulp novels? (I really hope so...if it isn't, I can see some hideous "modernizations" that studios might impose...) Which of the novels will the book follow? Will it be an "origin" story, not unlike the original pretty bad 1975 Ron Ely Doc Savage movie? As bad as that film was (and, trust me, it was pretty bad) it did get some things right: The look was pretty good, and the story was taken pretty straight from the original first Doc Savage novel. However, the tone was WAY too tongue in cheek (almost like the campy Batman TV show). Further, the Doc Savage origin story is simply not one of the better, IMHO, Doc Savage stories out there. In fact, I consider it fairly dull compared to many of the stories that came after. The next question is: Can Shane Black deliver a good action film featuring a large (protagonist) cast in this 30's mileiu? I loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but can he deal with Doc Savage and give some interesting screen time to his companions? Can they be fleshed out? And while I loved the tone of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (and the movie itself!), that film is far, far removed from what a Doc Savage film should be. Having said that, if you haven't seen Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, then what are you waiting for? It's a great film, regardless of whatever Mr. Black does with Doc Savage!
Interesting article by Hunter Stephenson at /Films concerning the 1986 film The Wraith: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/02/21/weekend-weirdness-the-wraith-special-edition-explores-the-cult-status-and-troubled-production-of-the-oddly-lynchian-80s-film/As he notes in the article, this film was all but ignored (and mostly forgotten) when originally released, but as these things tend to happen, it has become something of a cult classic now. When the movie originally premiered, I recall many critics dismissed it outright and audiences weren't all that interested. Considering my age and interest in car themed action films, this one hit something of a sweet spot and I've always had pretty fond memories of it. It's interesting to read the (possible) David Lynchian themes present in the films, but I would subscribe more to the fact that this film's plot was...er... borrowed (better than saying ripped off!) from the Clint Eastwood western High Plains Drifter, albeit set in the then "modern" era of the 1980's (for the director of The Wraith to subsequently note that The Crow somehow ripped his work off seems a tad precious). But, in the end, I've always felt this was a decent watch. Not up there with either High Plains Drifter or The Road Warrior, but neither was it a complete dud like so many other films I've had the misfortune of seeing. I hope this new "Special Edition" they're releasing of the film will also be in Blu Ray...
Whenever we close in on Oscar season, lists like the following, found on Entertainment Weekly's website, pop up. What are the biggest Oscar snubs? This is there opinion: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20311937_20345113,00.htmlAgree on a few of these...there are performances here that perhaps weren't recognized as being great at the time of their respective Oscar ceremonies but have stood the test of time. Man, I could go over each of their choices in detail. A couple that stick out are Anthony Perkins in Psycho and Rita Hayworth in Gilda. Both roles were incredible for very different reasons, but its amazing neither actor was at least nominated for an award based on their work in those films!
Dirigible (1931) was on TCM a few months back and I recorded it. It was a no brainer: A movie made in the time of and featuring dirigibles, or zeppelins (you don't have to go very far to see my interest in such aircrafts...just check out my own The Dark Fringe). Finally, after too long sitting in the DVR, I managed to see the film from start to end... Directed by Frank Capra and starring a pre- King Kong Fay Wray, Dirigible is a movie that is perhaps more curio than genuine Capra classic. The curiosity value, of course, lies in the movie's use of the dirigibles. At the time of the movie's production and release, these air ships were in use and the notorious Hindenburg disaster, which effectively ended the era of the zeppelins, was still six years away. (To put this movie's release in even more temporal context, consider this: Metropolis was released a mere four years before!) The movie's plot involves a love triangle that I suspect even back then were probably well worn cliches: We have a dashing daredevil pilot and his mortified wife (Fay Wray) as well as the "good guy" whose shoulder is convenient for that wife to cry on, but who inevitably doesn't get the girl. The "good guy" is played by Jack Holt, an actor who was featured in many movies during his career and who, according to his IMDB listing, was the inspiration for Chester Gould's visualization of Dick Tracy. Mortified wife is tired of daredevil husband's daredevil ways, and when "good guy" is set to go on a dirigible expedition to the South Pole (they are to be the first to reach this forbidden place), she begs him to not take daredevil husband along. She's sick and tired of worrying about him. Good guy, being a good guy, confronts daredevil husband and tells him he can't go on the trip. They're both military men, and good guy is his superior officer, so he has to comply. However, he feels that good guy doesn't want him along because he's afraid daredevil will get all the glory. Thus a rivalry is formed. Good guy's attempt to reach the South Pole ends in near tragedy as the craft hits bad weather and is ripped apart. Thus, reaching the South Pole remains anyone's feat... Later, daredevil husband leaves the military and, along with a sponsor, attempts to reach the South Pole on his own. Mortified wife gives him a letter to be opened only when he reaches his destination. In it, she states she is going to Paris to get a divorce (I'm not up on my history, but the movie makes it clear that, at least as of 1930-31 Paris was the place to go when you need to get a divorce!) and will pursue Good Guy. However, disaster strikes Daredevil's expedition and Mortified Wife asks Good Guy to go rescue him... I don't think I need go much farther into the plot. You can kind of see where this is going. The film shows its age and is leisurely with its storytelling, something that certainly works against it especially to a viewer used to the more rapid pace of today's action features. However, the movie is not without its charms. Despite this, I couldn't really recommend it to anyone other than those who are curious about those times and are as fascinated as I am in seeing actual footage of a U.S. military dirigible circa 1930. This interview with Capra, presented below, offers an anecdote about Dirigible at about the 5 minute mark. Curiously, the scene Mr. Capra refers to, involving the planting of the flag on the South Pole, wasn't in the final cut (at least the version I saw!). In the version I saw, the flag was planted off screen. Perhaps Mr. Capra's anecdote explains why there wasn't a flag planting scene...
Just a couple of days ago (read about it here) I linked to an article from Slate.com regarding what the author thought were some of the all time worst "date" movies. His readers have offered some more interesting choices: http://www.slate.com/id/2244851/pagenum/all/#p2Based on some of the comments from people below the article, I think they fail to distinguish between whether a film is "good" in general or a "good" date movie. A Clockwork Orange, one of the films on this reader list of "bad date movies", is certainly that. It is also a damn brilliant piece of work and many view it as among director Stanley Kubrick's best works (to me, that distinction lies with 2001: A Space Odyssey, followed by the brilliant -and insane- Dr. Strangelove). But if you're a young couple and heading out on a first date, you may want to steer clear of all of Mr. Kubrick's films. As great as most of them are (BIG exception to Eyes Wide Shut), they aren't my choice for a first date.
I truly don't mean to be so redundant and fixated on one topic, but the Metropolis movie and the "restored" cut truly fascinate me. And, until I get my hands on the DVD/Blu Ray or see it in theaters (there is word the restored film will be shown in theaters in the U.S. in April), I'm eager to read up on what this print looks like and contains. This article, found at AintItCoolNews.com, offers some pretty good information regarding the movie's restored scenes (and their quality, something which was very hard to discern from the live stream of Friday) as well as somewhat disturbing information regarding the frame rate (he states that they didn't get it entirely right, and that this was noticeable toward the end of the film...I'm guessing things moved perhaps a little too fast). Anyway, here is the report: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43992Going back for a moment to the frame rate: I find that confusing. I admit to not knowing all that much about the restoration process, but wouldn't they simply scan each movie frame and create a digital "reel" that way? And wouldn't they then be able to "play" the film at any frame rate they wanted? Again, I'm not that tech savvy regarding film restoration, but still...
Truly we are spoiled. No sooner did the streaming begin yesterday that people online were complaining. What did you expect? Restoration of a film costs some big money. They're not going to stream a High Definition, blu ray quality version of the film, nor did I sincerely expect them to do so. Yes, they could have zoomed in the camera a bit, but it seemed to me they wanted people to see the whole theatrical experience (ie, its location and the crowds watching) rather than the film itself. They decided to give viewers around the world a glimpse at this particular movie fest and this particular movie. Say what you will, they succeeded in this. The actual, high quality DVD and blu ray will come, soon enough. But at least now I have an idea of what was missing. Btw, a good roundup of the restored Metropolis and one person's view of it can be found here: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43987
...fascinating! OK, I took a break from watching the film here and there and the headache that was raging has died down somewhat, but I think I caught most of the "major" cut scenes (I'm going by what I recall from the KINO restored version of Metropolis, which enumerated the missing scenes via flashcards. I'm not suggesting, by the way, that these are the ONLY changes, just some of the ones I noted). The first major cut was the bit about the worker our hero, Freder, replaces the worker in the clock-like device. We follow him as he is followed by "the thin man" (he was sent after Freder by Joh Frederson, the master of Metropolis and father of Freder). The two play cat and mouse and eventually wind up in Josaphat's place (he is a disgraced aid to Frederson and was saved from committing suicide by Freder). There, the thin man misses Freder by seconds via an interesting (to say the least!) elevator that never quite comes to a stop. If such a device still existed today, we'd be inundated with lawsuits. This sequence fills in the gaps regarding the character of the "thin man" (in the cut versions of the film, he appears, disappears, and then reappears toward the end of the film) and his place in the story as well as providing a more complete look at what happened to the worker Freder replaced. Next up is the Hel statue scene, wherein we find that the mad inventor Rotwang and Frederson shared the love of someone now gone. Rotwang, of course, took this a little too far. Again, fascinating (and rather brief) stuff. The next two larger bits were presented towards the end of the film, and its strange that they should have been cut out as they were both action sequences: First up we have the longer, more complete version of Freder and the real Maria rescuing the kids from drowning in the workers' undercity. I seem to recall (but I could be completely wrong) that this extended sequence was a little too intense for the audiences of the day and that's why it may have been trimmed. I enjoyed it as it presented the rescue all the way to the end (when the kids were, literally, brought up to the surface). That leads to another action sequence that makes a lot of sense: The workers storm after the real Maria, thinking she has turned on them and is responsible for the deaths of their kids. Poor real-Maria has to run for her life from that mob, even though she has just rescued those kids!!! Talk about adding insult to injury! Luckily for her, she runs right into the revelers of Yoshiwara, who just happen to be carrying with them the evil-robot-Maria. But the tension continues as Freder, running behind the worker mob, is unaware they hold the evil-Maria. He thinks they're going to burn the real one! Wild, wild stuff. As I said before, I can't wait to see the movie on something a little less...strenuous...than that feed. However, I'll not be ungrateful...despite my headache, I'm happy to see (most) of the uncut version of the film!
So they are streaming the restored Metropolis...sorta...It's a little tough on my eyes, but I'll brave through (yeah, that's gratitude for you!) I've been watching for a while and some of the new scenes are interesting (Just got through the Hel monument and, before that, the worker who Freder replaced on that clock-like machine and how he's tempted to go to the Yoshiwara club). However, based on this stream it is tough to tell how good those images are versus the ones previously cleaned up. I guess I'll have to wait and see how good the quality of the video is when the Blu Ray or DVD are released... UPDATE: Ok, I'm not going to make it through the whole thing. I'm at the scene where Maria is kidnapped (before the famous shot of the robot being converted into an "evil" Maria), and I'm starting to get a pretty good headache. Damn these eyes! I have a large enough monitor and I've blown the video image up to fill the scene but...its just a little too hard on me. Oh well, guess I'll have to wait for the official DVD/Blu Ray release to see the rest... :-( UPDATE 2: Now that the event is over, I'll remove the video link...it's dead anyway.
I enjoyed the first "Riddick" film, Pitch Black. While I can't say it was the best thing I'd ever seen, and parts of it were soooo derivative of other, better films, the overall product was not bad at all. And the opening moments, the spacecraft crashing, were incredibly well done. Alas, The Chronicles of Riddick, the movie's sequel, was an almost complete misfire. Pretty good effects but a very dull and, perhaps its biggest sin, silly would be gigantic space opera story versus the more intimate small scale Pitch Black. Variety reports a third Riddick movie is in the works, and it appears the people behind it have learned their lesson and will make this new film more in line with the original: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015101.html?categoryid=13&cs=1Even with the bad taste from that second film, I enjoyed the first enough to want to see another Riddick film. Hope they succeed...there's always room in my DVD bookcase for good sci-fi fare!
Well, at least in Berlin and Frankfurt. Regardless of whether we can see it or not (there is a bit of confusion regarding the possibility the movie might be streamed online. The latest updated information can be found here: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43966), it does mean that we're that much closer to the DVD and (hopefully!) Blu Ray release of this restored movie. For me, the excitement is in seeing the film as it was originally conceived by the director. Given the unkind words I said about The Warriors just below, perhaps a bit of explanation is due: Metropolis was released in its "director's cut" back in 1927 and audience reaction suggested the film would be a flop. The movie cost the studio a bundle to make, and desperation to recover costs forced the studios to consider what they could do to save their financial investment. Apparently, there was thought at the time that the movie's problems lay in its length, and a decision was made to try to trim the film down. So, various cuts were made and, because this was the very early years of cinema, not much thought was made to keep any copies of the cut material. Therefore, over time whatever was cut was ultimately discarded. The movie became famous, but by that time the original version was no where to be found. That is, until a 16 mm print was discovered in South America. So what we're about to see with Metropolis is the film as it was delivered by director Fritz Lang, with the proper pacing and storytelling almost completely intact (I understand a few seconds at the end of one of the reels was damaged very badly, but this represents only a fraction of what had been missing all these years). Now, The Warriors, as originally released, was everything director Walter Hill could do at the time. Yes, he faced (as I'm sure almost all directors do) budget constraints, creative differences, etc. etc., but the theatrical cut of the film was a success and it is rightfully considered today a cult classic. The "Director's Cut" of this film was Mr. Hill, some twenty plus years after the fact, going back to his film and adding new material to it that he wanted there in the first place. Now, sometimes additions may help a movie (the "Director's Cut" of Payback was hundreds of times better than the horrible (IMHO) theatrical cut. Similarly, Touch of Evil, recut to fit Orson Welles' memorandum on how he would have structured the movie, made for a far, far better version than the one released theatrically). Unfortunately, The Warriors (and, some would argue, the original Star Wars saga) is proof that sometimes a director shouldn't return to his old works and "modernize" or "complete" them. As I stated before, the added material to The Warriors, if anything, weakened what was a great film. So what will my reaction be to Metropolis? I truly don't know. But the trimmed version remains on my list of the top 3 films of all time. Will the director's cut prove a far different animal to what we've seen all these years? I'm certainly very eager to find out. (And, by the way, when they do eventually release the DVD/Blu Ray of the restored film, I hope they include the Giorgio Moroder version. I quite like that version, too!)
The Warriors (1979) is one of my favorite Walter Hill directed films. He's one of those directors that produced, in a seemingly very short time, a series of terrific, off the wall films but who, in recent times, has fallen off the radar. It's too bad, because when he was cooking, there weren't many better. But returning to The Warriors, I was over at the "Trailers From Hell" website, a website featuring various people in the film industry offering brief commentaries on a number of movie trailers, and noted they had the trailer to this film. The commentary, provided by Josh Olsen, is interesting because he addresses, yet politely skirts around, an issue regarding this film that really, really bugs me: The fact that the only version of the film available today is the recently made "Director's Cut". You cannot find the original cut of the film in your video store, either on DVD or Blu Ray. And its a crying shame. Mr. Olsen, as I said before, politely addresses this topic. He doesn't vent fury toward Mr. Hill, and it certainly is appropriate. Mr. Hill has every right in the world to go back to his films and, if the finances are there, rework them to the way he felt they "should" have been. He did this with The Warriors and, like Mr. Olsen, I can not fault him for wanting to present his original vision. What I can fault him, and this I would say less politely than Mr. Olsen, is in the decision to not include the original cut of the film with this new "Director's Cut", especially on Blu Ray. With all due respect to Mr. Hill, the original theatrical cut of The Warriors is far, far better than the reworked version currently available. I understand that Mr. Hill always wanted the film to be like it is now, but sometimes, perhaps by chance or luck or destiny, what you get, even though it may seem inferior to your mind, is better than what you originally intended but couldn't make, be it due to budgetary issues or any other circumstances at the date of the original filming. Now, I have the original cut of The Warriors on DVD (this release was made shortly before the Director's Cut appeared), and therefore can see the film as it was originally made. However, I'm dying to see a Blu Ray version of it. Perhaps one day, I'll have the chance. The Trailers From Hell link for The Warriors can be found here: http://www.trailersfromhell.com/trailers/481
Amusing article from Slate magazine, exploring various films that should probably not be first choices when going on a date: http://www.slate.com/id/2244354/pagenum/all/#p2In thinking back (waaay back) to the days I would go out on movie dates, one of the worst experiences had to be Hardware. Bad, boring movie. I haven't seen it since 1990, when it was in the theaters. However, I admit being a little curious to check it out again...while the trailer (below) features a pretty bad voice over, I can't deny some of the visuals look pretty good. Could it really have been that bad? Anyway, going into the film I was hoping for something along the lines of Road Warrior/Terminator...exciting and action filled, with heroes one could root for. Didn't work.
Interesting (if superficial and somewhat late) article regarding how the movies are looking in on graphic novels (and comic books) for inspiration... http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/02/08/graphic.novels.mainstream/index.html?hpt=SbinI say somewhat late with regard to the article because it seems graphic novels/comic books have been a big source of movie inspiration for several years now. Maybe its harder to ignore that reality, but the fact is that at least for the past ten years or so there seems to be plenty of examples, both good, bad, and very ugly, of movies based on comic books. Ah well, maybe one day my graphic novel will make that leap...
...will they be streaming it, too?! http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43920I've mentioned many times before my love for the film and I'm eager (that's putting it mildly) to see the "restored" edition. Granted, the restored elements were in pretty bad shape and I suspect there will be an obvious difference between the recently found minutes and the remainder of the film. Further, even this restored edition will be missing a few seconds of scenes found at the end of one of the reels (it was, apparently, too degraded). But who cares?! The Fritz Lang cut of the film was thought lost forever. And as fantastic as the current Kino restored version of the film is, it too lacks several minutes of footage. The fact is that everyone currently alive who has seen this film (unless, of course, you somehow saw the premiere back in 1927), has seen a truncated version. And that version is fantastic in and of itself. I can only imagine how much better the Fritz Lang cut could be... We'll see, soon enough!
Way back in July, and at the prompting of another list I found by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, I listed my "14 Films to See Before You Die". Of course, any such list is incredibly subjective, but I noted that the first three films on the list were indeed my three favorites and that the others were in no particular order. Yet #4 on the list wound up being Steve McQueen's Bullitt, and I'm inclined to think that while it may not be among the top 3, it most certainly deserves the #4 spot. I wrote then: Bullitt
(1968) - Steve McQueen's absolutely best film, and one that I can watch
over and over and over again. The plot: Cop McQueen is told to keep a
mob witness safe, but things go bad very quickly. McQueen equally
quickly realizes he's been hired to this job to take the fall, but
those manipulating things behind the scenes underestimated him. Bonus:
Probably the all time best car chase ever filmed.Yesterday, on TCM, they aired the movie and, one again, I simply couldn't stop myself from watching it. There's something so damn good about the film that continuously attracts me to it, from the very original plot to the many things that, subsequently, became cliched in the 1970's, particularly in their TV cop shows. To begin: The movie features perhaps one of the boldest slights of hand ever in the history of motion pictures. A member of "the organization" is running for his life. He's stolen from the mob, for protection, is willing to talk to a Senate subcommittee about what he knows. He's fled to San Francisco, and Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn at his slimiest), is the ambitious politician who plans to have him testify...if he lives to make it to the hearing. Chalmers personally asks for detective Frank Bullitt and his men protect the rogue mobster, and things get very interesting from that point on. To reveal more would be a disservice, but suffice it to say not only do you get a great detective story, you're also presented with a fascinating "day in the life" view of Bullitt's world. He's a weary man who is more intelligent than he lets on, and knows the behind the scene intrigue better than Robert Vaughn's Chalmers wants...and hopes. But the cherry on top of this particular cake is the car chase sequence. Everyone who mentions this film points this chase out, and I'd go so far as to say it may well be the best ever committed to film. And it's not just the chase, which is fantastic in and of itself, but it works because we get the slow burn build up. Hero and villain play a little cat and mouse before going full speed. And the cars involved in the chase...! But don't see the film only for this. The rest is pretty damn fantastic too. Very worth of your time.
I've been curious about this film, a remake of a pretty damn good 1985 British mini-series (loved, loved, loved Joe Don Baker!) and to finally see Mel Gibson return to the big screen as an actor in an action film. He's taken his (well deserved, alas) lumps for some very inappropriate behavior. There are those who cannot look past it, but despite the fact that I too found his actions at the time very disturbing, there is a part of me that is a big fan of the man's movies. Way, way back in 1981 I was blown away by The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2). And I admired the hell out of his Three Stooges act in the original Lethal Weapon, a movie that started all somber and serious and then, incredibly, took a sharp turn into action/comedy and clicked. (An admission: I don't care for any of the sequels. Not a one. They just didn't work as well as the original film, IMHO). And I also have to give Mr. Gibson credit for allowing the director's version of Payback its video release. I've never seen a film improve quite as much from its terrible theatrical cut. This movie could well be the best argument for allowing director's to make a film as they intended. But having said all that, I return to my original point: I can't fault those who lost respect for Mr. Gibson and aren't interested in seeing anything by him. While I'm not among those, I can certainly understand where you're coming from. For those still interested in seeing Mr. Gibson in film, here's a review of Edge of Darkness: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20339641,00.htmlUPDATE: While EW was kind regarding this film, others were most certainly not. I'm putting a link to the review below because the reviewer points out Robert DeNiro was originally to play in the film but took a walk (I'm assuming this is the role that was originally played by Joe Don Baker, mentioned above). Mel Gibson and Robert DeNiro in a film together? Ah what might have been: http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/story/1449839.html
...something I've always felt was very worthwhile: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/27/world.cinema.foundation/index.html?hpt=SbinThe above article from CNN notes the efforts of director Martin Scorsese and others to preserve films that are in danger of disappearing forever. While film is often fiction, it is nonetheless fascinating to see things that no longer exist. Most recently, I was blown away by seeing the New York of 1960 in the, until recently pretty much forgotten film Blast of Silence. Granted, the film may not be on the level of, say, Metropolis, nonetheless seeing New York as it existed back then was an incredible experience. Time marches on, and the value of some films to give us, at the very least, visuals from another time is invaluable.
Hollywood and its movie making machinery does at times seem to jump onto whatever is currently "hot". The latest such hot trend appears to be rebooting sometimes successful franchises: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/01/21/reboots-sequels-spider-man-jurassic-park/Of note, the one "reboot" that wasn't, at least at that point, a franchise was the Hulk films. Granted, there were cartoons in the 1960's and a successful Bill Bixby/Lou Ferrigno TV show in the late 70's/early 80's (followed by some made for TV movies), but there were only two theatrical Hulk films, the one directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana (which, to my mind, was a miss...too cerebral when it should have been focused on mayhem!) and the Edward Norton feature that sorta/kinda rebooted the thing. Both films pulled in roughly the same amount of money, therefore both were considered, at best, only lukewarm successes. I wonder if anyone at Marvel is daring enough to risk the chance that third time's the charm? As for James Bond, while there have been many Bonds, it felt like both the Pierce Brosnan and the Daniel Craig versions of the character were indeed reboots rather than simply having a new actor play the role. Granted, there was a big difference between the Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and George Lazenby versions of the character, but they were all part of the same Cold War milieu. While I was disappointed overall with the Pierce Brosnan Bond films (a case where the actor was perfect for the role but the movies themselves simply failed to deliver, IMHO), I had to give the makers of the franchise credit for realizing the world had changed and Bond was a "dinosaur" from another era. With Daniel Craig, they took this one step forward and did effectively create a whole new origin for the old character, one removed completely from the Cold War. As for Spider-Man's potential reboot (the real focus of this article), I'm curious to see what can be done but I wonder if maybe its a little too soon. The fact is that the three films Sam Raimi directed were huge hits, and the general public might have such an ingrained idea of what the character is all about that suddenly bringing him back to his origin and high school might feel like a retread. Then again, my crystal ball has been known to be foggy now and again. 
While it isn't quite the old "Crisis" (those Justice League comics usually featured the Earth 1 heroes (ie, the regular continuity heroes) teaming up with the Earth 2 heroes (ie, the heroes from the "Golden Age" of comics) against some big bad), this upcoming movie nonetheless has me...curious. This is the first review I've found. Alas, its from Harry Knowles, the founder of Aintitcoolnews, and there are times when his reviews border on...well, let's just be kind and say they aren't always for everyone. In this case, he obviously enjoys the animated film quite a bit, ranking it just behind three other DC animation films (I've got to find time to see New Frontier one of these days...the DVD has been sitting on my shelf for waaay too long and I absolutely loved the original comic book)... Anyway, his review: http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/43675And, if you're too lazy (or not that interested) in reading the review, I've embedded the trailer for the DVD, which can also be found at the review site:
Originally released in 2005 and a box office failure, I was nonetheless intrigued by The Jacket, even if what little (and it was very little) I heard about it reminded me an awful lot of Jacob's Ladder, a film that I didn't like all that much. Go figure. Jacob's Ladder, despite good acting and some truly creepy visuals, had a "surprise" ending that didn't really surprise me all that much and, if anything, made me think less of what I had just seen. The Jacket, on the other hand (and there's simply no way of sugar coating it) starts out pretty badly. We get artsy music video type grit, flashbacks to the first Iraq war and 1991. Our protagonist (played by Adrien Brody) is a soldier and, in very short order, is shot in the head. He's pronounced dead, and then his eyes blink... Aha! I think. This is going to turn out exactly like Jacob's Ladder. Whatever happens from here on out is...well, I won't spoil the one big "surprise" within Jacob's Ladder but, suffice it to say, I'm getting serious flashbacks. And then we move forward to 1992, and Adrien Brody's character has recovered from his wound and is wandering around a snowy road. He helps out a hung over mother and daughter get their car started and is later picked up by a man who will commit a heinous crime, a crime that our protagonist will be blamed for. Found not guilty by reason of insanity, he's transferred to a mental institution, wherein he becomes part of a seriously screwy experimental procedure that leads to our protagonist traveling in time, to the year 2007. HUH!?!OK, bear with me folks: This film, as I said before, starts out pretty badly. In fact, it starts out incredibly badly. The experimental psychiatric procedures Adrien Brody's character goes through make no sense at all, and the resulting time travel was a surprise so jaw dropping that it practically made me want to shut the DVR down and erase the whole thing. But then, like a Phoenix, the movie rises from these ashes and becomes something...touching. For the film turns into, of all things, a romance and a mystery, and presents a story about redemption and second chances. Add to that the fact that our protagonist, who at first is a stuttering, distant (and disturbed) figure, ultimately becomes noble and self-sacrificing. And the movie's conclusion was particularly strong, both emotional and satisfying. (Apparently the ending we have in the theatrical version of the film was not the original ending as it was drawn up. The DVD release features an alternative, perhaps original, ending that pretty much seals the deal on the whole Jacob's Ladder similarity issue. I'm glad the makers of the film went with what they have.) Bottom Line: Is this film worth a look? I'd have to say yes. Despite the many
bad and strange choices (and oddball events, particularly in the
movie's opening act), the film comes to life after it's first half hour and ends on a strong note. (Oh, and by the way, that is Daniel Craig, the current James Bond, playing one of the patients in the mental hospital!)
When I had a free moment or two between fixing the new computer, I had a chance to finally see The Blue Dahlia (1946) again. The first time I saw it was many, many years ago, I had very little recall of the specifics of the story. It was a murder mystery, that much I recalled, and Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake were in it. Since TCM was kind enough to show it, I just had to see it again. Mostly because I wanted to see a detective/crime movie based on a screenplay by the late, really great novelist Raymond Chandler. I've talked of my love for Raymond Chandler's novels before, and it bears a brief repeating: He was a master writer, in my opinion, and could write like very few others. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that he's one of the authors I most admire. However, his works did have certain weaknesses. While he wrote like few others, the plots of his stories could be murky, even to the point of incoherence (one of the more amusing knocks against his first novel, The Big Sleep, is that at least one of the many murders committed within is never explained, at least regarding who did it or why!). Alas, both the good and the bad of Raymond Chandler is evident in The Blue Dahlia. Some really crackling dialogue is at times hampered by a plot that relies on too much coincidence. The main characters played by Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake run into each other so offhand that, later in the film, Alan Ladd's character (voiced no doubt with a degree of guilt by either Mr. Chandler or a script doctor) wonders aloud if their original meeting was more than circumstance. However, he drops the thought without much elaboration. In the end, I began to wonder if the L.A. world of this particular movie was inhabited by about 20 or so people. How else to explain the way they bump into each other? Rumor has it that Mr. Chandler was unhappy with the film, that his screenplay was written in a hurry and based on an unfinished novel. There are further rumors he was unhappy with Veronica Lake's acting, going so far as to say very unflattering things about the female lead in the film. However, and without getting too psychological, I can't help but wonder if this was Mr. Chandler expressing outward disdain for something that was, essentially, his own fault. For Ms. Lake's character in The Blue Dahlia is very underwritten and her motivation and direction within the film is a mystery. Further, she is the primary source of some of the movie's major hard to swallow coincidences. I doubt Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep, or Laurence Olivier in drag could have done much with the character as written. Finally, there are rumors the movie's resolution (and the culprit behind the central crime) was changed at the last minute, which no doubt further infuriated Mr. Chandler. Add that to the anecdotes regarding the brilliant writer's difficulties with Hollywood. But having said all that, The Blue Dahlia is still a decent, if not superb, film. While Double Indemnity and Strangers on a Train remain the best works Mr. Chandler contributed screenplays to, The Blue Dahlia is still worthy of your time, should you feel inclined.
An interesting article from USA Today regarding the downturn in sales of DVDs this past year: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/dvd/2010-01-07-homevideo07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskipThey note that while sales of regular DVDs are going down, there is an uptick in Blu Ray sales and rentals. They suspect that people are shifting away from regular DVDs and finding their movies elsewhere. I suspect, however, there might be another element here, but this is a theory only: As a movie "collector", one who has a pretty broad range of films he has bought because he wanted to actually own them, the fact of the matter is that all the "big" films I've wanted, indeed most of the TV shows I've wanted as well, have been released and I've bought them. Mind you, I've purchased a decent number of films/TV shows, but I suspect my collection is far from the largest out there. When Blu Ray came around, there were a number of films I already had on DVD but was willing to spend the extra money to get in that format. These were films that tended to feature stunning visuals and/or special effects and/or were movies I absolutely, totally LOVED. So, over time I had my hands on what I wanted and, inevitably, all the "big" stuff was in my possession. What happened was that my trips to the local Best Buy slowed considerably. There simply wasn't much out there I really, really needed. Indeed, other than new releases, there are no films or TV shows I can think of offhand that I might want which have not come to either DVD or Blu Ray. And at this point, I can only think of a handful of films already released to DVD which I have in that format yet am nonetheless looking forward to purchasing when they're eventually released on Blu Ray (In this category, I look forward to Blu Rays of Alien and Aliens, Jaws, the fully restored Metropolis, and the original Nosferatu). Otherwise, I may or may not buy any "new" film that makes it to video each week. But my actual purchases have slowed down considerably because I have most of the stuff I've wanted. I wonder if this might be a factor in the sales decrease as well.
There were two people I can think of offhand who benefited tremendously by the kind words of one Stephen King. The noted author, when he was supernova hot, said that the movie The Evil Dead was "the most ferociously original horror film of the year" when it was released, which certainly go my attention (and interest) in seeing it. The movie, directed by Sam Raimi and starring Bruce Campbell, launched both of their careers. Similarily, author/director Clive Barker surely must have loved the fact that Mr. King, at roughly the same period of time, stated "I have seen the future of horror, his name is Clive Barker." Many years have passed since that high praise was offered, and Mr. Barker has published many more novels and has had several films based on his works released. Perhaps the most famous of the lot, Hellraiser, was also directed by the author. The other day, the Sci-Fi...er...Sy-Fy network aired The Midnight Meat Train, a just released to DVD movie based on the story by Mr. Barker. When I heard of its video release, I was intrigued. Especially since there were those who said the film was quite good and that the studio behind it made a mistake in dumping the movie to the direct to video market rather than giving it a proper theatrical release. So, were they right? I don't know about that. It's tough having a pretty sticky memory for stories, because I quickly realized that TMMT is, at its core, a supernatural reworking of the Alfred Hitchcock film (itself based on the Cornell Woolrich short story) Rear Window. In Rear Window, our protagonist, played by James Stewart, has suffered a bad broken leg and cannot leave his wheelchair. He is confined to his apartment and can do little but stare out the window, at the goings on in his apartment complex. In time, he thinks a neighbor of his has committed murder. With the aid of his girlfriend and housekeeper, the three discover if this is indeed the case. Meanwhile, in TMMT, our hero is a photographer (coincidentally or perhaps not, James Stewart's character in Rear Window was also a photographer) who, while out photographing the "real" New York, is the last man to see (and photograph) a young female model before she boards a train and disappears. He ties the woman's disappearance to a mysterious man he happens to spot leaving the subway the next day (this little bit of detective work falls somewhere between Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew and Scooby Doo level). Anyway, more stuff happens and, eventually, the protagonist's girlfriend (a blond, just like Grace Kelly in Rear Window) and a mutual friend eventually break into the mystery man's apartment (just like Grace Kelly and...oh...you get the point) and more stuff happens...leading to the big finale that is decidedly not like that of Rear Window. For Rear Window's climax most certainly didn't feature a bunch of strange, flesh eating, sharp-toothed hell-creatures. And that's just as well.
Seriously, the carpet-bombing type coverage of Avatar is getting a little...tiresome. But this article, from Entertainment Weekly, is intriguing. Ranking James Cameron's films from best to least: http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/01/05/avatar-james-cameron-rank/Of course, missing from all their lists is James Cameron's first feature film directorial effort, the awesome (sarcasm mode ON) Piranha Part Two: The Spawning. The original Piranha film was a reasonable success. How to improve upon it? Why, have the suckers fly! Of course, most judge James Cameron works by The Terminator on while ignoring TV shoots (James Cameron directed at least one episode of the, to me, terribly mediocre Dark Angel) or documentaries ( Ghosts of the Abyss). If I had to put his movies in order of my favorites, it would go something like this: 1 (&2) The Terminator/ Aliens - I'm cheating here, but these two films are my favorites by Cameron, and its hard to say which is the better of the two. For pure adrenaline action, you can't go wrong with either. Which leads us to the rest... ...hmmmm... 3) Terminator 2. There are many, many people who feel this is THE best James Cameron film. I'm not among them. The film isn't bad, but it just feels like what it is...a sequel that repeats many of the original film's concepts, only not quite as well (IMHO, of course!). Not a bad film, but a film I wish could've been a lot better. 4) The Abyss: A good film unfortunately undone by a murky ending (even in the longer version). A critic at the time of the movie's release stated: "Watching The Abyss is like seeing a long distance runner run the race of his life. Ten feet away from the finish line he trips and falls") 5) True Lies: A hit and miss film if there ever was one. At times wildly entertaining, then wildly irritating. To me, its James Cameron's worst overall film. Alas, I have to stop there. Believe it or not, I've never seen Titanic, and if you've read my comments for a bit you know the likelihood of me finding the time to go to the theater to see Avatar. Maybe some day...
Fascinating article from /Film regarding analysis of Pixar films and the fact that they might promote social conservative ideals: http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/06/is-pixar-socially-conservative/While I grow tired of this left vs. right political deathmatch going on within the halls of power, I must say the article is thought provoking. Then again, perhaps the people making the analysis are reading a little too much into all this (and note that they do exclude Wall-E from the pantheon of Pixar films that display "social conservatism").
It's always been a source of amusement/curiosity to me when we reach the dates of science fictional works, famous or somewhat forgotten. The two biggest works and the year their events were to take place carried those (then) far flung future in their titles: George Orwell had Nineteen Eighty-Four, Stanley Kubrick/Arthur C. Clarke had 2001: A Space Odyssey. When originally conceived, Nineteen Eight-Four's events were 35 years into the future. In the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey, director Stanley Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke were imagining events 33 years into their future. Note, however, that 2001 was based on a short story by Mr. Clark entitled The Sentinel. This short story was written some 53 years before the far flung future of the year 2001. I don't believe, though, that the short story had a fixed date when it was meant to occur, unlike the movie/book 2001. Other famous dates we've passed? How about the date Skynet becomes self-aware, bringing on the events of The Terminator films? Skynet goes on-line on Monday, August 4th, 1997 and becomes self aware at 2:14 a.m. August 29th, 1997. For the original Terminator film, those events were 13 years into the future. Another favorite of mine, Escape From New York, also featured the then far flung future of 1997. The movie was released in 1981, which meant the events within were some 16 years into the future. On TV, there was Space: 1999, wherein the Moon is shot out of its orbit and the inhabitants of the Moon's solitary base experience adventures a la Star Trek. That show appeared on TV between 1975 and 1977, which meant the future it speculated about was some 22-24 years away. So, to add to all these imagined futures that we've reached, one can add the sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke's 2010: Odyssey Two. The book was released in 1982 and the movie (renamed/simplified to 2010) a couple of years later. The future Mr. Clarke envisioned this time around was 28 years in the future, but its here today!
...but I suspect this one might be the oddest one of the lot: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43522A little note: I don't know why many people have such negative feelings toward the James Bond films Octopussy and, even more so, Diamonds Are Forever. Both films were intended to be action comedies, and as such I thought they succeeded. Further, Octopussy threw in everything along with several kitchen sinks, while Diamonds Are Forever was, I suspect, meant to be a more lighthearted film that counteracted what the producers felt was maybe the too serious (for its ending if nothing else) On Her Majesty's Secret Service (yes, I know there are those who feel OHMSS was the best Bond film of them all, George Lazenby notwithstanding. For whatever reason, it just didn't click with me. It had its moments, certainly, but the whole ultimately felt less than the sum of its parts). Having said that, I must agree with the author that The Man With The Golden Gun, A View To A Kill, and Die Another Day (and, sadly, pretty much all the Pierce Brosnan Bonds...was there ever a modern movie/TV star that more looked like he should have the role of Bond but acted in such a string of disappointing Bond films as he?) were pretty painful.
I tend to spend about the same amount of time each day looking over various websites and when something is thought provoking or fascinating or interesting, I'm likely to make some comments and provide a link to them. The following article, from /Films, is one of the more thought provoking pieces I've read regarding the past decade, and the themes present in some of the movies released during that time:  http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/01/02/comparing-the-1990s-and-the-2000s-what-our-movies-say-about-us/One of the comments after the article notes that much of what followed in the decade was a result, to one extent or the other, to 9/11, and this would seem to fit with some of the reality testing films we've experienced in the decade. After the horror of 9/11, perhaps in some there was a need to question reality, either for the purpose of finding some better way to resolve conflicts or as a means of closing oneself off from the horrors of what is real. However, this doesn't explain the pre-9/11 "unreal-reality" of The Truman Show and The Matrix, both of were made in the later part of the 1990's. Maybe the rise of the various "reality" shows demonstrate in us a need to find something else beyond our ordinary lives, some "better" life, and because of the tools available to us today (the internet particularly) this has spawned some of the movies discussed in this article. There are no right or wrong answers, I suspect. However, exploring the question is fascinating in and of itself.
I suppose it was only a matter of time... http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/01/ebook.piracy/index.htmlIn many ways, its a terribly depressing time to be someone trying to make a living via creative endeavors such as music, art, or writing. While the internet and the technology related to it has afforded authors/musicians/artists a means of getting the word out about their works in a way that was impossible before (check out my very own ertorre.com for information about my books or art or whathaveyou!), the fact is that internet piracy and file sharing have also cost the same creative individuals plenty of residuals they should be making but are not. I recall back in the stone age, ie at the dawn of the CD, when people noted how Pink Floyd's album The Dark Side of the Moon was a regular heavy hitting seller via records. Why? Because records eventually got scratched or developed hisses and pops and those who loved the album had no choice but to buy it over and over again to hear it as it was intended to be. When the CDs took over, word of continuing sales of that album all but ended, I suspect because now people were able to buy the beloved album once and not have to return to their local music store (remember those?!) to pick up a new, "clean" copy. But with the internet and piracy, you don't even have to buy that album, or any album, should you be of the mind to simply "get it" free. Movies have been appearing online, even before they reached the theaters (see the Wolverine film) and it comes as little surprise, given the rising popularity of e-books, that now novels are starting to show up. My own novel Mechanic is available as an e-book via Kindle, but I've been reluctant to make my other novels available as well. And I've been debating whether to go that route with my new novel, which should be ready in the next couple of months. The world changes quickly, and I suspect that this problem will only get bigger with time. The only real solution is for the authors/artists/musicians to find alternative ways to make up for the lost revenue...or hope for some future, better protection of their copyright material.
It takes some guts to put together a list like this one: http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2009/12/14/most-overrated-movies-2009/I say this because Bryan Enk, the list's author, takes on plenty of films that were critical darlings (most were also box-office successes). And if you read the comments below the article, he's clearly getting a lot of folks steamed with his picks. I would note, however, that he states in the introduction to his list that many of these films are quite good. His opinion (and that's all it is, people) is that while they may be good, these films were sometimes wildly over-praised. Of those on the list, I've only seen a depressing two of them ( Star Trek and District 9). I've made my feelings regarding both films known previously. I tend to agree with Mr. Enk regarding Star Trek particularly. As time goes by I'm less and less impressed by the film, which I originally felt was a good but not great movie that seemed more intent on hitting every bit of Trekian lore and working in a way to have "old" Spock present when he didn't even have to be there. As for D9, I probably enjoyed that film overall more than ST, but I wouldn't say it was flawless. I picked up Drag Me To Hell on DVD, and borrowed a copy of The Hangover, so perhaps one day soon I can boldly claim to have seen four of the ten movies on this list!
By now, most people out there that were interested in seeing District 9 have done so. It was just released this past week on DVD and Blu Ray and I finally saw it. It was pretty damn good. Only a couple of nits to pick: 1) The violence toward the end got a little monotonous. Somewhat related to this is 2) the people who made the movie relied, I felt, a little too often on a character literally having a gun to their head and are this close to getting shot, only to have someone save them at the "last second". To my count, this occurred at least three times in the film, and twice would have been more than sufficient. Finally, 3) would humans really just leave that ginormous spacecraft floating up above the city for over twenty years and not have some human presence inside it, checking and re-checking it out while trying their best to figure out how the hell that ship manages to float, or what its capable of? Would they really just leave it up there, unguarded and unoccupied? Otherwise, as I said before, the film was pretty damn good, and well worth checking out. A while back, when the film was in the theaters, I posted a commentary by Daniel Engber at Slate.com lamenting what he called the "dull, anti-corporate politics" of the movie (you can check out my post and the link to his article here). While I think he is accurate in his comments, now that I've seen the film I feel he exaggerated this element of the story. Granted, the idea of an "evil" corporation has been around for a while, but given the context of the movie, this corporate intrusion is logical. The aliens have formidable weaponry, and it makes sense corporate interests (especially those in the lucrative market of war) would be VERY curious to get them working, regardless of who they have to run over to get those results.
But if the film is guilty of one major repetitive theme, its this one: The "fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people." I know, I know: Just what the heck does that mean?! For details, take a look at this fascinating article: http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatarThe concept, in a nutshell, is that there are many, many films out there that show a "white man" coming into contact with/submerging him/herself into a "downtrodden" race (be it American Indians, Africans, Oriental, etc. etc.) and, through the course of the story, this character, who at first may well shun the "lesser" race, comes to see the beauty in them, and becomes their champion. The article was prompted not by District 9, but rather Avatar, which featured a similar plot (mention is made to D9 rather quickly, however). This plot, or rather story theme, was also found in movies such as Dances With Wolves and A Man Called Horse. D9 doesn't quite go the full immersion route. Our "hero" loathes what he's becoming, and wants nothing more than to not be with the "prawns", even toward the end of the film. However, this doesn't stop him from being, essentially, their champion. Regardless, D9 is still worth taking a look at, even if it uses a couple of themes that are, perhaps, victims of overuse.
At least that's the point Mr. Brooks Peters makes: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brooks-peters/the-worst-christmas-movie_b_400543.htmlYou know, I have to disagree with him in respect to one element: Lady in the Lake (1947) is set around the Christmas season, but it really isn't a "Christmas Movie" like, say, A Christmas Carol or How the Grinch Stole Christmas. The Lady in the Lake is a Phillip Marlowe murder mystery (based on the Raymond Chandler novel of the same name) wherein the events have been set to around Christmas time (in the novel, the events do not occur during that time). As for the reviewer's opinion, I can't fault him too much. Raymond Chandler, for my money, made some of the best novels ever written, many of which were eventually made into film...with varying degrees of success. Regardless, you can't go too wrong reading either The Big Sleep, Lady in the Lake, The Long Goodbye, The Little Sister, or Farewell, My Lovely. As for the films, and off the top of my head... The Big Sleep was made into film at least twice, once with Humphrey Bogart, the other time with Robert Mitchum. While the Bogart version strayed from Mr. Chandler's novel (particularly toward the end), it was probably one of the best movie versions of a Chandler novel, and far better than the Mitchum version, which took certain liberties with the book's setting and time (the then modern London (?!) of 1978) yet stuck more closely with Chandler's story itself. Farewell, My Lovely was first made as Murder My Sweet and that film is quite excellent. Mr. Mitchum, in his first of two forays as Phillip Marlowe, took on the 1975 version of the film, titled Farewell, My Lovely, and did a really excellent job. The first version of the this book to reach the screen, however, was 1942's The Falcon Takes Over. Alas, I cannot comment of the film as I never saw it. James Garner took on the role of Phillip Marlowe in 1969's Marlowe, a film based on Chandler's The Little Sister. Bruce Lee has a terrific couple of scenes, but changing the time from 1940's L.A. to late 1960's L.A., with the hippy culture in vogue, is somewhat jarring. The High Window was made twice, as Time To Kill (1942) and The Brasher Doubloon (1947), but I have seen neither film. Finally, Robert Altman made a very oddball version of The Long Goodbye, with Elliot Gould in the title role, back in 1973. While many of these films are intriguing, other than the original The Big Sleep, Murder My Sweet, and the Mitchum Farwewell My Lovely, you need not look up many of the others, unless you're curious. However, I highly recommend checking out the books. They're well worth your time.
Now that Avatar has finally shown up (and, is it me, or did expectations simply get to high, a la Watchmen, and now that the film is here and it's "good" or, in some people's minds not so terribly good and certainly not earth-shattering, there is a sense of disappointment seeping into the internet?), there have appeared plenty of retrospectives concerning director James Cameron. One of the more fascinating bits to pop up concerns the fact that, after Terminator 2, Mr. Cameron was interested in making a Spider-Man film. This project was eventually aborted, as described here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/24/what-happened-to-james-camerons-spider-man-movie/But what I find most curious is the fact that the whole "organic" web slingers on Peter Parker was a concept that, apparently, originated with Mr. Cameron. Of the concepts that might have come from his original Spider-Man story ideas, this is the one I wish hadn't. Granted, plenty of time (and three Sam Raimi directed movies) has passed, so what's the big deal? Well, I always felt that by making Spider-Man's web slinging abilities something "organic", versus the comic book version where scientific nerd/brain Peter Parker devised artificial ones, "dumbed down" the character of Peter Parker. What made him so unique was the fact that he was so clever, that people didn't realize that behind his nerdy exterior he was capable of much. By making the webs he slung organic, suddenly anyone could have been Spider-Man, had they the fortune of being bitten by that radioactive spider. Ah well, as bothersome as it is on screen, at least we still have the comic books... ...or do we?
Alfred Hitchcock was very successful in 1944's Lifeboat by putting his cast into a very tight, confined space for the length of the movie and, despite this "impediment", creating a suspenseful film around that very close confinement. Since then, there have been attempts to create a film along those lines, wherein the protagonist(s) is/are confined to a tight space and suspense is built around their confinement ( Phone Booth and Open Water are a couple of more recent example). Now comes Frozen, a film that, at least from this preview, appears to focus on tension from a trio of youthful characters being stuck on...a ski chair lift. The trailer features a couple of positive reviewer quotes, but despite first upon first hearing and finding myself intrigued by this concept, the preview has left me decidedly underwhelmed...
The initial numbers seemed pretty healthy, yet I couldn't help but wonder if maybe they were a little weaker than, perhaps, the studios were hoping for: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1949044,00.htmlIt would seem that was the case, although the article notes that there were extenuating circumstances (a pretty heavy snowstorm) and lack of much serious competition (in the next few weeks, there may be only two films that may compete with Avatar for box office gold, while things clear up considerably after that and for several months), which may result in the film ultimately making its investment, and more, back.
...and it looks an awful lot like one of the ones director Christopher Nolan used for his Dark Knight film. See for yourself...
While I absolutely LOVE seeing a great movie, there's something about hearing people tearing apart a really bad film that...I don't know... After all, pretty much no one intends to make a bad film/story/book/song/etc. etc. Further, as hard as you might, sometimes things just don't work out the way you want/expect them to. But taking all that away, there's something undeniably humorous about reading about others' failures. So here you have it, the worst films of the past decade, according to The Huffington Post (readers and writer?): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/12/the-worst-movies-of-the-d_n_375849.htmlThe Happening was apparently so bad that it was listed twice! Also of note, there are several remakes on the list, including the horrific 2007 version of Sleuth ( the original movie was soooo good. I couldn't believe that director Kenneth Branaugh would mess such this up as badly as he did. And to get Michael Caine back, this time playing the movie's "other" big role, to boot, yet the result was nonetheless a disaster), Swept Away ( the original was a startling, original film that, for its time was also quite audacious. The Madonna remake, less so), and, finally, The Wicker Man (as with all the others, the original is a terrific, original work. The remake far inferior). Stick with the originals!
In case you've been in a cave the past year or two, James Cameron's Avatar will be released soon. Early word (it premiered in England) has been pretty positive: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/11/avatar.cameron.premiere.reaction/index.htmlI'm rather cool to the whole affair. I loved Cameron's first two "big" hits, the original Terminator and Aliens, but the movies after this, while not terrible by any stretch of the imagination (with the possible exception of True Lies, which was up and down and, overall, the only outright disappointment), haven't gripped me either. The more recent commercials for Avatar have me thinking this is a Dances With Wolves and (hardware wise, if anything) Aliens combo. The former has me really leery, and I'm not sold on an almost completely computer generated film. I like computer graphics as an enhancement (although at times it can be overwhelming and obvious...and not in a good way), but almost the entire film...I just don't know. But I'd be delighted to be proven such a hybrid can work! Quick update: This is what Owen Gleiberman at Entertainment Weekly thinks of the film. His review gives me pause, and confirms some of my fears regarding the film, yet curiously makes me also a little more eager to see it: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20326743,00.html
Almost hallucinogenic, flipping between The Devil's Rejects on IFC (never saw it before...don't think I will again) and the mighty Pittsburgh Steelers, last year's SuperBowl champions and a team many (including myself) thought would be a serious contender for the title this year, losing for the second week in a row to a very, very poor (at least record-wise) team, this time the Cleveland Browns. Now, before you assume I'm a fan of the Steelers...I'm not. In fact, them losing helps my team. However, it was astonishing to see them go down in the frigid temps of Cleveland. Ouch. As for The Devil's Rejects, one must commend director Rob Zombie for making something that looked like it came from another time, specifically the grindhouse era of the 1970's. But the film is pretty downbeat, and its tough to eventually "root" for the crazed killers that are the subject of this film. Essentially, the first half of the film these trio are the butchers. In the second (far better) half of the film, they become the victims and the audience is put in the uncomfortable position of...maybe...rooting for them to somehow survive. However, after that first half, I couldn't help but hope that the trio gets much, much more than they deserve and, alas, a deus ex machina comes into play that, at least to me, dissolves the whole thing. However, the very last sequence made up for that. At least Mr. Zombie seemed to know where and how this film should end. A disturbing experience, though, and certainly not for everyone (as if that isn't obvious by now)!
There was a time not so very long ago that actor Hugh Grant was a very, very hot commodity. That's not to say he isn't one today, only that at the time Extreme Measures (1996) was made, he was a fresh, hot young actor whom Hollywood courted, thinking him the next big thing. One memory sticks out, an interview with Mr. Grant wherein he notes that some of the scripts he's received were action films, requiring him to handle guns and shoot up things...and he wanted none of that. That memory sticks with me because it seemed that taking on an action film was a good way to elevate (and expand) his status from a leading man in the "romantic comedy" films he was mostly known for. While Mr. Grant never made (at least to this date) his version of a Bruce Willis film, he did venture into thriller territory with Extreme Measures. And while he didn't shoot a gun, he did find himself being shot at. I've always been curious to see this film, but never really had a chance to do so. When it popped up on cable a few nights ago, I caught a good part of the movie's opening. The other day I caught most of the rest. Extreme Measures is not a great film. Indeed, one could even qualify it as a "forgotten" film. I suppose it did OK at the box office, but reviews and audience reaction was muted and the film slipped away, despite featuring such big name actors as Mr. Grant, Gene Hackman, Sarah Jessica Parker, and, to boot, a delicious bad guy turn by the always reliable David Morse (also appearing in minor roles are J. K. Simmons and CSI's Paul Guifoyle). So what's the movie all about? It's basically a minor take on a previous, better medical thriller, Michael Chricton's Coma. In Coma, a doctor comes to realize that reasonably healthy patients at a hospital are suddenly, mysteriously taking a turn for the worse and winding up brain dead. After investigating, she finds that nefarious doings are going on, involving using the organs of these healthy individuals. In Extreme Measures, Hugh Grant plays Dr. Guy Luthan, an English (duh) Doctor in an American hospital who, similarly, finds some odd goings on in his wing. A patient dies and his body disappears. The Doctor investigates, and his apartment is subsequently broken into and he's framed for drug use. His career destroyed (perhaps a little too quickly), Dr. Luthan presses on, eventually discovering that there is a group out there conducting experiments on "disposable" people (ie, the homeless). Unlike Coma, the Doctor behind this hopes to cure spinal cord injuries and paralysis. However, his means are, naturally, all wrong, as they involve kidnapping and experimenting on human beings against their will. The film presents a truly riveting conclusion. The confrontation between Gene Hackman's Dr. Myrick and Mr. Grant's Dr. Luthan is high energy stuff. However, the film itself suffers from far too many contrivances, and these, in the end, undo what good the film had to offer. For example, two people escape from Dr. Myrick's clutches. One of them essentially "bump into" Dr. Luthan and set him up for his fall, while the other is required to appear later in the film so that Dr. Luthan can get even closer to the bad guys. Two and two people alone were needed to make the movie "work", and that is all the ones that somehow escaped Dr. Myrick. Further, Sarah Jessica Parker's character originally appears to be your standard "romantic interest" who will help our hero triumph. Then she (SPOILER!) betrays him. Then, because the plot demands it, she repents and helps him. Huh?! Without getting too much more into the film, let me leave by saying this: Extreme Measures is far from the worst film ever made. Clearly the director was hoping to emulate Alfred Hitchcock (some of the more suspenseful scenes scream the master's influence). But while Mr. Hitchcock was clever in the way he dealt with plot contrivances (in lesser hands, Mr. Hitchcock's North by Northwest could have been a complete disaster), director Michael Apted isn't quite as successful. Still, as a time killer one rainy afternoon, you could do far worse than this film.
Interesting article, if you're curious about the Spider-Man films... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43313If this is accurate in any way, John Malkovich as the Vulture is fine. But...the Vulturess...?!?! What the...?
Told you there would be plenty of "best of the decade" lists coming. This one is from Entertainment Weekly. They offer their best films of the past decade: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20321301_20324027,00.htmlI think they cheated with their number one choice. It was three movies, not one! I was pleased to find that of the films listed, I've seen seven of their choices. I've also noted their choices tended to skewer to more "popular" films, though, and I wonder if any other "best of the decade" lists will include films like 40 Year Old Virgin or Dark Knight. Both are good, but are they really examples of the greatest films of the decade? One film that I very much disagree about: Gladiator. Warmed over Spartacus, if you ask me. While there's no doubt Gladiator cleaned up in the box office and many gave it good reviews, I never understood what the fuss was about, especially when comparing the film with the Stanley Kubrick/Kirk Douglas epic it clearly tried to emulate. (Then again, after Airplane! its hard to watch these films with a straight face).
I dunno...sounds to me like people just upset that a star they like was in a very, very bad film (in their opinions, of course): http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20323486,00.htmlOn the other hand, how does one explain Steve Martin in the Pink Panther films?! Seriously, the role belongs to one and only one actor and that's Peter Sellers. Moreso than James Bond, perhaps on the par with Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau simply can't be anyone else, despite attempts to either replace him or follow up on the series. Alan Arkin played the character in the dreary 1968 film Inspector Clouseau, then Ted Wass playing a bumbling counterpart to Clouseau in Curse of the Pink Panther, while Roberto Benigni tried, and failed, to play Clouseau's son in the (at least appropriately titled) Son of the Pink Panther. But then comes Steve Martin, an actor and comedian I've found delightful for many years. I simply couldn't stomach his interpretation of...whatever it was he was trying to do. And John Cleese was somehow involved in the sequel, too?! Oy.
I still recall sitting in the theater, alternately bored and confused and...now and again, though not often enough...entertained by The Black Hole. This was Disney's first "PG" rated film, no doubt because of one character's rather grisly death. But the film was something of a mongrel. At times there were the "cutesy" Disney touches (particularly the smaller robots with waaaay too much personality) along with a Captain Nemo-esq villain and his fearsome robot. There were the wholesome heroes and an ending that appeared designed to rip off 2001: A Space Odyssey as shamelessly (yet far more incoherently) as possible. So now we have the possibility that the makers of the new Tron film (the original Tron film was Disney's second foray into more "adult" sci-fi and came three years after The Black Hole) are interested in revisiting The Black Hole: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/30/tron-legacy-team-to-remake-disneys-the-black-hole/Wonder if they'll include the original movie's single best effect (IMHO), the crashing asteroid/meteor (can be found at about the 4:30 second mark of this clip): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb1r0mobgsM
Fascinating article by Bob Sullivan: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/12/laptop-computers-examined-by-border-guards-looking-for-pirated-software-ipods-seized-at-airport-security-lines-on-mere-suspi.htmlOn the one hand, I can understand the need to do something about copyright piracy. The fact is that right now, to many there is no reason at all to bother legally buying any music, and movie piracy is certainly on the rise. The amount of money both music and movie companies lose as a result of this is astronomical and, worse, may lead to less investment in future products and, thus, less for consumers to enjoy. I think I've said this before: Imagine if a new band with the potential to be, as the cliche goes, the "next" Beatles comes around, but because their initial album sells poorly, perhaps in part because of illegal downloading, the company supporting them decides to release them. Similarly, why would a movie company invest millions of dollars into a film when profits diminish because people can illegally download the film often on the very day it is released into theaters? Worse, some films ( Wolverine or the Ang Lee Hulk film) found their way online even before their official release! HOWEVER, having said all that, some of the proposals being floated in the article linked above are, frankly, scary. I worry when agencies that are not in law enforcement are granted law enforcement privileges. While I doubt that there will be a "laptop and iPod" check at the borders (there are simply too many people with said items traveling each day), some of the other possibilities are no less chilling. Then again, one is reminded of the myth of Pandora's Box. Once opened, its so very hard to close it again...
One of my favorite sci-fi subgenres: Bleak futures. Entertainment Weekly offers a list of 22 bleak sci-fi futures. Many of the usual suspects can be found there, and a couple of strange choices ( Back to the Future II?!): http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20322864,00.htmlRather than comment on the films that are there, allow me to note some omissions: Beneath the Planet of the Apes but no Planet of the Apes?! Of course, I'm referring to the original film, not the Tim Burton remake. Perhaps the people in EW thought including 2 Charlton Heston films was enough. However, many would argue that of the three 1960's/1970's era sci-fi dystopias Mr. Heston was involved in, this was the best! Also missing: Rollerball, the original 1975 version. And how about 1960's The Time Machine, based on H. G. Wells' novel, which is arguably one of the first modern novels to deal with the idea of a very bleak (far) future. Then there's Robocop, the original Terminator (granted, most of the film was set in the then present time, but the threat to the present comes from a very bleak future), and, of course, 1984 (the similarly themed Gattaca and Brazil get included, but this film, featuring the last movie role for the great Richard Burton, should be listed as well, IMHO). One final bleak futuristic film: Dr. Strangelove. How much bleaker (and, paradoxically, funnier) can you get?!
This list focuses on the dollars and cents, the movies that cost a bundle to make and, for all that investment, made very little in return: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091127/film_nm/us_decade_flopsMost of these films are considered quite bad (At least six, perhaps even seven, received near unanimous bad reviews). Of the remaining, I suspect Grindhouse received perhaps the best overall reviews, although I can certainly understand why this film "flopped". In my opinion, Planet Terror, the first feature, was an entertaining -if pretty disposable/forgettable- blood n' gore fest. Death Proof, for about twenty glorious minutes at the tail end of the film, was phenomenal. Unfortunately, you had to sit through roughly an hour and a half of very, very dull setup before reaching the good stuff. Another listed film, Land of the Lost, was THE notorious flop of the past summer movie season. I found the film's box office fall curious, as the commercials for the film appeared (to me) very amusing. When I finally got to see the film, I was surprised to find it an enjoyable lark, a movie with tongue planted firmly in cheek. It was an amiable comedy that, for some reason, reminded me a bit of Tropic Thunder, at least in its general comedic tone. Ah well, they can't all be winners.
This amusing link offers a list of 10 movies whom msnbc.com readers consider "real turkeys": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34133368/ns/entertainment-movies/Some may disagree with some of the choices, particularly Pulp Fiction. For the most part, I'm in the camp that enjoyed the film, though I know there are those who think its crap. In fact, the only sequence I felt wasn't all that good in the film was the one involving Bruce Willis...it started out well (I especially liked the way he "meets" John Travolta's character...this clearly shows us the film's non-linear storytelling and adds a certain gravity to Travolta's character's subsequent appearances). However, that particular sequence, which started very strong with a mapcap Christopher Walken bit of dialogue (arguably the movie's high point!), rapidly descended into waaaay too much coincidence and silly humor for my taste. However, I certainly wouldn't put this film into the hall of shame. One on the list that certainly fits for me is Eyes Wide Shut, master director Stanley Kubrick's final film. While it may not be one of the all time worst films I've ever seen, it certainly is one of the biggest disappointments I've ever had. I'm a HUGE Stanley Kubrick fan, but for the life of me I can't understand why he chose to make this film. The fact that it wound up being his swan song further disappoints. I wish he had ended his fantastic career with something...anything...more worthwhile. When I think about all the movies I've seen (and there have been a bunch), the one that I most recall as a terrible experience has to be the little remembered 1991 Gene Hackman- Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio film Class Action. I've seen plenty of bad, bad films, but this one falls in the rare category of being so thoroughly boring to the point that I had to walk out. Trust me, that's a rare event. Hell, I sat through the atrocious Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (also featuring Gene Hackman...coincidence...or not?!), and as truly terrible as that film was, it at least had me laughing at times at the sheer silliness presented (my favorite: the hitherto unknown "rebuild the Great Wall of China with a glare" superpower). Class Action, on the other hand, was humorless, uninteresting, and (I repeat) BORING. The plot was silly and incredibly unlikely to happen in the real world: Father and daughter lawyers take opposite sides in a case. Worse, WE DON'T CARE. Stay clear.
A little while back I noted that Michael Connelly's novel The Lincoln Lawyer was being made into a film (posted here). At the time, Tommy Lee Jones was listed as the director while Matthew McConaughey was to play the lead role. Tommy Lee Jones, however, was to play a smaller, undisclosed role in the film, and I was very curious who he would play. My guess was that he would play Vietnam veteran and LAPD detective Harry Bosch, Mr. Connelly's primary hero throughout most of his novels (his appearance in The Lincoln Lawyer amounted to a cameo, which made sense when Mr. Jones' role was listed as a small one). However, you can now scratch all that: Tommy Lee Jones is off the project... http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118011757.html?categoryId=13&cs=1Creative differences. I can't help but wonder if the tone of the book was lightened for Mr. McConaughey, whose most successful films tended to be romantic comedies (I know he has delved into more serious works. I'm only noting that his biggest money makers were in that genre, and I can see the script adaptation of The Lincoln Lawyer possibly being worked to that end. However, this is all speculation on my part). Btw, Mr. McConaughey recently starred as Dirk Pitt in Sahara, a movie based on the novel by Clive Cussler. I only mention this because its an example of a movie adapted to the personality of its lead actor (Compare him to Richard Jordan in the 1980 movie Raise the Titanic. They played the same character).
I've been curious about this film since first hearing about it, but began worrying after repeated delays in its release that perhaps the producers and or studio backing it were having second thoughts about its viability in the market. This article, from msnbc.com, offers a look behind the scenes of marketing the film, noting that because of its dark subject matter it presents a challenge to try to get people to see it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34096601/ns/entertainment-movies/I'm still interested in seeing the movie, however, because of the delays I'm rather leery of the ultimate quality of the film. I can accept that the film is depressing and/or downbeat, but I worry that the film may not be all that good, either. However, note that in the article they state that the film has received an acceptable 78% (now, as I write these comments, its at a still respectable 74%) from Rotten Tomatoes.
One of the very earliest childhood memories I have is of the TV show UFO. Specifically, two thing: 1) An alien with an environmental suit gets his mask cracked, and rather than air a dark liquid flows out of it, sending the alien running into the woods, holding the mask (if this memory is from another show, then forgive me for the mix up...but I think this was from it). 2) I also recall Ed Bishop as the stoic, almost bizarre Cmd. Ed Straker. I specifically recalled his almost new wave look and strange blond hair (Being so young when I saw the show first, I had no idea about things like...wigs). I have the first DVD set of the show and have managed to work my way through most of it and other, hazy recollections come back now and again. The odd headquarters buried under a movie studio, the moon base (later reworked into Space: 1999). The show was fun and weird, a great combination, even though I'd be the first it also shows its age (the original series debuted in 1970 and took place in the far flung future of...1980). Now, Joshua Jackson of Fringe is on board a movie remake of the show. I'm curious: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/22/joshua-jackson-sticking-with-the-supernatural-starring-in-adaptation-of-british-tv-series-ufo/
First off, its been a busy couple of days and I've had to leave the internet to take care of other things. However, on the plus side, there hasn't been all that much interesting news/items to post about, and I feel rather refreshed. So, without further ado... Entertainment Weekly's Kate Ward offers a mini-commentary and interesting question: What TV or movie death scenes have left you disappointed? http://popwatch.ew.com/2009/11/21/disappointing-death-scenes-2012/There are two I can think of right off the bat (and there may be others, given time). However, considering that revealing the death scenes of these two particulars is major SPOILER material, I'll warn you right now: Read no further if you don't want to hear some major SPOILERS regarding To Live and Die In L.A. and The Departed. SPOILERS FOLLOW You've been warned! To Live and Die In L.A.: Before actor William Peterson achieved considerable success in C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation, he starred in a couple of pretty good police films in the 1980's. My favorite is Manhunter, the first film to feature Hannibal Lector (although Brian Cox, not Anthony Hopkins, played the character). Runner up is To Live and Die In L.A., director William Friedkin's return to one of the two genres (the other being horror) that really made him a star. TL&DILA is, alas, not up to the director's The French Connection, but it is a decent enough (though sleazy as hell) journey into the world of the secret service, focusing on two agents tracking down a big time counterfeiter. Now, if you've seen the film before, it comes as no surprise whose death I'm referring to as "disappointing". For most of the film, William Peterson's Richard Chance is presented as the "hero" of the film. His partner experiences the just-about-to-retire-from-the-force-and-is-killed-by-the-big-baddie movie cliche, so Richard Chance and his new partner are out to get the bad guy, whatever the cost. We're drawn to Peterson's Richard Chance because he is groomed as the movie's central character. It is shocking, then, when he suddenly is killed, leaving the more inexperienced partner to clean up the mess and prove he can play with the big boys. Now, I don't mind that Mr. Friedkin was trying to shock us with Peterson's character's death. Indeed, it shook the film up. However, the way it was done was so...lame. They had the jump on the bad guys and it seemed so silly the way he died. Almost like the people behind the camera wanted us to be shocked. Alas, that left the audience without a true lead to root for (no offense to actor John Pankow, but his character was a mess, IMHO, and hard to root for in the movie's final act...also, note the trailer for the film, embedded below...any mention of John Pankow's character there? Nope. It's all about Richard Chance). Still, if you're in the mood for a police drama that is a little off the beaten path, I can't condemn TL&DILA. It's worth your while, although if you have a choice in the matter, give The French Connection a whirl first. The Departed: When this movie, director Martin Scorsese's remake of the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, premiered, I was intrigued. The talent behind and in front of the camera, plus the fact that it was a crime drama (one of my favorite genres) made it a must see. I was so disappointed. Don't get me wrong: The film wasn't a disaster. But considering the plot, I felt this should have been a film that had you biting your fingernails with the buildup in tension. Instead, I found the movie curiously directionless, like a boat without a rudder. The plot? Two youths grow up and become infiltrators in, respectively, the Boston Mob and the Boston P.D. One works for the police, the other for the mob. Their "jobs" and "real jobs" force them to slowly circle each other, feeling their way closer and closer to the realization of who is who. Only that's not the way the movie went. For one, Leonardo DiCaprio's mob infiltrator character was a flawed, tormented character who we expected to...I don't know, grow up and take command of his job, his life...whatever. Meanwhile, Matt Damon's Boston P.D. infiltrator was infinitely more interesting (and no less conflicted) but, unfortunately, his time on screen is minor compared to DiCaprio. So we're expecting DiCaprio's character to do something, to go somewhere, and then, when he finally confronts Damon...he's shot dead. Like Richard Chance in TL&DILA, so much time is invested in DiCaprio's character that when he was gone, we're left wondering who exactly we're supposed to root for now. Unlike Richard Chance, however, DiCaprio's character is not quite as engaging to begin with and all the unfulfilled potential is left...unfulfilled.
The link to the article is here: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/17/hollywoods-most-overpaid-stars-business-entertainment-overpaid-stars.htmlHowever, for some reason when you click on the link to see the complete list, you're escorted elsewhere and not given the list. Thankfully, someone in the comments was kind enough to provide the full list, although I'm curious, based on the article above, just how much bang for their buck the others make (or rather, given this dubious listing, how little they subsequently make for their salaries). No. 1 (Worst) Will Ferrell No. 2 Ewan McGregor No. 3 Billy Bob Thornton No. 4 Eddie Murphy No. 5 Ice Cube No. 6 Tom Cruise No. 7 Drew Barrymore No. 8 Leonardo DiCaprio No. 9 Samuel L. Jackson No. 10 Jim Carrey
Interesting little EW list of John Woo's thoughts on ten of his films, noting what made some successful and others not so much: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20320487,00.htmlMr. Woo's Hong Kong films were quite terrific, particularly Hard Boiled and, especially to me, The Killer. I wish some of his American films approached that level of action and quality. I hope one day The Killer makes its way to Blu-Ray...(I suspect if someone wanted to present "every single death" in this film, a la Total Recall, you'd get something closely approaching the original film's running time!
There was a part of me intrigued with the new movie The Box (no, I haven't seen it...I think the last movie I saw in theaters was Star Trek, and before that...who knows). The reason was simple: It was based on a short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson. Looking through Mr. Matheson's resume is impressive enough, but if he were only responsible for the short story "Duel", which became the basis for Steven Spielberg's first big movie success of the same name, then that alone would make me a fan of his for life. So when I heard director Richard Kelly (best known for Donnie Darko) was making a film version of the Matheson story, I was intrigued, even more so because Mr. Kelly's Donnie Darko was a very pleasant surprise of a film. Even with its downbeat and oddball ending, the characters and situations were original and enjoyable. However, there was a part of me that was ambivalent, for before The Box, Mr. Kelly followed up Donnie Darko with... Southland Tales. Those few who have seen Southland Tales from start to end...I salute you. It represents (despite the talent before the camera) one of those very few films that I simply can't make it through, despite at least four attempts (to date, its been showing up on cable) to do so. The most I've made it is some twenty or so minutes before giving up, despite the fact that the film seems like it should be up my alley. In some ways, Southland Tales reminds me of a very dense comic book along the lines of American Flagg! It presents a satirical futuristic U.S. reality but, unlike American Flagg!, is simply too dense and strange without being engaging or interesting enough. The poor box office and critical reaction to Southland Tales appeared to have a sobering effect on Mr. Kelly. He noted in interviews he wanted to take a step back and try making a "smaller" film with The Box, one with a tighter focus and less extravagant/lofty plot overreach. And yet, it appears his latest film has receiving at least one distinctly unappealing record, scoring an "F" across all demographics in the Cinemascore ratings: http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=54579&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=aNot to kick Mr. Kelly while he's down, but the film's opening box office for the movie was also decidedly weak, which bodes badly for its eventual monetary take (and subsequent faith investors will have on future Richard Kelly movies). On the plus side, several critics were kind, and on Rotten Tomatoes it's hovering near 50% approval ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10009151-box/). So, despite the bad taste Southland Tales has left, I'm still intrigued enough to see The Box. Looks like I'll wait for the eventual cable showings...
Seriously, they hit the nail on the head here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/222503Just about every individual mentioned in this list may have had their humorous moments now and again, but their overall, continued draw after many years has me scratching my head.
This is the type of news that makes me scratch my head: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/14/william-friedkin-and-william-peter-blatty-reteaming-for-an-exorcist-remake/I suppose, based on the quotes from author William Peter Blatty, that there might be something to re-doing The Exorcist as a mini-series, and I suppose producers might get excited about having director William Friedkin take another run at one of the two properties (the other being The French Connection) that really put him on the map. But, as with the rumored remake of The Fly by the original remake director David Cronenberg, I'm terribly ambivalent about such a project. At least with Mr. Cronenberg, his recent output has been quite good. Sadly, the same cannot be said about Mr. Friedkin, whose work following The French Connection and The Exorcist has been up and down (note in the article linked to above the comments the /Film people have regarding the Blu Ray release of The French Connection, too). So, a part of me is intrigued at the thought of adding sequences and a "better" ending. Another part of me is very worried...the TV mini-series remake of The Shining proved very inferior to Kubrick's film, despite the fact that it was made, one supposes, to make a version of The Shining that was closer to the novel. On the other hand, if the same director and author are supposedly involved, can lighting strike twice?
Made it half-way through watching the Blu-Ray edition of Alfred Hitchcock's North By Northwest (1959) and boy is this film a beauty to finally see in high definition (I've seen it many times before, but this is the way it should be seen). A warning to those who haven't seen it: The plot remains completely silly (I can't help imagining what would happen if I were to submit such a story to publishers or agents unfamiliar with this great film's mostly tongue in cheek storyline), but the dialogue is so damn crisp and alternately laugh out loud funny and sexy and tense and...look, its a great film, even if the plot itself is pretty loopy. It is also my understanding is that it was a big inspiration for the James Bond films that first appeared only a few years later ( From Russia With Love, the second of the Bond films, features Bond on foot being pursued by a helicopter in a sequence that is suspiciously similar to NBN's most famous sequence, involving a cropduster). Mr. Hitchcock's career was filled with one brilliant film after another. Some were better than others, of course, but the films he released immediately before and immediately after NBN indicate this was his last great creative hurrah ( Vertigo came before, Psycho and The Birds afterwards). After The Birds, it appeared the great director's career never quite reached the same dizzying heights. He would make five more films after The Birds, and while none of them were terrible, neither were they quite as memorable as what came before. Regardless, the Blu-Ray version of North By Northwest is well worth checking out, if you're so inclined.
Movie producer Joel Silver has had the Sgt. Rock property for like...forever. I recall many years ago there was talk that Arnold Schwarzenegger was being pursued to play the role (I could imagine as the movie progressed all the nervous men in his charge would constantly ask him who pitches for the Yankees or what's the capital of New York or what part of Kansas did he really come from). Anyway, it appears that Mr. Silver is still at it, and according to this article, they may move Sgt. Rock from the front lines of WWII into the...FUTURE!!! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43018I don't know about that...
I mentioned before that a film that isn't available on DVD (that I'm aware of) that I'd like to get is The House By The Lake (aka Death Weekend). However, another film, this one from 1975, is also very high on the list of films I'd love to get my hands on: The Reincarnation of Peter Proud. Adapted from the novel by Max Ehrlich (who also wrote the movie's screenplay) and featuring Michael Sarrazin, Jennifer O'Neil, and Margot Kidder, the movie focuses on Peter Proud (Sarrazin) a man who has nightmares of being murdered while on a row boat in a lake. This leads to his finding the place where he "died", and the possibility that he may well be the reincarnation of another man, the man in his dreams. Will history repeat itself? I've only seen this movie twice, the last time over a decade ago, and both times it got to me. Now, it appears that director David Fincher ( Seven, Fight Club) has his eyes set on making a new version of the film: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/08/david-fincher-directing-adaptation-of-the-reincarnation-of-peter-proud/I'm ambivalent about a remake of this film, but if it means we'll see the DVD (or Blu Ray) release of the original, I'm all in favor! Rooting around YouTube, I found this, the opening couple of minutes of the original film...
A list from Entertainment Weekly: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20302680,00.htmlI've seen most of the film, and it occurs to me that while I enjoy animation (and animated films), I may not be the medium's biggest fan. Don't get me wrong, I like them, but its hard, at least for me, to build up all that much excitement over their list. Still, I did enjoy Wall-E quite a bit. The Iron Giant was good, but I think it's a little overrated. Same goes with Akira, a film I enjoyed but only really took the first part of the graphic novels (thus ending rather abruptly). One film not on the list (and, no, I don't think it belongs there, either) is Heavy Metal. When I was younger, it was a stunning thing to see in the theaters. It was the first time I ever saw an animated film that was "R" rated, and for very good reason. It also featured what I felt was a pretty kick ass musical score. But, of course, the film had its moments and then there were other moments which weren't all that good. The animation also varied, although I loved the opening sequence as well as the Harry Canyon and Gunner's Dream stories.
I'm always fascinated by movies that create divergent opinions. Precious, a new film out very soon, has been getting pretty good reviews (including some praising the work of singer Mariah Carey, in a supporting role. One of her previous film ventures was Glitter, which drew much derision). I ran across this review praising the hell out of the film:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42990
Then, I ran across this review: http://www.slate.com/id/2234728/The contrarian in me appreciated the later article's title alone. Whether the film is good or bad, of course, depends on your own personal viewpoint. Just thought it interesting to see the contrast.
Interesting mini-article from Entertainment Weekly which posits the question: When is a very bad movie so bad its actually good? http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/11/05/craptastic-or-crap-how-do-you-tell-the-difference/There are a few I could list that fit that definition, at least to me. One that sits high on the list is Lifeforce (1985) (I would also put the hallucinogenic action/philosophy fest On Deadly Ground, mentioned a couple of postings ago in the list as well). Lifeforce involves alien vampires, the end of the world, zombies (or zombie vampires, I guess), space shuttles, a beautiful naked woman who walks around a lot, and Steve Railsback ( Patrick Stewart, pre-Star Trek: The Next Generation, also makes an appearance). Not necessarily in that order. It's a movie so out there that you can't help but laugh. Or cry.
Here's a handy dandy rundown of the various "versions" of the film available or, rather, the various "collectible" sets which will be offered (and where): http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/11/05/star-trek-dvdblu-ray-retail-exclusives/You know, as time goes by I find myself less and less impressed with the Star Trek re-boot movie. It was a competent enough production, it was well acted, it featured decent special effects...but it wasn't anything at all we hadn't seen before. Still, I have faith in J. J. Abrams and company. After getting this one out of the way, perhaps the next ones will be more original and exciting.
Just found this website the other day, and its a hoot: http://www.avclub.com/features/my-year-of-flops/Basically, our intrepid reviewer is spending a year going over very, very bad films, and offering his hilarious insights into them. Was particularly amused by the Roman Polanski (yeah, that guy) forgotten film What? Until that review, I had never heard of the film. Sounds...uh...strange. http://www.avclub.com/articles/polanskitastic-sickfuck-case-file-149-what,34678/The other one I would point you out to (but, please, feel free to read through them all!) is the Steven Seagal turkey On Deadly Ground. I actually paid money back in 1994 to see that one in the theaters when it was released (it must have been a fairly boring day and the cinemas must not have been showing much, as I was never a particularly big fan of Mr. Seagal and, other than the much more critically accepted/audience-approved Under Siege, these are the only two films of his I ever saw of in the theaters). On Deadly Ground has to be one of the worst "action" films ever. I put the word "action" in quotes because truly it seemed Mr. Seagal (who directed as well as starred in this film) seemed intent on making some kind of larger spiritual message while kicking all kinds of ass. Michael Caine, who I usually absolutely love, is horrible in this film as the villain, an oil man who wants to pollute a pristine Alaskan bay (or somesuch) with his oil drills. So, to prevent that, our hero blows the whole thing sky high, no doubt ensuring the bay is polluted for years to come. And, even more hilarious/sad...check out the fact that despite numerous fist and gun fights, no one lays even one fist on Steven Seagal. Not once! It's amazing the man didn't walk on water at some point in the film, as well... http://www.avclub.com/articles/earthfriendly-case-file-130-on-deadly-ground,23400/For the masochists out there, here's the trailer to On Deadly Ground:
Ah Blu-Ray. Gotta love the good transfers (as opposed to the lesser quality ones out there...read up and check!). But there remain many films unavailable, at least until now, on Blu-Ray. dvdfile.com presents their list of top 10 animated films they would like to see on Blu: http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/blu-ray-wishlist-the-ten-most-wanted-animated-films-89337Frankly, I was expecting many, many Disney films listed, but the folks at dvdfile offered a fairly diverse list of films/tv shows/what-have-you. Some, though, I wonder if they would truly be worth the Blu-Ray treatment. I mean, nothing against South Park, but the animation is purposely crude...would it really be worth seeing it in a crystal clear format? Same goes, at least for me, with The Simpsons (of course, there's a whole other issue for me regarding that show. I used to love the hell out of it, but somewhere down the line...perhaps season 6 or 7, I grew tired of it. I bought the DVDs as they came out, up to roughly that time, but have yet to watch any of them.) On the other hand, Futurama would be interesting to see in HD, if only for the wild backgrounds (the characters are on the level of The Simpsons). But missing from their list, inexplicably and bafflingly, are any of the wonderful Warner Brothers short collections. Come on! Wouldn't you love to see Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, Wile E. Coyote & the Roadrunner, et al in HD? Wouldn't it be incredible to see the works of animation giants such as Chuck Jones, Friz Freleng, Tex Avery, etc. etc. etc. in full high definition?! How could they forget them?!
I'm always fascinated by critics and their reactions to whatever it is they are reviewing. Opinions vary, of course, and sometimes people's opinions change over time (I recall two interesting instances in Siskel & Ebert's At the Movies review show. In the first, they reviewed both Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket and Benji: The Hunted on the same episode. If memory serves, Mr. Siskel was incredulous when Mr. Ebert gave Benji a "thumbs up" but panned Full Metal Jacket. Mr. Siskel couldn't understand Mr. Ebert's reasoning, that Benji was a satisfactory movie "for its intended audience" but that Kubrick's Vietnam War film was a miss. Later on, the duo had an episode that, again if memory serves, focused on films they were wrong about the first time around. Mr. Siskel admitted that he was wrong when he originally panned another great Vietnam War epic, Apocalypse Now). Which brings us to this article from Owen Gleibman, for Entertainment Weekly. He originally panned the vampire film Let The Right One In, a film that has apparently developed a very healthy cult status, and decided after receiving plenty of irate comments regarding that original review, to give the film a second chance. Did he like it this time around? See for yourself: http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/10/31/let-the-right-one-in-yes-i-saw-it-again/Of the many, many films I've seen, there are probably only two of them I can say I truly changed my mind 180 degrees from my original impressions. When I first saw Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, I was unimpressed. For years I thought this film was the single most over-rated Hitchcock film ever. And even back then I was a pretty big fan of Hitchcock's films! One day, I saw the film once again and, suddenly, I "got it". This film was Alfred Hitchcock's version of all those 50's "giant animals attack" movies that came before. Only instead of using a giant, scary creature (like a tarantula, an octopus, ants, etc.) he used a common creature that most view as completely not scary. Further, he didn't bother having the animals irradiated or enlarged: They retained their size and only presented a threat because of their overwhelming numbers. Lastly, Mr. Hitchcock ended the film the opposite way that the other creatures on the loose films ended: With a decidedly downbeat end of the world scenario. Chilling! The other film I originally didn't like, but has over time become (yes) perhaps my all time favorite horror film is Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. When it was originally released in 1980, I went with my father to see it. Frankly, I was bored. The scares were there, but there were so few, and Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall were so weird and annoying. But then, the show kept popping up on TV, and I would catch bits and pieces of it here and there. Years after, I finally sat down and watched it from start to end and, like The Birds, I finally got it. Watching The Shining is like dipping into an eerie, creepy nightmare. A great, great movie.
Halloween is upon us, and articles concerning horror movies and the odd are popping up. This one is particularly intriguing, an article concerning abandoned places (there are even websites devoted to showing images from such places. They're described in the article and I'll have to look them over. There's something so sad, and intriguing (at least to me) about abandoned places: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33421753/ns/travel-destinations/The article reminds me of the movie Carnival of Souls. It featured the abandoned (and very stunning) Saltair Pavillion, and is a worthy cult movie (although, like many older films, the "punch" and "surprise" of its plot/ending may be a little softened by the passage of time and other, similar films that followed. Still, very much worth a look.
If you've seen my list of 14 films to see (click here) you'll know that my first three (and top three) films of all time are 2001: A Space Odyssey, Orphee, and.... Metropolis (ha! Bet that last little bit of information took you completely by surprise!). For those who don't know, Metropolis (1927) is a legendary silent German science fictional film directed by the equally legendary Fritz Lang. When the film was originally made, it was very expensive and maybe a bit too long (at least to the studios, who were eager, naturally to recoup their cash). Following the premiere, which featured the director's cut of the film, other hands went to work cutting the film down, time-wise. As the decades passed, various versions of the film were available, but the "director's" original cut was nowhere to be found and feared lost forever. Until the mid eighties, you could only find very scratchy bootlegs of the film. Then, Giorgio Moroder released his version of the film, which included some lost scenes and a (to me anyway) pretty damn good 80's soundtrack (your feelings about this soundtrack may vary, but I enjoyed it). However, this only increased my interest in seeing the version of the film Fritz Lang himself created. A couple of years ago Kino films released the, up until that time, more complete version of the film, but even that version featured some "information cards" describing scenes thought lost forever. Until last year, when to the surprise of everyone a complete 16 mm copy of Metropolis was finally found in Buenos Aires. Since that time, I've been eagerly waiting to hear word of the fully restored version of this favorite film of mine. Well, it appears we're getting close to that day: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/29/the-lost-cut-of-metropolis-to-play-at-the-berlinale/Kino was, if memory serves, planning to release a Blu-Ray edition of the film when the uncut version was found...I'm hoping this Blu-Ray edition will follow shortly afterwards (and how about they include the Giorgio Moroder version, as well?!)...
...So I'm walking through Target, seeing if maybe, just maybe they have the brand spanking new and highly desired (at least by me) blu-ray edition of The Prisoner (they didn't), and what do I see? Why, the DVD of Zack and Miri. Wait a minute...wasn't the Kevin Smith comedy film actually called Zack and Miri Make a Porno? That's what IMDB calls it. So I checked on Amazon.com. Was the film formally retitled so as to not make the common man (and woman) mistakenly think they're buying something...icky? This is what Amazon has:  And this is what you can find at Target (and, apparently, at Walmart too):  Now, I know the film received pretty good reviews (didn't see it myself...I like Kevin Smith's Clerks, the rest of his films vary, IMHO). If memory serves, the movie's box office proved rather mediocre, and I recall that some newspapers nixed the "Make a Porno" part of the title and called the movie the rather bland "Zack and Miri". Looks like that skittishness worked its way into the DVD releases.
What do you think? http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/top-ten-horror-flicks-of-all-time-88761Two of my favorite two horror films are, as I've mentioned before, the original 1922 Nosferatu and The Shining, with very honorable mention to the original Alien, a film so scary that the (mostly) symbolic TV commercial (featuring an egg not seen in the film itself!) was enough to scare the hell out of you. If we distinguish between horror and "suspense", then there's the Spielberg duo of Duel and Jaws (although perhaps I'm making too fine a distinction with the later film in particular).
A while ago I presented a list of favorite films by comic book artist Dave ( Watchmen) Gibbons. The list was only OK (and forgive me for being too lazy to sort through my previous posts and present a link to that particular posting). Anyway, here we have director Wes Craven's ( Scream, Nightmare on Elm Street) list of films that, in his opinion, "Shook him up". Some intriguing ones are presented, for sure: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20310838_20314742,00.htmlHis first choice, in particular, Blow Up, is a fascinating film. I wouldn't qualify it as one of my all time favorites, but it certainly is a great mind trip. And how can anyone not love The Yardbirds (with an almost impossibly young Jimmy Page on guitars) musical interlude within the film?
Is nothing sacred?! http://chud.com/articles/articles/21274/1/IS-LEONARDO-DICAPRIO-THE-THIRD-MAN/Page1.htmlSeriously, though, The Third Man is among the greats: Great cinematography, great acting, and a gripping plot. Orson Welles stated he loved the role of Harry Lime in spite of the relatively small screen time his character has. Why? Because for most of the film the other characters are talking about him, alternately building him up and tearing him down. By the time he does show up, we're completely captivated! Now, the idea of Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire in a remake...I don't know. They could probably pull the roles off (If indeed the article linked to is accurate and DiCaprio plays Lime). However, the film is of its time, and I don't know how it would play now. The regular questions prop up: Would the makers "modernize" the film (set it, say, in Afghanistan or Iraq or, if they want the recent past, Bosnia?), or would they keep the time frame and have the story occur in post-WWII Europe? Who knows. At least you still have the original to see, and enjoy...
Of the pulp era heroes, my favorite is, far and away, Doc Savage (second favorite is The Shadow. Between these two pulp heroes you have the essential light/dark archetypes for pretty much all the comic book heroes that subsequently followed). In 1975 Ron Ely (best known for the Tarzan TV show) played the title role in the first (and until now only) movie version of the pulp novels. The movie did follow the very first Doc Savage pulp novel reasonably well and Mr. Ely certainly had the right look. But the movie was way too campy and, ultimately, forgettable. Now, Shane Black ( Lethal Weapon, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) is involved in writing a screenplay for a new feature film version of the character: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/24/shane-black-scribing-a-doc-savage-movie-for-star-trek-producers/Shane Black has written some good stuff (absolutely loved the already mentioned Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) but...I just don't know if he's right for this property. We'll have to wait and see. Then again, could he do any worse than the first Doc Savage movie?! (A brief aside: The Shadow movie also featured some good visuals... Alec Baldwin was perfect as Lamont Cranston/The Shadow...but that movie also featured a little too much camp and not enough genuine excitement. The visuals were very strong, moreso than the Doc Savage film, but great visuals do not make a great film). For the curious, the trailers to both the Doc Savage and The Shadow films. The Doc Savage trailer pretty much tells you everything that's wrong with that film...
The early reviews for this 6 part special made it sound like a can't miss, so going into it I was expecting wonderful things. That's usually a problem. I think the best way to come into something, whether a book or TV show or work of any kind is neutrally, ie with no expectations at all. That way, the good stuff sometimes comes as a pleasant surprise and the bad stuff sometimes doesn't irritate you quite as much. So, the show was a good retrospective on Monty Python, and featured the remaining lads recollecting their heydays (and, in the last episode, what they're now doing). The six part show is well researched and linear in presentation. Episode 1 features their education/first brushes with show business and lead to the beginning of the original Monty Python TV show. Episodes 2 and 3 focused on the TV show (and explained why John Cleese was not involved with the show's final episodes). The remaining episodes focused on the three films (episode 4 had Holy Grail, episode 5 Life of Brian, episode 6 Meaning of Life and original member Graham Chapman's passing plus what the remaining members are up to now). When the Python members were on, it was delightful and more than a little sad. These folks have become awfully old. Each and every one of them were pleasant and talkative, dishing inside
information about the way they butted heads, but no terribly dark
secrets were revealed nor any long time simmering hatreds were exposed,
which is just as well. When they weren't featured, the special veered wildly. Seeing contemporaneous friends/acquaintances give their memories of certain incidents could be illuminating. Seeing modern artists talk about how much Monty Python influenced them...not so much. The show's theme song (different each episode) was pretty funny, the guy acting as a lawyer during those opening credits was beyond annoying. In the end, if you're a fan of Monty Python, you'll enjoy the show (it is available on DVD). If you're not, you may find the material presented rather dry. Doesn't really matter, you can always go back to the movies or the TV shows. That's where the gold really is.
Interesting article from /Film: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/22/charlize-theron-and-tom-hardy-up-for-mad-max-4/I happen to LOVE The Road Warrior, aka Mad Max 2. The first Mad Max was quite good, too (although it wasn't quite the same constant adrenaline ride. Nonetheless, that movie's climax was very satisfying). The third Mad Max film, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, was, to me, a real disappointment, despite pretty cool acting by Tina Turner as the movie's "bad guy". Still, the film hardly featured any of the famed car stunts and was simply too bland for a "Mad Max" film. I heard that a fourth Mad Max film was in the works years ago. This was before the movie's star, Mel Gibson, experienced his...umm...troubles. I was hoping he'd come back for one more go around in the role, despite his age, but it appears that if there is a fourth Mad Max film in the works, it will feature a new actor taking on the role. I don't know about this, quite honestly. Mad Max IS Mel Gibson. But then again, James Bond IS Sean Connery, yet there have been some damn good post-Connery Bond films. If this film is every made, I hope they go back to something along the lines of the first two films, and forget about the third.
At least according to the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/the-9-stupidest-surprise_n_328300.htmlTheir choices are almost all pretty good, with particular kudos mentioning: Identity. The ending of that film found my jaw on the floor. A passably interesting plot completely torpedoed by a stupid "it's all in his mind" ending. The Forgotten. Another interesting concept, and I wasn't even aware that this was originally conceived as a remake of Bunny Lake is Missing. The movie reminded me of Dean Koontz's book Phantoms. Great original concept, and you keep waiting for the author to come up with a logical explanation for the strange goings on. But it seems the author gives up and, instead of explaining anything in any logical way, he decides to say: "Hey, a supernatural force was responsible for everthing". In this movie, they just say: "Hey, it was aliens". Click. Terrible film almost from frame one. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, we reach the ending, and it was all a freaking dream. Ugh. Signs. I don't know if the ending was the worst thing so much as the idea that an alien invasion force decides to invade a planet covered with what to them is the equivalent of kryptonite. Strange. A film that wasn't on the list but that really disappointed me with its ending: The Coen Brother's Big Lebowski. I know, I know...today, the film is considered a cult classic and there are many, many out there who love the hell out of it. Further, the ending wasn't a "surprise", but still... The fact is that I loved the movie, too. At least until the oddball Busby Berkeley-esque musical dream number. To me, the film seemed to lose itself at that point and never quite recovered. Gone was the hilarious Dashiell Hammett-on-acid plot, and it appeared the Coen Brothers began killing time until reaching the end. Worse still, we never get to see any of the movie's characters kick Jesus' ass at bowling. Oh well.
Only found the one article (at least so far), but Joseph Wiseman, best known as James Bond's first movie villain, Dr. No (in the 1962 movie of the same name), has died: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/joseph-wiseman-dies-dr-no_n_328281.htmlThat role was probably the one he will be best known for, although his IMDB page lists plenty of other screen (and TV credits). I personally loved him in the movie. He was sinister, quiet, and deadly. In many ways, his character in that film proved the template for the many villains who followed. R.I.P., Mr. Wiseman
Sometimes I wish there were fifty hours in each day... http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/10/20/dvds/Seriously, I've got at least two shelves worth of films I've bought either on DVD or BluRay that I'd love to see, but between my work, my writing, and life in general, haven't been able to get to. And then Mr. O’Hehir offers this list of fascinating films, the description of a few of which have really gotten my attention. Two DVDs stood out: Audition (which I've heard of before and was always curious about) and, in particular, Private Century, which I hadn't heard about until now, but whose subject matter sounds incredibly fascinating. That and the fact that I'd love to see actual film of the Czech Republic from 1920 on...But then again, this mini-series consists of eight 52 minute episodes. When will I find the time!?
An interesting article from Newsweek concerning recent (and older) films that have attempted to "shock" people, and how we may be reaching a point where its harder and harder to do so: http://www.newsweek.com/id/218069Mentioned in the article is Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's 1929 film Un Chien Andalou, perhaps the first film that really "shocked" me (Another early shocker was Death Weekend aka The House By the Lake, which I've mentioned before, about a brutal gang that surround their victims in a...house by the lake). The common thread for these films is at times very graphic horror mixed with sex. The clip below is probably the most famous (or infamous) sequence from Un Chien Andalou. The description of the scene says it all, so viewer beware. The special effects used to create this sequence, if I recall correctly, involves the use of a cow's eye, and (obviously) not the actual actress' eye.
I've linked many Entertainment Weekly lists. When I first saw the original link to this one, I was eager to check it out, but for (quite literally) weeks, the link didn't work. Now it does, and just in time for Halloween. So here you have it, EW's list of their 20 scariest movies of all time: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20187007,00.htmlNotice that this list, like many on EW, tends to skew toward more recent releases (The oldest movie of the lot is 1960's Psycho, but there are only two other films from the 1960's and the remainder are from the 1970's up). Regardless, I have to agree with many of their choices. Evil Dead is pretty damn good, as are An American Werewolf in London (one of the only films that made me scared to death one moment, laughing out loud the next), The Omen, The Thing (the John Carpenter remake. However, the original film version is quite good, too), and Night of the Living Dead are worthy candidates. One I'd include is Nosferatu (1922), which I've noted many times before is the first, and best, adaptation of Dracula. And, yes, even though its a very, very old film (and a silent to boot), it still gives me goosebumps. Jaws is also a great horror film, but one shouldn't forget Steven Spielberg's first attempt at that theme in Duel. But my all time favorite horror film is the first one they list: The Shining. When I first saw it in theaters when it was originally released, I didn't like the film. At all. This seems to happen sometimes with the great ones. Over time I caught clips here and there on TV, and I sucked in the whole creepy vibe...and loved it. This is one terrific, terrific horror movie, even if some fault it for not adhering to the Stephen King novel. Now, I haven't read the book so I can offer no comment on the merits of that argument. I did, however, see the very lame (IMHO) TV mini-series version of The Shining that Mr. King himself provided the screenplay and was more intimately involved. I understand that version did stick more closely to the novel, but as I said before, I thought it wasn't all that good. Here's one of the film's more chilly sequences, followed by an (ahem) "alternate" version of the trailer, one that changes the music and the theme in a rather hilarious way...
My wife (and bookshelf) can attest to the fact that I'm a fan of the books of Michael Connelly. He's released a bunch of them, and Harry Bosch, LAPD detective and general pain in the ass to those in positions above him, makes for an intriguing principal character in most of those novels. I say "most" because Mr. Connelly has written quite a few novels set in Harry Bosch's "universe" but have not featured him. One of these novels, Blood Work, boasts one of Mr. Connelly's most intriguing plots and might well be my favorite of his books. However, the 2002 movie version of Blood Work, starring and directed by Clint Eastwood was a major disappointment, given the talent in front of and behind the camera ( Brian Helgeland ( L.A. Confidential) wrote the script). The intricacies of Mr. Connelly's plot weren't successfully transferred, IMHO, to the screen, and the changes to the novel's ending were also ill advised, something Mr. Connelly himself had some fun with in a subsequent novel. Which leads us to The Lincoln Lawyer. Like Blood Work, this novel does not feature Harry Bosch as the principal character, although he makes a minor appearance. It's to be made into a film, directed by Tommy Lee Jones (who will take a secondary role...perhaps that of Bosch himself?!) and starring Matthew McConaughey. http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/14/tommy-lee-jones-to-direct-and-co-star-in-the-lincoln-lawyer/Now for the bad news: As much as I love the Mr. Connelly's books, I have to be honest and say that The Lincoln Lawyer simply isn't among his best. In fact, I would go so far as to say that its one of his lesser works, featuring a rather forgettable mystery that isn't all that intriguing or surprising. Hopefully the movie will improve upon the book (the inverse of what happened with Blood Work) and we'll have something worth seeing. Anyway, for what its worth, the trailer to Clint Eastwood's Blood Work:
Beginning this Sunday the 18th, IFC will present Monty Python: Almost the Truth (the Lawyer's Cut). It is a six part series that will air each night through Friday and early reviews suggest its quite fun: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33307910/ns/entertainment-television/I'm a fan of Monty Python, particularly the hilarious The Life of Brian. While many consider Monty Python and the Holy Grail the best, I think this movie (which, let me be very clear, is hilarious in its own right) nonetheless pales compared to Brian. ...And that ending. Hilarious, sobering, thought provoking, and sad. All at the same time. Truly a work of (twisted) genius.
Like everyone else that's lived through the 80's action film era, I'm was curious about the Expendables movie (which seems an 80's action hero extravaganza). Well, I'm downright excited now...the trailer looks like a lot of mayhem, and fun (best line: "He's saying we're dead...with an accent"). But see for yourself:
Very bizarre... http://weblogs.variety.com/bfdealmemo/2009/10/holy-moses-chernin-makes-first-big-pic-buy.htmlSo the idea is to do the story of Moses but in the style of the movie 300. Yeah...I can see that. Maybe they could follow it up with the story of Jesus... Also curious is this line from the article: The script will be written by Adam Cooper and Bill Collage, who make
this their followup to a high-level deal they made to reinvent Herman
Melville”s “Moby Dick,” with a graphic novel feel. Moby Dick with a "graphic novel" feel? What does that mean?!
Fascinating article offering 10 movies that featured...stressful, to say the very least...movie shoots: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/09/top10.worst.shoots/index.htmlI've heard of most of the them. If you've seen Fitzcarraldo, the showstopping sequence involving pushing a very, very large boat over a hill is simply eyepopping. But I didn't know about what happened on the set of another Warner Herzog/Klaus Kinski film...threatening to actually kill your actor?! Whoa. The list presents some pretty good stuff, with two quibbles: I don't think the fight between George Clooney and director David O. Russell on the set of Three Kings approaches some of the other examples. Also, Heaven's Gate, movie #2 on the list, went wildly over budget and pretty much bankrupted the studio financing it, but...the description offers no real example of how the movie shoot was "hell". Oh well.
Duncan Jones made a bit of a splash with his first film, Moon (as usual, I haven't seen it yet but intend to pick up the DVD release). According to this article, his second feature film, Mute, is facing some financing difficulties: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/10/08/duncan-jones-mute-faces-financing-difficulties/I can understand the hesitancy to finance a $25 million project, especially in this day and age and especially since his first film, while given good critical reactions, cost a mere $5 million to make and has, to date, only made something north of $6 million at the box office. I suppose it will make more once out on DVD, but still...
Let me put this up front: I love Robert E. Howard's Solomon Kane. While Howard is best known for Conan, his most famous creation, I've always felt Solomon Kane, his combination Puritan/Dirty Harry, was far and away his most intriguing creation. When I read about a movie being made centering on this character, I was intrigued. However, when the trailer came out...I was less so. It looked OK, but in my mind the world of Solomon Kane should have been far, far more shadowy. Further, the man playing Kane didn't strike me as a good fit. Anyway, someone over at Ain't It Cool News saw the film, and they liked it...quite a bit: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42638However, instead of exciting me, the review has made me even more nervous about the final product. For you see, rather than adapt a Robert E. Howard story, the filmmakers have devised, according to this review, an origin story. An origin story? I can't help but scratch my head. Solomon Kane doesn't need an origin story. Did we need to find out why Dirty Harry was like he was (there were hints in the first movie, but nothing too elaborate). Granted, perhaps today's culture requires some explanation, some reason for someone to be what they are. But is it really required? Especially if you whatever you come up with is obviously nothing that Robert E. Howard created? This line from the review makes me the most nervous: (Before becoming the character Robert E. Howard wrote) Solomon Kane isn’t a nice guy. He’s a scoundrel, a pirate and a
murderer. But when he’s busy sacking a city and spilling the township’s
blood for a fistful of gold, the Devil’s servants catch up to him eager
to drag him screaming into the pits of hell. But Kane will have none of
that. So he turns to God and becomes a man of the cloth; but that ain’t
exactly right either. And once it becomes perfectly clear that the
Devil has no intention of letting him off the hook, Solomon blends the
lifestyles together and dedicates his life to sending the Devil’s
minions back to him – sans a few limbs and several gallons of blood, of
course. Just as Howard intended. This former part seems to dispel one of the greatest Solomon Kane stories (a poem, actually), Solomon Kane's Homecoming. I just don't know if I like the idea of Solomon Kane once being "bad", then turning good. I always viewed him as good...although grim as hell. We'll see.
Originally released in 1965, Russ Meyer's Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! is very deserving of its cult status. For years I've wanted to see the film and, thanks to Turner Classic Movies and the handy dandy DVR, I finally got my chance. The plot of the film, for some reason, reminded me of a whacked out Rebel Without a Cause. But instead of focusing on teen angst, we focus on three rebellious, sexy Go-Go dancers in fast cars looking to get everything...or as much as they can grab. The leader of the trio is Varla (Tura Satana), a striking hellcat who yells most of her dialogue and is perfectly capable of killing men with her bare hands. Her two accomplices are the black haired Rosie (Haji), subtly presented as a lesbian who longs for Varla, and the wild-card, blond haired Billie (Lori Williams), whose id impulses anger Varla to the point of no return. I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but the group of very buxom ladies are originally presented as creatures out to raise hell. As the movie progresses, they set their eyes on getting their hands on a load of cash. It is hidden away in a decrepit desert ranch and guarded by an oddball invalid father and his two equally oddball sons (although one of them is more sensitive). Stealing the money forms the bulk of the movie's story. The dialogue at times proved surprising: in turns thoughtful, hilarious, and campy. IMDB offered some examples here, although they don't offer my favorite one (which I sorta/kinda quoted above, immediately after the reference to Rebel Without a Cause). In sum, if you're in the mood for some wild, kinky, hilarious, and off the beaten path movie making, you could do far worse than check out Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!
It was a surprise when several actors and directors whose work I admire came out very quickly to offer support for Roman Polanski, imprisoned in Switzerland for his still pending case involving child molestation in 1978. The surprise was rather bitter. I'd be the first to say that Mr. Polanski has created some truly memorable films. Chinatown may be the best more modern film noirs ever. Rosemary's Baby was creepy as hell, as was Repulsion. But as good as those films were, one must separate the artist from the person. Roman Polanski, the director, has made some wonderful films. Roman Polanski, the person, has made at least one very, very, very bad decision, and compounded it by fleeing the United States and hiding out instead of facing the law. It appears now that some other entertainers aren't quite so quick to express sympathy for Mr. Polanski's travails: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/10/01/polanski.support.backlash/index.html
A while back I presented a list (from Entertainment Weekly) about Top Horror films made within the last 20 years (list and my commentary about it can be found here). To make a long story short, one of the films I felt was among the best Horror films of the past 20 years was Mimic. I heard there were conflicts between director Guillermo Del Toro and the studios during the making of the film and I've always suspected the ending, in particular, was studio imposed. Well, I won't have to suspect what may have been in Mr. Del Toro's original vision of the film, as a Director's Cut is on its way: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/28/guillermo-del-toro-updates-on-mimic-and-geometria-directors-cuts/I'll be very curious to see this...when it finally arrives!
There was talk for a while now about a remake of director David Cronenberg's The Fly (1986), itself a remake of the original The Fly (1958) starring Vincent Price. Many detractors objected, insulted by the idea that Hollywood would dare remake such a great film (even though it was, as I just noted, itself a remake!) For the Cronenberg version of The Fly is a grisly horror film that builds slowly before unleashing an incredibly strong (and uncompromising) conclusion. The idea that some of today's directors might revisit such strong subject matter and weaken it, obviously, is what bothers the remake objectors. However, it appears the man who will helm the movie's remake is Mr. Cronenberg himself: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/23/remake-of-the-fly-to-be-directed-by-david-cronenberg/I'm curious, to say the least. David Cronenberg's films have been, at least to me, somewhat hit and miss. However, when he hits, he really, really succeeds, and he certainly did that with his original The Fly. With a bigger budget and today's much more sophisticated special effects, one wonders what he might be capable of doing now...   
What I like about lists like this is that it makes you stop and think. Agree or disagree, the folks at In Contention have delivered an interesting list of their top 10 Best Picture winners of all time: http://incontention.com/?p=7799#more-7799If there is one quibble: I think putting Godfather and Godfather II one after the other displays a certain...bias...by the writer. Perfectly fine, mind you. It is their list after all. Some of the comments below the list mention other choices, and many of them are fine. One mentioned, No Country For Old Men (note: this is not on the main list of films, but as others mention it in the comments section...), is a definite curiosity, at least to me. I loved, loved, loved the film for almost the complete length of its run...we had a mix of dread and humor and brilliant character/action scenes that the Coen brothers handled like pros...and then came the ending. I understand they followed the novel's ending, and having read parts of it (not the whole, yet, alas) I can understand wanting to retain the writer's intent. However, to me it was still a frustrating conclusion to an otherwise excellent movie.
Not too long ago I noted my admiration for Get Carter, the brutal 1971 British film noir starring Michael Caine in what may be his strongest performance, and certainly his most hard boiled. I heard about the new Michael Caine film Harry Brown a few months ago and, if memory serves, there was some talk about this role being, essentially, like Mr. Caine returning to the role of Carter but, obviously, as an elderly man. The trailer has been released and...it looks OK, but it didn't really knock my socks off. Still, the concept is intriguing although the film appears to be more of a Death Wish retread rather than an "elderly" Carter film. As a comparison, I've included the original Get Carter trailer, as well:
Never heard of Mr. Billion? You know, the 1977 film that featured Italian comedic actor Terrence Hill's ( They Call Me Trinity, My Name is Nobody) big U.S. movie debut? No? Don't feel too bad. You're not missing all that much. I recall the film (or, more specifically, two sequences in the film) since the first, and only, up until now, time I saw it, most likely back in 1977 or 78. The film's opening sequence stuck in my mind the most. We see an outdoor event, just outside a medium sized (perhaps 10 stories at most) building. A group of people sit before a podium and the elderly head of what we soon find is the Falcone company steps past Jackie Gleason (he will be the movie's villain) and others waiting for his speech. He walks to the podium and begins talking as the camera pans up, to the near top of the building. There, a large, metallic bust of a bird-like creature (the company's logo, I'm guessing), suddenly tilts a bit, then falls (We do not follow its fall, nor how it kills the man speaking at the podium). This was done in one take, and I have to assume that unless some other movie trickery was involved (there was no CGI back in 1977!), the people below, including Jackie Gleason, got out of the way reaaaally quickly before that figure dropped. As I said before, this opening stuck with me all these years. What my ever so creative mind added to this scene, however, was a brief snippet wherein Jackie Gleason looks up, toward that sculpture, as if he knows it will fall (thus, revealing that he arranged the man's death). Alas, the movie itself, I found, included no such scene...it was entirely my own creation. However, such a snippet would have been welcome, even if it wouldn't have saved the rest of the film... So, the bust falls and we have a fast cut to the reading of the will. The elderly Falcone is dead, and Jackie Gleason, figuring he's now in charge, smugly reads the will. The smugness in his face abruptly fades: The company's assets (worth a billion, if you haven't guessed by now), are to go to Guido Falcone (Terrence Hill), nephew to the elderly Falcone. We then get a quick cut to Guido and find he's a car mechanic and something of an Italian hayseed. However, like all movie hayseeds, he proves much more intelligent than he first appears. He is willed all this wealth because he never asked his wealthy relative for anything...except for a pair of genuine U.S. cowboy boots. There is one catch (another "only in the movies" creation): Guido has to sign legal documents to gain control of money/company in San Francisco (why there?) by a certain date (why the deadline?). The "why's" are obvious: This leads to hijinks. First, Jackie Gleason hires a shady (but with a...wait for it...heart of gold) lady to seduce Guido and have him sign over a power of attorney. Then, Guido and his lady friend (played by the stunning Valerie Perrine, one year away from her appearance in Superman) are kidnapped, and this leads to one of the more intriguing plot developments: Jackie Gleason can barely contain himself at the thought that poor Guido won't make it to the signing, so he not so secretly is pleased the Italian hayseed is missing. Sorta/kinda reminds me of the plot to Ruthless People. Alas, even this plot point isn't developed all that well. In the end, the film meanders and meanders, eventually presenting a pretty lame car chase sequence (this was the other bit I remembered from my childhood. It involved a pretty nice fire engine red Mustang), before dovetailing into its rather obvious race-against-time conclusion. The fact that the villain screws up time zones, thus allowing our hero to reach the finish line just at the deadline, further makes you wonder just how such a man made it to his position of power. Unfortunately, Jackie Gleason looks lost in this film, compared to the broad comedic gusto he showed in Smokey and the Bandit (a film released in the same year and one I suspect the makers of this film were trying to emulate somehow). He mostly stands around in this film, in a role that is little more than an extended cameo. The fact is that just about any elderly actor could have occupied that character just as well (or poorly) as he did. For years I've had this warm, nostalgic recall for Mr. Billion. While I couldn't remember many of the details (other than those described above), I felt the movie amused me. As a kid, anyway. The same cannot be said for me as an adult.
If you're interested in the next Star Trek film featuring the new cast, there's some interesting tidbits to be found here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/15/star-trek-sequel-may-contain-pointed-modern-commentary/I tend to agree with almost all the commentary placed outside of the quoted remarks. Star Trek, at least in its original series, had a habit of inserting then modern commentaries on society. As was pointed out in the article, most recently Battlestar: Galactica did the same, presenting an extended storyline wherein there was clear echoes to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (and the roles of hero and villain were reversed!). In the movies, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country also presented (then) modern commentary. IV, of course, commented about whale hunting and species extinction (the most obvious element) as well as, briefly, Cold War fears and our hospital system. VI, on the other hand, was clearly an allegory about the then thawing of the Cold War. So, it can be done, but the danger is that the movie quickly becomes "dated". As with many things, its a matter of waiting and seeing what we get...
His first film, Moon, was well received, and his second film Mute (also science fictional in nature and currently being worked on) looks intriguing, at least based on this very small news item/illustration: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/09/14/concept-art-for-duncan-jones-mute-news-on-the-shoot/I missed Moon in the theaters (what else is new?!) but plan to look it up when it arrives on DVD. I'm certainly curious about it, based on the reviews. However, if there is one thing that makes me at least a little skittish about Mr. Jones is the fact that these two first works certainly seem to be a bit heavy on homage ( Moon, for example, was noted to have elements/tributes/shout outs/whathaveyou to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Meanwhile, Mute sure looks Blade Runner-like). Still, I'm curious to see what he's doing. Wouldn't mind hearing his father's new album, either (when is that coming out?!)
Fun little list from dvdfile.com, wherein they list what they consider the best of the bad films available today on DVD: http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/the-greatest-bad-movies-of-all-time-on-dvdbd-85361Ok, I've devoted some time to look over the listed films. Frankly, I'm not much of a "so bad it's good" film fan. Certainly there are films I enjoy that others may not (most of the immediate family looks at my DVD collection and has a "what the?" look on their face anyway). Of the list presented above, I enjoyed The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, but as the author notes, this film was made like this on purpose. So how do we consider it a "so bad it's good" movie when it was purposely made this way? Plan 9 From Outer Space, on the other hand, most certainly qualifies on this list because one believes that director/writer Ed Wood was thinking he was making a good film, but failed in all possible ways (and several ways yet to be invented). In fact, this film is so inept I suspect that had he tried, he couldn't have actually made something this bad. The other one on the list that amuses me is the 1980 Flash Gordon. Directed, incredibly, by Mike Hodges (he made the absolutely amazing British film noir Get Carter and equally amazing noirish Croupier. The films featured, to my mind, the best acting by Michael Caine and Clive Owen, respectively). Flash Gordon was campy science fiction, not quite as horrible as it first seemed when it came out, but neither all that great, either. Perhaps the film's primary fault lay in its two stars, Sam J. Jones (who, if memory serves, was reportedly was so upset with the film he refused to do any promotion for it) and Melody Anderson. Sam J. Jones unfortunately did not carry enough charisma for the role of Flash Gordon (why would anyone follow him into battle?) and Melody Anderson, a good (and very pretty!) actress, was asked to play her role here a little too broadly for my taste. Anyway, if there is a "so bad it's good" feature I'd put in the running, it would be The Highwayman, a TV series ripping off in equal parts The Road Warrior and Knight Rider and starring the above mentioned Sam J. Jones. The series really got cooking when they introduced Jacko (playing...wait for it...Jetto!) to the show...
When I spotted this article on CNN, I was, frankly, surprised. I thought the drive in theaters were a thing of the past, never to return again. I was wrong. According to this article, there still exist some 400 drive in theaters throughout the US. Not many, granted, but they appear to have a strong fan base: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/09/11/drivein.theater/index.htmlI mentioned before the very last time I was in a drive in theater. It was, believe it or not, 1979. The movie our family went to see (I was too young to drive!) was the James Bond film Moonraker. I could well have been the worst movie going experience I've ever had, and the fault lay on many fronts. First, we had the "luck" to park next to a rather large family intent on making the evening a party, complete with way, way too loud music between the features. That's right: Features. We thought we were going in to see Moonraker. However, after bearing over a half hour of loud, obnoxious music, the screen went black and we were treated to... Corvette Summer. To our surprise, and totally unannounced, we were in a double feature. Corvette Summer proved a jaw droppingly awful "chase" film that might well have killed Mark Hamill's non- Star Wars acting career (it was his first role after the original Star Wars. I suspect that if Harrison Ford had participated in this movie, his career might have taken a hit, too). Did I mention the film also featured a still pretty young Danny Bonaduce? Once that bore-fest was over, we had another half hour or so break filled with obnoxious music before Moonraker finally, finally began. And that film proved to be pretty bad, too. As you can see from the graphic below, Corvette Summer is indeed available on DVD, proving the movie wasn't some bad hallucination I experienced all those years ago...
One of the biggest laments I have regarding the comic book industry is that many have pigeon holed it as a place for adolescent power fantasies, specifically "literature" that features super heroes in tights only. But the reality is that comic books, like movies or novels or short stories, could conceivably feature just about any genre. There have been romance comics, detective comics, historical comics, horror comics, comedy comics, etc. etc. etc. However, the sad fact is that, at least in the US, superhero comics are considered by many the sole domain of the comic book market. Things change, however, and lately there have been a series of movies released (the very poorly reviewed Whiteout is but the latest) whose origins are comic books but that do not feature superheroes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32804664/ns/entertainment-movies/I'd note too that my own graphic novel, The Dark Fringe, was optioned by a Hollywood company to be made into a film a few years back, and I'm honestly not sure of the status of that particular project. However, should a movie version of my graphic novel appear, and said movie features a superhero in tights, know oh reader that the original graphic novel was crime fiction (albeit set in a retro-futuristic world) and most certainly did not feature any superheroes!
The headline of the review ( Whiteout is a wipeout) offers little hope: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/09/11/whiteout_beckinsale/I enjoyed the graphic novel, although writer Greg Rucka's best work is probably Queen and Country. I also wondered if the graphic novel's plot would be enough for a full length feature film. Still, I'm curious to see this. Hope its better than the critic thought.
Robert E. Howard is perhaps best known for creating Conan the Barbarian. However, my favorite of his action heroes is, without a doubt, Solomon Kane. Not that the Conan stories aren't good, mind you (several of them are absolutely smashing, including Red Nails, the last of the Conan stories, and one of the very last thing Robert E. Howard wrote before taking his life). To me, Solomon Kane's combination of Dirty Harry action hero machismo married to extreme religious devotion in a world filled with some frightening, evil characters is incredibly fascinating. Anyway, a Solomon Kane film has been made, and below you'll find the Russian language trailer to the film (the film is not Russian. It just hasn't found a U.S. distributor yet and thus the English language trailer is not available). Seeing the trailer, I'm left with ambiguous feelings regarding what there is. The look is ok, but a little too modernistic for my taste. I don't know, I want more darkness, more heavy shadows. What I'm seeing is a palette and visuals that look a little too much like Van Helsing (which, granted, seemed to take from Solomon Kane with abandon). Judge for yourself...
Edward D. Wood (or Ed Wood) is considered by many to be one of, if not the most awful directors to ever work in cinema. If his name is familiar, you may recall him being played by Johnny Depp in the 1994 Tim Burton directed biographical film. It seems someone has decided that what is considered Ed Wood's crowning achievement, Plan 9 From Outer Space and (gulp) remake it. Those who are somewhat familiar with the original Plan 9 know that it featured the final footage of Bela Lugosi. Mr. Lugosi died well before the film was actually finished. Director Ed Wood had the genius idea of hiring a substitute for the late actor, to fill in his shoes for his remaining scenes. The man looked nothing -and I mean nothing- at all like Mr. Lugosi. This is but one of the films many, many...peculiarities. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, the trailer to the Plan 9 remake. Doesn't look like a Plan 9 remake so much as a (let's be kind here) variation on the Dawn of the Dead remake...
Serendipity. I popped in the First Blood Blu Ray which I bought a few weeks ago. Not to see the film, but rather the extras. I was curious to see the alternate ending, the one where Rambo (this movie features the character's first appearance) forces his mentor, Col. Trautman, to shoot him. It was an interesting alternate take, one eventually not used, but it was confusing to see. Why? Because Kirk Douglas was originally meant to play the role of Col. Trautman (the role was eventually played through the three original Rambo films by the late Richard Crenna), and I always thought one of the reasons Mr. Douglas walked was because he insisted Rambo die at the end of the movie by his character's hands, and the producers decided it would be better if he lived. However, if such a decision was made, why go ahead and film the "Rambo dies" scene with Mr. Crenna if the reason Kirk Douglas left the movie was because the people behind the film didn't want to film that ending? Odd. But I digress. Seems that the success of the fourth Rambo film (entitled Rambo) has resulted in a green light for a fifth Rambo film, and this one with a decidedly science fictional edge. Perhaps the best link to the article can be found at Aint It Cool News, which offers a link to a voicemail from Mr. Stallone himself talking about what the film will be (If you go to the link, head to that voicemail, its the most interesting aspect of the article): http://www.aintitcool.com/node/42256As some people in the talkback noted, this plot sounds very similar to James Byron Huggins' novel Hunter (the amazon.com link to the book is here). I read the book a while back and...its ok. Its basically a monster on the loose novel and focuses on how our hero, an excellent tracker, confronts this beast. The beast is, if memory serves (it has been years since I've read the book!) some kind of top secret military experiment, made from the DNA of some prehistoric hunters/creatures and the hero and villain spar in the woods, with the hunter becoming the hunted and vice/versa (as I write this, it occurs to me the novel takes equally from Predator as well as Jurassic Park). While I'm not the biggest Sylvester Stallone fan out there (but I most certainly like many of his films), the fact that he's managed to reinvent himself and once again get relatively "hot" in the cut throat movie business this late in the game is something to admire. Anyway, I'm lukewarm about the Hunter novel (if indeed this work is what the new Rambo film will be based on), but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious to see what Mr. Stallone may do.
Cormac McCarthy’s novel The Road was made into a feature film, it seems, a long, long time ago. Indeed, the movie, starring Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, and Robert Duvall, has been on the shelf for nearly a year now (It was originally scheduled for release in November of 2008 and will finally hit the theaters, at least according to the IMDB link above, in October of this year). At first I figured that, given the grim subject matter, the decision was made to hold its release until sometime after the more festive Christmas season. When the movie didn't show up in the following months, I had other suspicions, mainly that it probably wasn't all that good. Perhaps this is another film like City of Industry (which I reviewed just yesterday): A well cast, well acted film that, unfortunately, doesn't build up to anything particularly memorable. This early review I found seems to confirm that suspicion: http://incontention.com/?p=12972#more-12972
...as per Newsweek: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/popvox/archive/2009/08/31/the-biggest-box-office-summer-ever-a-recap.aspxNot much to add, though I'm intrigued that Sacha Baron Cohen is listed as the first summer box office "loser". Granted, Borat earned far more than this summer's Bruno, yet the later film, which like Borat probably cost very, very little to make, nonetheless pulled in $137 million.
I suppose its the fact that Mr. Cohen's first movie made so much more that makes him a "loser".
(Oh, and just to point out: I have seen neither Borat (which sits on my "to be seen" DVD shelf) nor Bruno, so can offer no opinion on the quality of either film)
I like film noir films. I like Harvey Keitel in film noir films. City of Industry presents both and, as a bonus, features a cast that includes notable names such as Timothy Hutton, Stephen Dorff, Famkee Jannson, Elliot Gould (his role is really a one scene cameo, but you wish there was more) and, in a pretty early movie role for her, Lucy Liu (her screen credit is Lucy Alexis Liu), and you figure this is a can't miss, right? Sadly, this is not the case, although the film is reasonably entertaining for the first half. The setup is film noir 101: A four man heist team assembles, plots their target, executes the theft, then one of them (look at the cast above and take a wild guess which one) betrays the others, kills them all except one (again, look at the cast above and guess which one), and the survivor swears bloody vengeance. Again, sounds pretty good. But the film runs out of gas somewhere half-way through, resorting to a silly damsel(s) in distress scenario before the final confrontation between bad guy and badder guy. Keitel is rock solid as Roy Egan, the movie's protagonist, but his character is unfortunately far from three dimensional. He moves from scene to scene, closing in on his prey, while his prey fights back with the tools at his disposal. The movie's main sin, as mentioned above, is that somewhere between here and there the film runs out of steam and we know where we're going and we're just waiting for the film to get there. Further, the villain's betrayal, the movie's central plot point, is presented as an almost spur of the moment decision. Perhaps this is meant to explain how he inexplicably is unable to wipe out every one of his teammates while in the tight confines of a cheap trailer and with him being the only one carrying a gun. So, in the end, City of Industry is a well made, well acted film that nonetheless fizzles rather than burns.
For those interested, Seth Rogan Green Hornet film's release has been pushed back: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/30/the-green-hornet-release-pushed-back-five-months/The release points out all the positives regarding the move (which leads me to think the studio released the text), including more time for post-production and the ability to show up at next year's San Diego Con with more than the "car". You know, I never was a HUGE Green Hornet fan. I enjoyed the TV show (especially to see the late Bruce Lee as Kato), and I'm curious, to a degree, about this project. But Seth Rogan in the lead role gives me considerable pause. He's a good comedic actor, but I don't know if he can fill this particular role (count me among those who were hesitant about the announcement, many years ago, of Michael Keaton being Bruce Wayne in the Tim Burton's Batman film...in the end he proved to be decent in the role, although I felt the Burton Batman films were great eye candy but not such good films). Further, is The Green Hornet meant to be a serious action film? An Action/comedy? A Comedy/action? A comedic goof? I wonder...
I had a list similar to this one (link is here) but that list featured movies that made money and were considered pretty crappy. This list offers films that were probably projected to be blockbusters, given a big budget, and flopped. Big time. http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1919073_1919196,00.htmlI believe the only film that both lists share is Wild Wild West. This might be because it did earn over $100 million (which you would think would make it a "blockbuster" in terms of earnings) but it cost a lot more than that to make. I wonder if, when all is said and done, Will Smith doesn't become known more for that particular movie than any of his other, more successful ones (sometimes, the bad simply outweighs the good). Still a fun juxtaposition of lists, both featuring a gaggle of films one could justifiably call crap, although one list featured films that made money and were crap, the other that didn't make money and were crap.
Interesting article from /Film. Seems producer Joel Silver is interested in making a new Swamp Thing film...in 3D? http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/28/joel-silver-may-revive-swamp-thing-in-3d/I found it curious the author of the article thought this new movie might use the Alan Moore penned issues as the basis of its plot (might be more wishful thinking than anything else, as Mr. Silver doesn't state where he's going...Frankly, I think a good version of the original work by Len Wein and Berni Wrightson would be terrific, although the first Swamp Thing movie went there...)
Spotted this on the Miami Herald today. Normally, don't care all that much about Jamie Foxx one way or the other (His movies are only so-so for me. Perhaps his best feature was Collateral, but director Michael Mann has done better, IMHO), but this interview, the link presented below, features a curious response to the final question: http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/people/story/1207539.htmlThe question asked was regarding upcoming projects, to which Mr. Foxx replied (the emphasized lines are by me):
I'm working on the movie Valentine's Day. It's got Jessica Alba,
Shirley Maclaine, Queen Latifah, Julia Roberts, Hector Elizondo -- just
about everybody. It's about all these stories that happen on
Valentine's Day. Some people like it, some people don't. I don't like
it. My character is this sports guy, an ESPN guy, and he's had a couple
break-ups, so he doesn't like it so much. But there's a little bit of a
twist. You gotta watch it.I point the line above because in its context, at least to me, the meaning was incredibly unclear...Is Mr. Foxx saying some people like his new movie and some people don't, and Mr. Foxx is in the later camp? Is it conceivable that an actor would have the balls to put down a film he's working on? I had to read that line a few more times before it made sense: The characters in the Valentine's Day film either like the holiday or they don't. His (Jamie Foxx's character) doesn't like the holiday, and there's a bit of a twist and... Whew. Now I can get back to the urgent business of life!
Now that his WWII film is a hit, Tarantino is all over the place. Here, he presents his list of five favorite WWII films. They're pretty good choices: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32589447/ns/entertainment-movies/If I were to broaden the list a little, I'd add: Patton - George C. Scott is absolutely electrifying in the title role. The film is big, REALLY big, and boasts a terrific script co-written by Francis Ford Coppola. The Longest Day - Speaking of big, this movie boasts a cast you simply have to see to believe. Granted, the subject matter is presented in a far more tame way compared to Saving Private Ryan (that tackled D-Day as well and would also make this sub-list), but it's still worth watching. The following movies are meant to be pure entertainment, and while set in WWII, present very fictional plots: The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare - Both films are based on novels by Alistair MacLean, an author who, during his lifetime was pretty hot but whose interest diminished after his death in 1987 (as of this writing, I don't think any of his novels are in print in the United States). Regardless, both movies are pretty damn good, the former featuring an all star cast headed by Gregory Peck, the later featuring the oddball (but effective) pairing of Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood. And finally, still speaking of Clint Eastwood, I have to again mention Kelly's Heroes. A pretty big cast surrounds Mr. Eastwood, making this his only ensemble film (although he's still the star). The plot involves U.S. soldiers trying to loot a bank on the enemy side. It's a WWII comedy, believe it or not, and a pretty damn funny one to boot (of all of Mr. Eastwood's comedies, I think this is the best). A quick add-on: How could I forget about John Frankenheimer's excellent The Train? An absolutely stunning film featuring Burt Lancaster cast as a French underground fighter (this is the movie's only real debit...I had a difficult time imagining Mr. Lancaster as being a French) versus Nazis intent on taking their art loot back to Berlin. A nailbiter with some serious, and heavy messages about the value of human life versus the value of high art.
For those who are interested in picking up Terminator: Salvation when it arrives on DVD and are curious as to what's in the "Director's Cut", here is a link to an article at /Films that explores what might be there: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/26/mpaa-rates-terminator-salvation-directors-cut-r-for-some-violence-and-brief-nudity/The bottom line appears to be some nudity and violence, which pumps the PG-13 film up to an R rating. I have yet to see the film, but when it does arrive on Blu Ray, I'll check out the price and make a decision from there. While the film earned generally mediocre reviews, it still did pretty decent box office numbers and there are plenty of people defending the film's merits. At the very least, I'm curious as to what's there. We'll see.
Interesting article from USA Today. Steven Spielberg is developing a film version of the soon to be released, posthumously of course, Michael Crichton novel Pirate Latitudes. I've noted my admiration for Steven Spielberg before. Duel, his first big hit, was the first film I recall sitting through and watching from start to end and understanding what I was seeing. It wasn't until years later I realized this was because the film was originally conceived as a silent film. While there is dialogue within the finished project, it is mostly redundant. Still, the film remains one of my all time favorites and is an obvious early thematic take of Jaws. As for Michael Crichton, I'm somewhat a fan. I think the man was capable of coming up with some truly brilliant ideas, but his novels were at times good and at times pretty mediocre, at least to me. I loved The Andromeda Strain and The Terminal Man (two rather early novels subsequently made into feature films). I liked the ideas behind Jurassic Park, Rising Sun, and Prey, but the novels themselves were, at least to me, only so-so. At times Mr. Crichton seemed intent on preaching certain philosophies or worldviews rather than offering satisfying entertainment (His novel State of Fear, for example, pushed a little too strongly an anti-global warming message and failed, at least to me, as entertainment). Of his movies, Westworld and The Great Train Robbery are my favorites. Regardless, I'm always curious to see new films from Mr. Spielberg. The idea of making a more "grounded in reality" pirate film intrigues me: http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-08-26-spielberg-crichton_N.htm
Stumbled across this website that includes some spoilery material regarding the upcoming Christopher Nolan directed (and starring Leonardo DiCaprio) Inception: http://incontention.com/?p=12388Before you click, however, be forewarned: There are some SPOILERS here, although how real this information is is, for now, unclear. It may be right, then again... If it is for real...(click on the comments below)...
Ok, so the first article I presented (just below) was something of a lemon. Hope this one makes up for it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32541960/ns/entertainment-movies//This article from msnbc by Troy Brownfield offers a look at the influences stiff felt seventy years after the release of The Wizard of Oz. I find this article fascinating, and I think it hits many targets quite correctly. Particularly fascinating is his analysis of the movie's influence on the original Star Wars. Although clearly Star Wars was inspired by Kurasawa's The Hidden Fortress and Flash Gordon and the character of C3P0 looked an awful lot like the Maria robot from Metropolis (don't take my word for it, look below), I can't deny that there are echos of The Wizard of Oz in Star War's general plot, and Mr. Brownfield certainly nails those similarities. A fascinating article, if you're interested.
The people at dvdfile.com have presented a fascinating list of their "top 10" unforgettable Criterion Collection releases. If you're a fan of cinema and collect films on DVD or BluRay, then the Criterion name should be well known to you. If not, Criterion is a company devoted to releasing pristine copies of foreign and American films that are considered works of high quality. Many of their releases include films not available in any other way, some obscure art house classics while others may be controversial classics. The dvdfile list can be found here: http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/the-criterion-collection-10-unforgettable-titles-83681I can't add much to it as their choices are pretty solid. Some of my favorite Criterion releases were purchased on Laserdisc, including Blade Runner (at the time, we were presented with the theatrical cut and the more violent European cut, but it was THE way to see the film back then) and the unrated version of Robocop (this was the first time this release was made available. For those who don't know, the original cut, boasting only a few seconds of extra, very violent imagery, was not available until then). I also treasure their release of M and The Most Dangerous Game (this could well be the most filmed and re-filmed plot in the entire history of TV and movie cinema). Needless to say, I'm always on the lookout for their releases, especially now that they're getting into the Blu Ray game.
The teaser for Inception, the upcoming Christopher Nolan directed, Leonardo CiCaprio film I'm interested (no, I won't mention Shutter Island) (aaarrrrghhh, I just did!) has made its way to the internet: http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/15201209/standardformat/Looks interesting... But... ...I'm picking up a definite Matrix vibe here, especially with those two fighting within the hotel hallway toward the end of the trailer. Hope the movie doesn't feature a terrible "twist" at the end like.... OK, now I'm just rubbing it in!
I should have known someone out there would take the time to show some comparison clips of Zero Hour! versus similar scenes from Airplane!Enjoy...
If you've following my postings, you'll know I'm intrigued by movies. Then again, aren't we all? But there are so many elements in films to enjoy, whether it be the different movie genres, the actors, the dialogue or the special effects/stunts, the music, the "look", etc. etc. etc. One of the things I've found particularly fascinating are the remakes. There are those that are obvious remakes, films that share the same title and (obviously) general storyline ( Sabrina, The Thing, Halloween, etc.) and then there are those remakes that are a little less obvious. I've pointed out previously how the James Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me cleverly took the general plot (ie, madman "kidnaps" spacecraft/submarines, intent on starting a World War) of the earlier Bond film You Only Live Twice. More recently, I noted how Outland was essentially a reworking of High Noon. But perhaps the most fascinating "stealth" remake around is, believe it or not, my all time favorite comedy movie, Airplane!Yes, you heard it right. Airplane! is actually a remake of another film. Don't believe me? Just pop your DVD of the movie into your player and listen to the movie's creator's commentary. They're pretty forthright in stating that the inspiration for Airplane! was the 1957 film Zero Hour! (yes, the movie Airplane! even appropriated Zero Hour!'s exclamation point. Btw, click on the link provided for that film and scroll down to the user comments. "Tracer" offers some interesting differences between the two films). Yesterday TCM was running a marathon of Sterling Hayden films, and Zero Hour! was one of the chosen ones (his character was parodied by Robert Stack in Airplane!). I love Sterling Hayden. His "Jack D. Ripper" in Doctor Strangelove was, to me, the greatest, funniest, and scariest of the characters in that film (Understandably, great props are given to Peter Sellers and George C. Scott. I've always felt people have unfairly forgotten about Hayden). If you look at his filmography, you might be stunned by the number of films he's done (including The Godfather. Some of my favorites: The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing, Johnny Guitar, Crime Wave, and, though the movie itself was an oddity, Mr. Hayden was great in The Long Goodbye). Anyway, watching Zero Hour! is a trip. Airplane! remade the film so closely that seeing Zero Hour! is like watching Airplane! with all the puns and jokes removed, yet the set ups for those same puns and jokes are there, waiting... When Sterling Hayden clenches his jaw and says "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking", you can't help but smile, recalling where Lloyd Bridges would take that particular line (it certainly was an inappropriate week to stop sniffing glue). When little Joey is in the cockpit with the pilot, and the pilot gives him a toy airplane, you're just waiting for the pilot to start asking the boy terribly inappropriate questions about gladiator movies...and seeing grown men naked. I could go on and on, but one truly has to see these films back to back to realize that Airplane!, as good as it is (and, in my opinion it is great), wouldn't have been anything without Zero Hour!
But the movie's release was delayed to February: http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/08/21/shutter-island-release-pushed/Not sure what to make of this. Usually, a film released in February is "dumped" by the studios, yet Paramount makes it a point in their press release to say that the reasoning behind doing so was due to the economy. I wonder. They've obviously already released previews of the film to theaters (and the internet) and there seemed to be interest building. Releasing it in fall would have been a sign of Oscar contention. Releasing it in February, as I said before, is often a sign that a film isn't very good. Yet Paramount's press release makes it a point to mention the movie's "positive" preview reviews. Huuummm. Sorting through the comments on the above article, it appeared at least a few of the people there were in agreement with my negative assessment of the novel. As for the movie, we'll have to wait a little longer to see.
First up, the studio behind the latest Terminator film has filed for bankruptcy: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2009/08/terminator-producers-file-for-bankrupcty-creditors-include-schwarzenegger-christian-bale-mcg.htmlSomeone posted a comment to this article that noted no one made any money on films. I suppose its true and the following line from the article makes me wonder what may be going on behind the scenes (the emphasized part is my own): Even though the movie has sold a healthy $370 million worth of tickets
around the world and has yet to be released on DVD and in other
post-theatrical markets, Anderson and Kubicek were unable to make a
payment demanded by Santa Barbara hedge fund Pacificor, which financed
their $30-million purchase of the "Terminator" rights and loaned $9
million for other operating expenses.So, despite lukewarm (at best) reviews, the film nonetheless has made quite a bit of money...and this is before the DVD release! Hrmmmm... Moving along, I'm pleased that the SciF---er, SyFy Network has renewed the delightful Warehouse 13 for a second season: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007491.html?categoryId=1417&cs=1I gave the show a try when it first aired based on positive reviews. Yes, it isn't the most original thing to ever hit TV (the show is a mash up of X-Files and Raiders of the Lost Ark), but the show maintains a breezy, entertaining attitude that is tongue in cheek but never overly broad. In some ways, its tone reminds me of the also very entertaining Burn Notice, another show that could be overly dramatic but instead chooses to be light and humorous, to very good effect.
Ok, so the teaser has hit and I find the reaction, at least at this site, interesting: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/20/james-camerons-avatar-teaser-trailer/I think I mentioned some time before that when The Watchmen movie was approaching its release date, people grew waaaay too hyped for the product and, in the end, it simply couldn't meet their very, very high expectations. I wonder if the same isn't happening with James Cameron's Avatar, a film whose expectations quotient makes that of The Watchmen look like child's play. What I see in the teaser is quite good for computer animation, but, it doesn't strike me as a quantum leap from some of the other high end computer animated films recently released. The human figures and machinery certainly look realistic (at times) but the aliens...not so much. However, putting aside the visuals for a moment, what I found more worrisome was what the teaser seems to reveal about the movie's plot. We have humans impregnating their "character" into alien avatars, the alien avatars then go out among the aliens and their planet and, I'm guessing, the humans in alien disguise grow to feel they belong there. I'm also guessing this will put them in conflict with the humans, who obviously want something from the planet/creatures. Their first attempt to gain whatever it is they want is through this "avatar" system, but now they're content, perhaps, to use military force. So the alien "avatars" have a choice: To fight for their human side, or side with the aliens. I'm guessing they side against the vast military industrial complex. If this is the general plot of the movie (and please note the entire plot synopsis presented above is my speculation and nothing more) then it seems a lot like the plots of quite a few westerns, wherein the "civilized white man" somehow joins the "savage" Indians and, over time, feels he becomes one with them. Eventually, when the U.S. army and their soldiers come crashing in, the "civilized white man" now fights with his Indian brothers. But, as I said before, I could be completely wrong here! Anyway, in case you haven't seen it, the teaser:
Yesterday I posted the trailer of Shutter Island and offered my (negative) opinion of the book's plot. Today, I found an early review from someone who saw the movie and enjoyed it. Note that the review is spoiler free: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/20/martin-scorseses-shutter-island-japanese-poster-and-early-reader-review/As I said before, I read the novel the movie is based on and found it a pretty big misfire. The book tries hard to present a " Holy shit!" type plot twist but, in the end, it was pretty damn silly. On the other hand, and as I've said before, I haven't seen the film. Images from the trailer look quite good, and maybe, just maybe, Martin Scorcese and the screenwriters have made something better out of what was in Lehane's novel. Here's another review, this time of the book, and it falls close to my views: http://januarymagazine.com/crfiction/shutterisland.htmlThe most pertinent line, at least to me: The driving tempo of this novel seems to evaporate by the end, like the
calm after a storm. Lehane drops plenty of clues for his readers, as he
leads them toward significant shifts of direction and perspective.
However, the big twist on which Lehane's tale ultimately turns is more
likely to incite a shrug than a shock. What was once pertinent and
compelling is turned into a type of parlor-trick emptiness.
http://movie-critics.ew.com/2009/08/19/movie-trailers/Interesting article from Entertainment Weekly online that (very briefly) examines movie trailer's effectiveness. They present the trailer for the upcoming Martin Scorcese/Leonardo DiCaprio film Shutter Island and the author notes that:
I’ve already seen the trailer for Shutter Island two or three times, and I have no clue about the movie’s story or artistic style.Well, I've read the Dennis Lehane book the movie was based on and though it pains me to say this...its simply not all that good, in my opinion. The opening act and setting are intriguing as hell, but once you get to the book's big reveals, the story deflates quicker than a popped balloon. Of course, I (nor most anyone else) has seen the film yet. However, I'm assuming, for the trailer gives me no reason to believe this is not the case, that the film and book follow the same general storyline and will feature the same "twist" at the end. I envy the success of Dennis Lehane. Already three of his novels have been turned into movies ( Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and now Shutter Island). However, while I have all the respect in the world for those first two works, I'm more than a little surprised such big names have attached themselves to Shutter Island. The book was, again in my opinion, really that weak.
Outland is one of those guilty pleasures of mine. To begin with, its always cool to see Sean Connery in action, especially in a science fictional setting. This movie, clearly inspired by the "look" of Alien but borrowing (some might say stealing) the plot of High Noon, features Mr. Connery as O'Niel, a sheriff at a mining station in Io, one of Jupiter's moons. He runs into some seedy characters and situations and (this is where the High Noon elements kick in), discovers that a group of killers are on their way in the next shuttle to take him down. The Sheriff tries in vain to enlist help in taking them on, but must do so (mostly) single handedly. As I said, this movie is a guilty pleasure. It isn't one of the best sci-fi films ever, but it is entertaining, so long as you don't mind the High Noon plot lifting and the fact that (as sci-fi writer Harlan Ellison so succinctly pointed out) the stupidity of carrying (and shooting!) guns on board a delicate space station...a place where any little puncture in the station's walls can lead to explosive results. Anyway, Michael Davis, the director of the so-so (IMHO) Shoot 'Em Up, has been tied into a remake of Outland. A part of me doesn't really care one way or the other... Outland was a decent enough film but not one of those "classics" that the idea of being remade makes me cringe. On the other hand, we're talking about remaking a film that, effectively, was a stealth remake of another film (albeit set in a far different setting). On the plus side, if the remake is made, perhaps we can finally expect a decent (Blu Ray) release of the original film, along with lots and lots of extras...
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/18/shoot-em-up-director-michael-davis-to-remake-outland/
Time for another of these wonderful lists I run across here and there. In this case, Moviefone's 25 worst Hollywood blockbusters. Films that made a ton of money but many consider bad/terrible entertainment: http://www.moviefone.com/insidemovies/2009/08/17/worst-blockbusters/Of the movies listed, major agreement for including Spider-Man 3 (To be honest, as much of a fan of director Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films as I am, the three Spider-Man films have left me rather cold. The first one was OK, the second was considerably better (easily the best of the lot), but the third was jaw-droppingly horrible. I would put that film on the level of Batman and Robin, also on the list). A year or so ago I had a free month of Showtime or HBO or somesuch and the movie Click was on. I spotted Kate Beckinsale (looking as gorgeous as ever) and gave the film a few minutes. After a while, I couldn't turn away. The film was soooo horrible, its plot and "emotions" soooo telegraphed, and Adam Sandler...well, the best you could say is he tried. And the whole "it was just a dream" ending...gag... (There, I spoiled it for you. Now you don't have to sit through this mess). Similar story with Ghost Rider. Abysmal and laughable at the same time. Van Helsing, on the other hand (Kate Beckinsale again!) was a migraine inducer. So many quick cuts, so little logic. Pretty to look at, though. The same goes for Pearl Harbor (what, Kate Beckinsale yet again? What do they have against her?!), Wild Wild West (loved the TV show, but when the cast of the feature film was announced, I immediately got concerned. For all his considerable charisma, Will Smith was completely wrong for the role of James West), and, lastly, Matrix Revolutions (I would add Matrix: Reloaded, the second of the "trilogy" to the list. To me, the first film was great, the other two were attempts to create something out of nothing. The Wachowski brothers (writers and directors of all three films) had a great, original idea with The Matrix. But they had no follow up, and I think that's abundantly clear when you see the turgid sequels). I'm a little surprised they didn't include the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton Cleopatra to the list. Probably THE first big (enormous, actually) budget extravaganza that had terrible word of mouth, even as the movie was being filmed! In fact, the studios put down so much money into it they were just about sunk. When Cleopatra was finally released, critics and audiences weren't impressed. However, over the years people have taken a kinder view.
I know, I know, in the heading I've mixed up the order of "importance" of the two names. The article is actually about Leonardo DiCaprio's new film. However, to me, the most intriguing aspect is that this film also happens to be director Christopher Nolan's ( Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige) new film, and that intrigues me a little more. No, I'm not one of those Leonardo DiCaprio "haters". I think he's been in some fine films, but neither is he a favorite. I suppose the same, to some extent, could be said of Christopher Nolan. I absolutely loved Memento, his first big hit, and have enjoyed his followup films, including the two Batman features. While none of the subsequent films, IMHO, have measured up to Memento, Mr. Nolan is clearly a smart, talented individual who, unlike many other directors, reaches out and tries to do something different each time out. The films may not always succeed ( The Prestige, for example, was an intriguing work that may not have built to a terrific climax, but gave you plenty to see and consider and was sharply written) but for now I'll be there to check them out: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/08/17/leonardo.dicaprio.movie/index.html
As I said before, I'm a sucker for lists. In this case, the folks at DVDFile.com have come up with their list of movies they would love to see on Blu Ray (and, in at least one case, even regular DVD) format. I can't agree with all their choices, but many of them are quite solid: http://www.dvdfile.com/views/article/dvdfiles-most-wanted-83127They're quite right regarding Steven Spielberg films on Blu Ray. Why are so few available? Jaws would be my number one choice, followed closely by Raiders of the Lost Ark and Saving Private Ryan. Alfred Hitchcock films on Blu Ray would also be very welcome. I'm anxiously awaiting the North By Northwest release (coming November 3rd), but there are plenty of others worth releasing in this superior format, from Psycho to Vertigo to Rear Window, etc. etc. etc. I'd also agree that it would be nice if they released some 1980's classics like Escape From New York, The Blues Brothers, and Aliens on Blu Ray. However, regarding that later film, I'm much more fond of Alien. I'd kill to see that one in high definition! Not on the list but a pair of films I would love to see on Blu Ray: Metropolis (1927): First and foremost on my most wanted list would be this legendary work by director Fritz Lang. A stunning film that after its premiere was cut down. Since then and until a 16mm copy was found just this past year in South America, the full cut was thought lost forever. At about that time, Kino was to release a Blu Ray version of their restored (but incomplete) copy. However, since the director's cut was found, they understandably canceled that release and, I'm hoping, will release the full version soon. (and, for this completist's sake, include the Giorgio Moroder version as well, please?) Nosferatu (1922): If you've read some of my previous posts, I'm at risk of sounding like a scratched record here, but this film is THE best vampire movie ever made, IMHO. I would love to see it in High Definition.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/16/warner-bros-to-remake-brewsters-millions/I'm a pretty big fan of Walter Hill's movies. His early ones, anyway. Among my favorites (that he directed) are The Warriors (avoid the "Director's Cut". Alas, the original theatrical cut is better, IMHO), The Driver (One of my favorites, although I read somewhere that the lead role was originally written for Steve McQueen. I suspect had he taken the role, the film would today be considered a classic. Ryan O'Neal, however, was quite good, as was Bruce Dern), The Long Riders, Southern Comfort (yeah, it was very derivative of Deliverance, but still, it was pretty good), 48 Hours (the original but not the sequel. Regarding the sequel: Ugh), and Streets of Fire (perhaps THE best Michael Pare film ever, and an early appearance of Diane Lane). The film that Walter Hill followed Streets of Fire with, alas, was Brewster's Millions, a film that, despite its cast (Richard Pryor and John Candy were the leads), I found a crushing, humorless bore. It was from that point on that Walter Hill's directorial output became more hit and miss (sadly, more miss than hit). Mind you, I don't blame the movie for Mr. Hill's subsequent lesser quality features, but then again... Anyway, as the article above states, there may be plans to remake the film. They can't go anywhere but up!
When the movie first came out, I wanted to see it. What could be better than Clint Eastwood in a cranky, tough guy role? Alas, never found the time to see it, so when it rolled out on DVD, picked it up and...once again didn't find the time to see it. Until now. Good film, and it seems to continue Mr. Eastwood's later day conversion from man of brutal action to man who favors peace (but can certainly be pushed into action) that started, perhaps, with The Unforgiven. Mr. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski (his character's name made me wonder if we're supposed to think of another character named Kowalski, this one driving around in a 1970 Dodge Challenger in the movie Vanishing Point). Kowalski's wife just died, his neighborhood is becoming filled with "foreigners", he cannot connect with his family, is cranky as hell, and coughs blood now and again. The story focuses on Kowalski's return to humanity at, paradoxically, the tail end of his life. He is a bigot, but (in one of the only real negatives I could point at regarding this film) really a "movie" bigot: All mouth but doesn't mean anything personal. It's just the way his generation is. He comes into contact with his next door neighbors' kid in a stressful situation (the kid's cousin wants him to join his gang and tells him his initiation to this club involves stealing Kowalski's mint condition 1972 Grand Torino), but soon lowers his guard and realizes he relates to these people more than his own family. To say more would be spoilery, but there is action (though not as much as hinted by the poster, which shows an angry Clint Eastwood carrying a vintage Korean War rifle) and absolutely no car chases. In fact, for much of the movie only parts of the Grand Torino are shown, and only on two occasions do we actually see the vehicle run. The later observations, by the way, reveal more about my frame of mind before watching the film than anything else! Still, a solid feature from Mr. Eastwood, never dull and with a good message about getting along. If indeed this is Mr. Eastwood's swan song from acting, he chose a good (ahem) vehicle.
I've been eager to pick up the Blu Ray, High Definition Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan for a while now, but it was only available in boxed sets either alongside Star Trek III and IV (these three movies amount to a trilogy) or the larger set featuring the first through the sixth films. However, my interest was in STII because it, unlike the other films, was digitally restored while the others were digitally remastered (there is a difference in quality, with the former the better overall product). I would also add that I was hesitant to buy the version of Star Trek the Motion Picture available in the later set, as this presented the theatrical cut of the film. I much prefer the director's cut which came some time later but which requires the studios to make new special effects as those made for the DVD were in lower resolution. Anyway, come September 22, and should you be interested, you can purchase the following Star Trek films individually. Not all of the films will be available, but the one I'm most curious about is. Below are the Amazon listings: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan ($20.49)Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home ($20.49)Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country ($20.99)Star Trek VIII: First Contact ($13.49) (!!)Don't know why First Contact is priced so low, but if you're a fan of the Next Generation films, this is easily the best of the lot.
My how time flies (and, boy, was Travolta skinny back then). If you have even a passing familiarity with Asian cinema, the name John Woo should be instantly familiar. His two best features, in my opinion, were Hard Boiled and The Killer. Both feature outrageous action sequences and more bullets fired per second than were used in both World War I and II combined. So popular were those films that Hollywood came calling, and John Woo moved over here and...well...things didn't go so well. His first feature, the Jean Claude Van Damme film Hard Target was decent enough, but word leaked that the director was forced to make several cuts to earn an R rating and that Lance Henricksen's character (the villain) was similarly whittled down. Woo's next feature was Broken Arrow and, before seeing it, I figured this would be the American movie triumph of John Woo. Big budget, bigger stars. How could it fail? Sadly, I thought it did just that. Afterwards came Face/Off, also featuring John Travolta, Mission Impossible II (this one, in particular....ugh), Windtalkers...sadly, none of those films were up to Woo's previous Hong Kong features, and to this day I feel his best work is, sadly, behind him. So the years have passed and for the first time since originally seeing the film in the theater, I spotted Broken Arrow on cable. I put it on and watched it, no longer comparing it with John Woo's "great" works, but simply looking at it as if it were another film... ...it still wasn't great, but you know what? It wasn't all that bad either. Christian Slater made for a decent hero, although I felt he was slightly miscast. John Travolta chewed the scenery quite well as the bad guy, and even football's Howie Long acquitted himself reasonably well as one of Travolta's henchmen. The biggest problems relate to the script, which felt at times half-baked (Note how much time is devoted to Frank Whaley's eager beaver political appointee character in the movie's early going, yet note also how quickly and abruptly his role is then done). However, the action sequences more than made up for the script's faults. It is clear in seeing those sequences that we have a director that, even if he isn't using a particularly great script, knows how to make each and every action sequences work, and work quite well. In the end, my estimation of Broken Arrow, dim up until now, rose a few degrees. It's still not a great film, but if you can accept it for what it is, there are far, far worse ways to spend your time.
Great, timely article regarding comic book movie success versus comic book sales: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2009/08/12/batmans-comic-tragedy?page=0,0Author Lisa Schmeiser hits a topic that has perplexed and, to a greater degree, angered me. The fact of the matter is that there is no reason for comic book companies to not be doing much, much better than they currently are, especially since in recent times movies based on comic book products have done so well (and, yes, I know some of them haven't fared as well). The comic book industry, alas, has problems. At one time, comic books could be found almost everywhere, including drug and food stores. Now, decent comic book selections are mostly found in specialized comic book shops. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of them around and a very casual reader isn't likely to spend all that much time and energy hunting one down. For a while, it was good to see comic books in both Borders and Barnes and Nobles, but it appears both stores may be pulling back. Even worse, the selection of books is at times bewildering (normally I'd welcome a large selection, but lately I worry we're reaching a point of oversaturation). And, finally: Too much backstory and labyrinthian continuity.
The reviews have, for the most part, been very positive for the new film District 9. So I was curious when I spotted this article, linked below, which negatively focuses on one primary aspect of District 9 and, conversely, notes how this particular aspect has become something of a cliche in science fiction in general: http://www.slate.com/id/2225285/Of course, what Daniel Engber, the author of the article, reacts negatively to is the idea of an "evil corporate entity".
I think he may be on to something, even though I admit to using this idea he shuns in my own novel, Mechanic. In my defense, my ultimate goal was political satire, my targets both parties (in the end).
However, Mr. Engber's point is well taken and the article gave me something to think about. Always, IMHO, something good.
I mentioned that EW's list of great horror films of the past twenty years could have included Bubba Ho-Tep, the sly, humorous film that featured an elderly Elvis Presley (played by Bruce Campbell) up against a mummy at an elderly care home. The sequel, Bubba Nosferatu, is in the works. Sadly, Bruce Campbell isn't back, replaced by Ron Perlman ( Hellboy). I'm not sure what to make of this. I like Perlman. He's one of those actors that has appeared in tons of features, and is usually good. However, Bruce Campell was soooo good as Elvis in Bubba Ho-Tep. Will Mr. Perlman make us forget the mighty Bruce? I suppose its possible... so many actors have played Elvis over the years... Director Don Coscarelli returns, and news about casting is included here: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/14/coscarelli-and-perlman-eyeing-fall-shoot-for-bubba-nosferatu-angus-scrimm-joining-cast/
Once again, Entertainment Weekly produces an...er...entertaining list. This one focuses on 20 low budget sci-fi classics. http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20297632,00.htmlTheir choices this time around are pretty strong. The only one I can't agree with is Hardware. Granted, I've only seen it once, in the theaters, way back in 1990 when it was released, but I thought it was pretty bad. Maybe I should give it another whirl. Here are a few other low budget sci-fi films I thought were pretty good: Tremors: A very fun "monsters on the loose" film, featuring not one, but two powerhouse teamups: Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward as lowly trash collectors and Michael Gross and Reba McEntire as end of the world survivalists. And the monsters were pretty cool, too! Screamers: There are plenty of movies out there based on the works of Phillip K. Dick ( Blade Runner would probably be the best known). This low budget film featured Peter Weller ( Robocop, another great low budget sci-fi film?!) as a soldier stationed in a planet where the war has passed everyone by. Only he and his group have to deal with killing machines called Screamers that can pop up anywhere...Loses some steam toward the last 1/3rd of the film, but still pretty good. The Man Who Fell To Earth: Up to this point, David Bowie's best film. Bowie plays an alien (what else?!) who winds up on Earth, seeking to bring water to his dying homeworld, but gets corrupted by the ways of humanity. Scanners: While David Cronenberg's Videodrome is on the EW list, my choice would have been Cronenberg's first "hit" movie, Scanners. Experiments in fertility drugs have resulted in babies that grew up to be mutants with the ability to use their mind to do some very bizarre things. Worth seeing if only for the scream-inducing opening scenes, featuring a very graphic head exploding. However, the rest of it is pretty damn good, too.
The above question gets trickier with each new court ruling: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/13/warner-bros-has-lost-krypton-will-lose-superman-in-2013/I'm of two minds here: I most certainly side with the creators of Superman (and their families). The fact of the matter is that Superman was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster and sold for what amounted to a token fee to what eventually would become DC Comics (Warner Brothers would eventually buy up that company, and thus own the various characters under the imprint). Siegel and Shuster made plenty of money off Superman after it became successful, but the reality is that the company made much, much more. And when the two left the comic book field, they made nothing from the character they had created, not until DC Comics relented and gave them pensions in the mid-1970's (although I could be wrong, I believe this was done in part to avoid any negative publicity concerning the upcoming Superman film). But issues regarding the work for hire contracts and copyrights have embroiled DC Comics and the Siegel family in issues regarding the ownership of the famous character, and thus far it appears that piece by piece the family is gaining control over parts of the character. It's a fascinating article, and I suspect that in the end what will happen is DC Comics/Warner Brothers will reach some kind of settlement with the family. Superman is simply too big a character to lose.
It's only been a few months since the rebooted (and critically acclaimed) Battlestar Galactica TV show aired its last episode and the new "prequel" series has yet to air. Already there's word that a new, reboot movie version of Battlestar Galactica is in the works, with director Bryan Singer ( X-Men, Superman Returns) apparently interested in having a hand in the project in some capacity: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/12/bryan-singer-to-reboot-battlestar-galactica/Frankly, I find the whole thing perplexing (oh, I already mentioned that?! ), to say the least, and even if the project comes about, even if the movie reboot of the reboot turns out to be good, I can't help but feel like the studios risk treading the same grounds over and over a little too much. Then again, if the film is good...
You might want to wait just a little: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/12/harry-potter-movies-to-get-rereleased-in-extended-editions/Seems there might be extended editions of the films on their way. Just how "extended" these films will be remains to be seen... (Just for the record: I have not read nor seen any of the Harry Potter books/movies, so I don't know how good the movies are versus the books or how potentially good an "extended" cut of the film will be versus the theatrical cut and the book).
Now and again I go through the TCM schedule and pick out films here and there that sound interesting and set them up on the DVR. I have quite a backlog of films to get to. Most often, the films recorded are "OK", decent enough but nothing spectacular. That's the way it goes, I suppose, in all entertainment venues. You get the stuff that is well known and popular, you get the stuff that is good but perhaps not as memorable, and then you get the dreck which is either memorable in how bad it is or unmemorable for the very same reasons. But once in a while you stumble upon something that was forgotten, a movie, a song, a book, that the masses may have missed, but some select few caught, and seeing these forgotten works might well have influenced these viewers to in turn create their own, more memorable works down the line. I suspect that might be the case with Blast of Silence, a no-budget 1961 film about a hit-man (played by the director and co-writer of the film, Allen Baron in his second and last appearance before the cameras. He would go on to become a director of many television shows). The hit-man is sent to New York to take out a mob figure and, during the course of the film, purchases a gun from a sleazy "hoodlum" and figures out his target's routine. Our hit-man also accidentally re-connects with people from his past and for a brief moment considers the possibility of re-connecting with life itself. As I said before, this is a no-budget film. The actors within appear to be mostly amateurs, many of whom never appeared before the cameras again. Yet they also appear human, and the location shooting in New York is a treasure for those interested in seeing what the place looked like back then. On the minus side, the film moves along rather slowly. Modern audiences, in fact, might find the film's pace a little too lethargic. Yet I'd be lying if I said that the movie's showpiece, the actual hit, wasn't a genuine white knuckle moment. And the movie's conclusion, filmed during an actual hurricane (!) that hit the NY area, is likewise powerful and memorable. The movie may well have influenced a host of directors after the fact, from Francis Ford Coppola (scenes from this movie could have easily been folded into -or served as inspiration to- the Godfather or Godfather Part 2) to Martin Scorcese. I don't know when TCM will air the film again, but if you find what I've described above interesting, you could do much worse than spending a little over an hour with Blast of Silence. 
This video clip compilation has been making the rounds, so pardon me if I'm being redundant by showing it here. It is very amusing to see how many times and in how many different films Harrison Ford has uttered these particular lines...
After all the angst/drama of exploring Woodstock and Altamont, let's get a little more frivolous....and entertaining... Here, for your enjoyment, from Entertainment Weekly, a list of 35 Unforgettable nude scenes captured to film: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20229685,00.htmlGotta agree in particular with Life of Brian. One of the most hilarious nude scenes ever. Can't say I disagree with many of the others, too!
An interesting poll in an otherwise pretty blah day. Entertainment Weekly looks at what they consider some of the best horror films of the last 20 years: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20284496_20284497_20295591,00.htmlIf this list proves anything, its that there haven't been all that many memorable horror films released since 1989. At least in my opinion. Usually, I find myself in agreement with many of the choices in lists like these, if not the placement of specific films and the fact that there are always one or two movies you feel were unfairly omitted. This time around, I find myself quibbling with many of their choices. What Lies Beneath and Darkman were both 'ok' films, but the former didn't do all that much for me and the later...would you even consider it a horror film? There were certainly "horror" elements, but what Sam Raimi delivered felt more like a superhero film, a cross between Batman/The Shadow and Swamp Thing. Alien 3, definitely a horror film, was IMHO a dark, depressing misfire (the opening moments crapped on everything that the too-early for this list Aliens accomplished, was particularly egregious. Did they have to kill Newt and Hicks so offhandedly?!). What followed, alas, was just not all that good. You know, if you're going to include a David Fincher directed horror film on your list, why not go for what was probably his best one, and one that was released well within this list's parameters, Se7en? Planet Terror and Dead Alive (aka Braindead) one could almost consider horror comedies while Shaun of the Dead is a comedy film fitted into a horror framework (ie, George Romero's zombie films). All three films are quite good, IMHO, but they're really not full on horror films, are they? (By the way, if they're making a list of great horror/comedy hybrids released since 1989, I'd certainly put these three on the list, along with Bubba Ho-Tep and Army of Darkness (these two, of course, featured Bruce Campbell. If Evil Dead II hadn't been released before 1989, I'd have included that one, too). The Silence of the Lambs gets plenty of good reviews and deserves to be on this list, but I've always preferred Manhunter (alas, that movie, which featured the first appearance of Hannibal Lector (played by Brian Cox) was released in 1986, three years too early for this list). Manhunter's story was essentially the same as SotL (I suspect author Thomas Harris, who wrote both novels these movies were based on, was cribbing from his earlier book when he wrote SotL). Event Horizon was a beautiful looking movie, and I so wished it would have been a good horror film, but the plot proved such a pastiche of other, far better films, that it was very difficult for me to enjoy. So, what's missing from this list, in my opinion? Along with Bubba Ho-Tep and Army of Darkness, I'd also put Mimic on the list. The film loses itself at the very end, but up until that point I thought this was a terrific horror film. I'd also include Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead, a pretty damn good (again, until the end) reinterpretation of George Romero's classic. Any more?
It's been a depressing year, at least with regard to celebrity deaths. The latest to pass away is John Hughes: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/06/obit.john.hughes/index.htmlFor those who lived through the 1980's, you simply could not avoid John Hughes' numerous comedy films. He was behind Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, National Lampoon's Vacation, etc. etc. etc. but seemed to disappear in recent years. His filmography, found below, shows he was still quite active, even if the films he was involved in more recently didn't catch fire like those from the 1980's. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000455/
Bless ya, Entertainment Weekly, for providing such interesting lists. In this case, 19 "crap-tacular" action films: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20295970,00.htmlI'm so with them on so many of their choices. The common denominator are films with plenty of action scenes but not so much brains. Of the Arnold Schwarzenegger films listed, my favorite would have to be Commando. What can you say about a movie that, in its first few minutes, has our he-man hero jumping out of a plane as it is in the process of taking off...and survives! Added bonus: Many of the one-liners Schwarzenegger utters are hilarious, to boot ("I let him go"). Road House seems to always be mentioned whenever people make lists of their "best terrible" films, although if I had to pick one Patrick Swayze film to fit the "crap-tacular" title it would be Point Break (also on EW's list). Director Kathyrn Bigelow has always made interesting, if not always successful, films (the current in release Hurt Locker has received some of the best reviews of any of her films), and while I can't say Point Break is a total success, it has some crazy-memorable scenes, like the one where Keanu Reeves jumps out of a plane (without a parachute) because he has to capture the bad guy. Anyway, interesting list, if not filled with completely interesting films!
As has been reported by many, G. I. Joe: Rise of Cobra will not be pre-screened for national movie critics, a sure sign that the studios have little faith their product will receive any good early critical word...or would it? Below is an interesting article that compares the eventual critical reaction to movies that were not pre-screened in advance of their release: http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/04/by-the-numbers-movies-not-screened-for-nationwide-press/I don't want to give too much away, but suffice it to say that the results, at least to me, aren't all that surprising. While the studios at times get things wrong (sometimes spectacularly so), these instances are usually the exception rather than the rule. A while back I reviewed D-Tox (aka Eye See You) a film I was curious about because it starred Sylvester Stallone and a reasonably big/interesting cast and yet the film was never released theatrically, instead going straight to video. I was even more curious after reading about the movie's plot (a variation on Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians/ And Then There Were None) and figured the film had to have some entertainment value. The film wasn't horrible, but I could see why the studios in the end didn't feel the need to waste advertising dollars on a formal theatrical release. As far as G. I. Joe is concerned, perhaps the studios feel there's little to be gained at this point by pre-screening that movie . Like The Transformers 2, there's a good chance that every critic will savage the film, but in the end, again as with Transformers 2, there's a chance they'll still make a healthy profit.
Soooo much has made its way to DVD, yet Entertainment Weekly presents this amusing list of shows that are still - still- not available on DVD and, at least according to them, should be: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20294884_16,00.htmlOf the list presented, the one that I'd most like to see is the Batman TV show. The one that surprises me that isn't yet available is L.A. Law. A very popular show you would think would have made its way to the shelves by now... But also unavailable, and not on the list (and I wouldn't mind owning): The Green Hornet (The original series by the producer of the Batman TV show was a little less tongue in cheek and featured Bruce Lee as Kato. I suspect this show will probably show up very soon, as Seth Rogan is working on a film version) Six Million Dollar Man (I know this is a nostalgia choice, but I thought there were several very good episodes in the show's first season) Our Planet Tonight (OK, I may be stretching things a bit here...this was a one shot TV show by the makers of Airplane! that parodied 20/20 and 60 Minutes-type shows. I thought the bit about the supposed "twin" brothers was especially hilarious) As for movies, there's really only one that I can think of that I'd like to get and, at least as of yet, hasn't made it to DVD: the very grindhouse-like Death Weekend (a.k.a. House by the Lake). When I first saw it (probably in/around 1979/80 or so) it scared the shit out of me. Brenda Vaccaro made for a very sexy damsel in distress while Don Stroud made for a very, very scary villain. I haven't seen that film in many, many years, and I'm really curious to see how it holds up.
Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz, the latest hosts of the very long running At The Movies, have apparently been sacked. What originally began with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, became Ebert and a rotating co-host after Mr. Siskel died, and changed once again after Roger Ebert could no longer host the show due to his illness, are now gone, according to this article: http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6733840&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=2&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hmI didn't mind Mr. Lyons and Mankiewicz, although I'd be the first to say their reviews were rather lightweight. Since (and during) the original Siskel and Ebert years there have been other attempts to emulate their program, but nothing has come close, at least in my opinion. Siskel and Ebert, together, were witty, sharp, and at times offered surprisingly deep opinions. When Mr. Siskel passed away, it was still fun watching Roger Ebert, but the magic never quite returned. I can't help but wonder if At The Movies may be on its last legs.
...and they present a far darker picture regarding Funny People's initial box office results. As I noted before, I was curious to see how the film did because despite early enthusiastic critical reaction, the commercials were IMHO terrible. I was guessing that the box office results, based on the later rather than the former, would influence how well the movie initially did. And, as I mentioned also, now that the film has been released, the critical/audience reaction is decidedly more mixed. Anyway, for those keeping track of these things: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1914219,00.html
I'm not usually one to check out box office figures. There are a bunch of films that have earned tons of cash that haven't been worth a damn and, conversely, there have been films that have made very little upon their initial release (or even been considered "flops") that over time have been re-assessed and re-classified as genuine "classics". But for whatever reason, I became intrigued with how well Funny People, the latest film from Judd Apatow and starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan, would do. Why? Quite simply, despite some very, VERY positive early critical reaction/word of mouth, the commercials for the film were atrocious. Talk about a disconnect. Granted, now that the film has formally been released, I'm finding more variety in critical opinion (I believe Entertainment Weekly gave the film a C-), but early on there were many who felt this was Apatow's "masterpiece" and that it was the best Adam Sandler film ever (not to be too snarky, but given some of the films he's done...). And there I was, reading all this positive word of mouth and, on the other side, finding some of the most annoying commercials for a product I've ever seen. Adam Sandler and Seth Rogan sit in with a Doctor who has a foreign accent. Sandler (or was it Rogan?) says something to the effect that "Weren't you upset you died at the end of Die Hard?" Groan. Then we see a small get together of characters in another scene from the film, and Jonah Hill (another Apatow regular) wonders about the movie Harry Potter and how old he's looking of late. The punchline went something like this: Is Harry Potter working on getting a "PhD" in wizardry? Yikes. Anyway, the bottom line is that the film did decently for the weekend, but perhaps not as well as hoped... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/08/02/boxoffice.ew/index.html
I've said before I'm a sucker for lists (I just posted the Dave Gibbons five favorite films below!), and this list is certainly...interesting: Ladies and gentlemen, from msnbc.com, five top films that deal with eating! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32091261/ns/entertainment-5top/Of the ones listed, Tampopo is probably the one I'd rank as most dealing with food/eating, although the others on the list aren't too shabby, either!
A curious list of five favorite films by Dave Gibbons, comic book artist extraordinaire (He was the artist for The Watchmen, the 12 part comic book series that was the basis for the movie): http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/watchmen/news/1834415/five_favorite_films_with_dave_gibbonsI'm always intrigued by what other folks consider their favorite films, and his list is pretty decent, even if it seems he didn't have a great deal of time to think up his list (he appeared to be groping for the last item on the list). Of the ones he did list, however, I can't fault him for the first three ( Grosse Point Blank may not be one of my all time favorites, but it is a quirky, fun film, given the main character's field of work!). Terminator 2, however, is the only one I'm not as up on. The original Terminator was a terrific film, but despite the considerable budget, I wasn't as blown away by the sequel as I had hoped to be. Still, not a "terrible" film by any means.
Just picked this up from Aint It Cool News: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41901Jeremy Renner, from the critically acclaimed Hurt Locker, mentions in an interview that he is "fighting" to do the new Mad Max film. However, he doesn't come out and say, as the article above points out, that he's in the hunt for the actual role of Mad Max (Mel Gibson, at least so far, has apparently declined returning for a fourth stab at the part). I'm a little ambivalent about someone else playing the role of Max. The Road Warrior (or Mad Max 2) remains one of my all time favorite action films. The original Mad Max was a great little indie with a terrific climax. Unfortunately, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome, the third film featuring the character, was a big disappointment. Still, I was hoping to see Mel Gibson take on the role one more (last?) time. If he doesn't, I'll most certainly survive. I just hope the next Mad Max film lives up to the first two.
The sad reality of being an individual who creates (be it music, books, stories, films, etc.) is that if you're not careful, there are literally millions of ways you can lose the rights, and more importantly, the royalties for whatever it is you've done. Recall the sad fate of Bill Finger, the co-creator and writer of Batman (and the man who came up with much of this famous character's lore), who died poor while Bob Kane, the artist of the strip (and most certainly the character's co-creator), received all the credit and fame for Batman's creation. Robert Heinlein, certainly a famous enough author in his own rights, created many wonderful science fictional concepts, many of which were "borrowed" and showed up in other works and movies, without Henlein being recognized for his contributions (ever read Heinlein's The Puppet Masters? Curious about its similarities to Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Heinlein's book was first published in 1951. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the book by Jack Finney) was first serialized in 1954 and the first film version was released in 1956. By the time The Puppet Masters was made into a feature film in 1994, I recall at least one critic mistakingly feeling this film was a pale "imitation" of Invasion of the Body Snatchers!) Similar things happen in music, but in this case, organist Matthew Fisher is getting his due (credit and cash): http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/30/procol.harum.royalties/index.html
I'm of two minds here...I truly loved Ridley Scott's work in the original Alien (1979). They took a simple, even somewhat cliched idea (the haunted mansion) and moved it into space and, instead of a ghostly entity haunting/killing the cast, you had a fearsome creature that was the very definition of "alien" attacking the crew. I enjoyed James Cameron's sequel, Aliens, but the "look" of that film feels dated now compared to that of Alien. The sequels that followed, including those featuring the creature from Predator, were a case of rapidly diminishing results. So, its interesting to read that Ridley Scott is returning to the franchise he started. It certainly raises my hopes. However, so much time has ellapsed since the original Alien (and his involvement in the work) that I can't help but wonder if he's truly interested or even capable of delivering on something that will inevitably be compared to the original. After all, it wasn't all that long ago that hopes were really high for Spielberg's return to Indiana Jones, or George Lucas' return to the Star Wars universe. Regardless, for now I'll be (cautiously) optimistic... http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/07/30/ridley-scott-to-direct-alien-prequel/
A while back (see it here) I mentioned the fact that someone had made a zombie movie for $70 (yes, that's seventy dollars. Not seven hundred, not seven thousand. Seventy). My note was brief because the article offered little information other than the fact that the film was named Colin and was made by a budding British director named Marc Price and it was "wowing" folks at Cannes. Anyway, here's a more in depth article regarding the film and the fact that, at least in England, it has made it to the movie theaters and will, eventually, make it to DVD: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/28/70.dollar.movie.distribution/index.html
I picked up the paper today and, like other days, noted its getting awfully thin. It started, of course, when the local papers which were beefed up with Real Estate advertisements (among many others) suddenly had almost no advertisements for property sales. Both local and national papers, I'm noting, are getting awfully smaller. And here's another sign of the changing economy: Harvey Schwartz, owner of 20th Century Props, has run out of money and is forced to auction off his collection of movie props. Seems Hollywood is losing out on film work (other states are offering tax incentives to bring productions there, and you must have read by now the economic problems within California) and Mr. Schwartz is another example of the weakened economy: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/07/28/hollywood.prop.sale/index.html
The above heading appeared on another BBS board (you can find it here) and I thought it was a fascinating subject matter, although I must admit to having a hard time recalling any films that fit into this subject matter. Usually, if I hate a film (or find it mediocre), there is usually nothing that appeals to me about it. However... I have to agree that the "Bad" Superman versus "Good" Superman/Clark Kent from Superman III was a pretty good scene in an otherwise horrible film. The movie Cannonball Run was excruciatingly bad, IMHO, but I have to admit the Roger Moore "fight" scene was hilarious. In fact, I remember when Siskel and Ebert were reviewing the movie, that was the scene they showed. Both Siskel and Ebert laughed after the clip was shown, then went on to talk about how abysmal the film was. If I recall any others, I'll post 'em. Meanwhile, feel free to post your own!
Interesting quote from the San Diego Comic Con about the possibility that the sequel to the new Star Trek movie might be a two parter or, equally possible, they may want to film them back to back...It's an odd quote: http://io9.com/5322654/star-treks-third-movie-being-plotted-out-alreadyHopefully the new film(s) will present a more original story versus a retread of many of Star Trek's most memorable bits.
I've generally enjoyed Greg Rucka's comic book work (his novels aren't too bad either). Perhaps his best work is Queen and Country, but Whiteout was pretty good, too. I suspect that the film, based on that comic book and whose trailer is presented below, has its story broadened or expanded from the comic book. Don't get me wrong: The comic book story was good, but rather slight, IMHO, for a full length film. On the plus side, it appears they've kept the rather gruesome "finger" sequence:
Ok, so why should you care about a direct to video film released way, way back in 2002? Two words: The cast. When I first heard about D-Tox/Eye See You being released to video, I was surprised. Back then, the idea of a fairly big name actor starring in a film that subsequently is passed by the theaters was almost unheard of (since then, its a whole other thing). Sylvester Stallone stars as a rough and tumble cop who's on the trail of a serial cop killer, a man who appears to have seen Se7en one too many times. He takes out a cop friend of Stallone's and then, adding insult to injury, rather gruesomely takes out Stallone's girlfriend/fiance. But, immediately after, the police surround the killer in a warehouse district, and Stallone apparently takes the hated serial killer out. All this happens in the movie's first ten or so minutes. Unfortunately, its a lot to take, and its hard to develop much sympathy for Stallone (who's not bad in playing a man who is far from the indestructable "Rambo" type). Anyway, after all this, Stallone's character becomes a heavy drinker and, ultimately, suicidal. No longer able to take any more of it, he slits his wrists, but does not die. He's taken by another cop friend to a very isolated cop-centric detox and therapy center way, way up north (the place looks like it could have been used in John Carpenter's The Thing). When a very heavy snow fall occurs and people within this place start dropping like flies, we're suddenly into Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians/ And Then There Were None territory. Ok, so we're not dealing with the most original of plots but, again, look at that cast: There's Stallone, of course, and Tom ( Platoon) Berenger, Kris ( Blade, Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia) Kristofferson, Robert ( Terminator 2) Patrick, Sean Patrick ( Young Indiana Jones, The Boondock Saints) Flanery, and Polly ( Patriot Games) Walker. Sadly, most of those wonderful actors, with the possible exception of Robert Patrick and (in only one scene) Sean Patrick Flanery, get all that much to do. Everyone else seems to hang around, acting in turns nutty or suspicious or defeated (remember: the bulk of the cast are playing fellow drunk/burnt out cops). In a shocking revelation that should be no shock to anyone at all, the killer turns out to be the serial cop killer from the beginning of the film. He wasn't dead, after all, and the way Stallone figures out who he is falls squarely in the realm of Nancy Drew-like detective work (SPOILER! I'll give it this one away because I just can't help myself: The killer kept a match book -yes, a freaking match book- from way back at the start of the film in his room, and Stallone happens to find it). Silly, silly silly. And yet I couldn't entirely hate the film. Don't get me wrong: There's good reason it didn't make it to theaters, but I've paid for and seen far worse. What we have here is something that got away from the creators. The plot, while not the most original, might have worked better if most of the opening act (the most predictable part of the film) had been cut and, instead, the film focused on getting to the "meat" of the matter: The detox center. Further, several of the actors in this movie are given next to nothing to do. The biggest waste of screen time is shared between Tom Berenger, who is very capable of being interesting on screen, and actress Angela Alvarado. Berenger plays the detox center's maintenance man and does very, very little. But at least he's got a few lines here and there. Poor actress Angela Alvarado, who plays a burnt out female cop, does so little she makes Tom Berenger's role in this film look like Hamlet. She does absolutely nothing. Why bother having her there at all?! Anyway, a missed opportunity, for sure, all the more frustrating because it could have - should have- been better.
It's always been a source of curiosity to me, perhaps since Jaws premiered but certainly by the time the original Star Wars appeared in theaters, what makes people "herd" around something. I recall the long lines of cars waiting to enter a drive-in theater (in Venezuela no less), and people actually standing on roofs of their cars, to catch a glimpse of the earlier showing of Jaws on theater screens. Fast forward to the arrival of Star Wars, and the incredible hoopla that suddenly turned almost everyone into a fan. I admit to being fascinated by this sudden need to be part of some thing...be it music (the Beatles, when they first appeared, sent fans screaming), books ( Harry Potter and, now, Twilight), TV (most recently American Idol), and, of course, movies. As customers, we lurch from one product to another, without any visible rhyme nor reason. Sometimes, we herd around one particular product, to the point where its a...frenzy. I still recall hearing vague whispers, after Harry Potter's final book appeared in the stores, that the "next" hot series might be this one written by a Mormon mother, a series that involved a young girl and vampires and first love. I didn't think much about it, but it seemed like the very next day everyone heard of Twilight. Anyway, the Twilight frenzy is taking up the San Diego Comic Con... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/twilight.fans/index.html
You may want to wait until December:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Directors-Digital-BD-Live-Blu-ray/product-reviews/B001FB55H6/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R21P0MT6KFDL8CThis is the review page of the Watchmen Blu Ray release, from Amazon. The first review on this page, by Todd A. Johnson points out: ...it was downright painful to open this (Watchmen) set only to discover the insert
announcing the "ULTIMATE" 5 disc super edition due in December. So, if
you're looking for the director's cut WHICH WILL INCLUDE the interwoven
Tales of The Black Freighter, plus director Snyder and original artist
Gibbon's commentary, etc.-bonus-this-special-that... WAIT UNTIL
DECEMBER.
You know, I've always hated the dreaded "double dipping" of movie releases via DVD. I was furious when Memento was released, thinking that that film, more than any other, would benefit with the DVD release. The studio had to include an option where we see the film in "normal" time, right? Nope. It wasn't until some four or five months later that a "special edition" DVD was released, much to my annoyance, which featured the option I expected on the first version. What was even more infuriating was that I KNEW the studios had the "better" edition already slated for release, yet chose to release the bare bones version without announcing the "special edition" was on its way to, I can only assume, get some quick cash from suckers like me. At least in this case it appears Warners was somewhat upfront that they were going to release a "ultimate" version of Watchmen. Of course, they chose to make this announcement inside the regular release...
And, like the more in depth last one I pointed out (it can be found here), this one doesn't sound all that encouraging, either: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20291406,00.htmlThe main complaint I keep hearing about the film is that it simply goes on and on. The opening minutes are almost always cited as being the best part of the film, but the remainder meanders. I didn't catch the film in the theater and plan to pick up the DVD and give it a whirl (time permitting...I have soooo much to catch up on!). However, if director Zack Snyder was too slavish to the very dense story, I certainly understand people's ambivalent reactions to the film. The comic book was very dense, and even at 3 hours, I doubt anyone could fit in everything writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons presented. Perhaps, instead of being so devoted to presenting everything in the book on the screen (or as much as possible), this is one project that might have benefited from prudent cuts. I'll tell you when I finally see it!
...very late, at least for me, and I'll be damned if I couldn't stop watching it until the end. I missed the very first couple of minutes, but still caught the interesting stuff. And by that I mean the movie's baddie, Family Feud host and one time Hogan Hero Richard Dawson. A while back I commented on memorable movie villains (the link to the post is here). I honestly think I missed one in not mentioning Richard Dawson's Damian Killiam. For he is one of the best movie villains ever. How could I forget him? Easily: The Running Man is not one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best action films (although its not the worst... Last Action Hero probably deserves that dis-honor). In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if it wasn't for Richard Dawson's delightful turn as the game show host/villain of the piece, the film would be utterly forgettable (up until seeing it again last night, I had forgotten Jim Brown ( Jim Brown!!!!), Mick Fleetwood, and Dweezil Zappa were in it. Maria Conchita Alonzo, Jesse Ventura, and Yaphet Kotto were also in the cast, but given they had more screen time, I remembered they were a part of this). But, getting back to Richard Dawson, if you should find yourself seeing the film again as I did, savor Richard Dawson's every scene. In the end, he even had the movie's most memorable line. For those who can remember, since first uttering "I'll be back", his most famous line in The Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger managed to throw that line in most of his follow up films. When he offers Dawson those words, the amiable, cold-blooded game show host responds: "Only in re-runs." How great is that?
An interesting article regarding Michael Douglas, who takes a look back at some of the memorable films he was either in or involved with: http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6692692&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=3&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hmOne can certainly appreciate what he's done in his life (although I'm more partial to the works of his father), particularly his Oscar winning role in Wall Street and his production of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. The latter, if memory serves, became something of a sore subject between Michael and his father. Kirk Douglas played the Jack Nicholson role on stage and was eager to make a film version, but found it difficult to get the studios interested. Again, if memory serves, he gave the property to Michael Douglas, and Michael managed to get the movie made. Only without his father in the lead role. Ouch. As for Fatal Attraction, I'll always find it a remake/homage/steal of Clint Eastwood's Play Misty For Me (the first film he directed!), and while the article is about Michael Douglas and he has no reason to do so, I wish he would have acknowledged that film in his comments. Clearly his film is the better known one, but Play Misty For Me came first.
A humorous (and, for those unfamiliar with The Onion, not real at all!) "news in photos", regarding the Mona Lisa and a curious way to thwart its theft... http://www.theonion.com/content/from_print/dye_pack_foils_art_thiefBy the way, I also enjoyed the joke regarding the Seattle Space Needle. I'm certain the joke plays off the David Bowie film The Man Who Fell To Earth. A brief digression: The other day, while watching one of the Starz! channels, I spotted the tail end of the TV movie remake of The Man Who Fell To Earth (1987). Pretty bland stuff, although it did appear to take the general premise of the book/movie and (par for the course with some made for TV movies of the time) weaken it to the point of pointlessness. The ending of the movie suggested it was a pilot for a potential series that never got made, a sort of Fugitive meets the alien type thing, where our hero, while not necessarily on the run, goes from place to place meeting up new people while trying to get together a space craft to deliver water to his parched world. A brief digression (part 2): It appears a new version of this film is in the works. Wonder if it'll show up on video one day, like the It's Alive remake I mentioned the other day...
Sometime back I noted the rise of the direct to video movies. We're seeing fairly big stars suddenly showing up in movies in the stores and we've never even heard about those films until that point. Well, this one came as a pretty big surprise: A remake of It's Alive. The original, from 1974, was one of those films I saw as a young boy that stuck with me. It is not, by any means, a "great" film, but it is creepy and the premise, a mutant newborn baby that kills, got stuck in one of those dark fringes of my mind. The remake stars Bijou Phillips and appears to stick to the original film's central conceit. It was made in 2008 and is now making its way to the stores. Ain't It Cool News offers a review of the remake... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41671
From The Huffington Post, a list of what they consider "iconic" movie moments involving women in very sexy swimwear...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/12/womens-iconic-swimsuit-mo_n_228201.htmlI find it interesting that at least two of the ones presented, Jessica Alba in Into The Blue and Halle Berry in Die Another Day were both "tributes" or "homages" to, respectively, Jacquelin Bissett in The Deep (the plot of Into The Blue is essentially the same as The Deep) and Ursulla Andress in Dr. No (when Berry steps out of the water, the scene is a homage to Andress' first appearance in that first Bond film...for that matter, I think the makers of Die Another Day were purposely producing a film that was simply a series of homages to other Bond films). Of course, Jacquelin Bissett and Ursulla Andress' appearances in those films are part of the list as well!
If you are, you're probably already committed, but here's an early review of the upcoming release nonetheless: http://www.dvdfile.com/reviews/article/watchmen-directors-cut-bd-80533I found it interesting to read a review delivered by someone unfamiliar with the Watchmen graphic novel (or, more accurately, the twelve issue series) that the movie was based on. In the end, I suspect this might have been what hurt the film to those who were coming in "cold". The comic book was a very dense piece of work, and the movie might have benefited from (dare I say it?) some simplification. Then again, those who demanded a blow by blow movie version of the comic might not have been pleased...
Ten years since the release of The Blair Witch Project, that is. This interesting article from Entertainment Weekly looks back on that movie and talks to the directors. As they say in the article, this $20,000-25,000 film wound up making $249 million and offered an incredible incentive to a virtual fleet of would-be filmmakers. A couple of the things I recall: 1) This was one of the first films whose success was derived in large part through strong word of mouth via the internet. I recall debates among people, wondering if what they were seeing wasn't a work of fiction but...reality. 2) Having said that, with such strong word of mouth, it was inevitable when the film finally came around to the various cities, that there would be a backlash. I recall many eagerly going to see what was purported to be the scariest movie ever, only to emerge from the theatres wondering what exactly all that fuss was about. Alas, I'm in the camp that feels TBWP was, at best, a rather mediocre low budget (natch) film that nonetheless had a strong and, yes, eerie ending. Those last few frames of the film felt like something H. P. Lovecraft would write. Considering my love for that author, this is high praise indeed. However, the stuff leading to that point didn't do all that much for me. Still...ten years?! http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/07/blair-witch.html
...courtesy of Will Ferrell and Adam McKay: http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/07/ferrell-mckay-movies-to-see-before-you-die.htmlOf course, everyone's taste is different, and the inclusion of Tron by Mr. Ferrell appears more as a "I can't believe such a film was ever made" type inclusion (I'm not quite as harsh, although I'm far from a big fan of the film). It got me to thinking about what 14 films I would urge everyone to see. So, in no particular order (except for the first 3, which are my all time favorite three films): 1) Metropolis (1927) - Director Fritz Lang's absolute masterpiece of science fiction was so inspirational that elements of it can be found in many of today's films. Ever wonder where C3PO's design came from? Or where the inspiration for the world of Blade Runner (and every sci-fi dystopia) first appeared? It's all here, along with a breathless, pulpy plot. And the most astonishing thing: Until last year, the complete movie was thought lost forever. A complete print (although one that is in pretty bad shape) was found in South America and, hopefully very soon, we'll all be able to see the film as it was originally intended. 2) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) - Some of today's audiences might find the film's pace too slow, but I was absolutely mesmerized by this film, and all the very deep and provocative messages it makes about what it is to be human. 3) Orphee (1950, otherwise known as Orpheus) - French film that was likely a big inspiration to Neil Gaiman and his works. A magical (then) modern take on the Orpheus legend, with references to the just finished second world war. 4) Bullitt (1968) - Steve McQueen's absolutely best film, and one that I can watch over and over and over again. The plot: Cop McQueen is told to keep a mob witness safe, but things go bad very quickly. McQueen equally quickly realizes he's been hired to this job to take the fall, but those manipulating things behind the scenes underestimated him. Bonus: Probably the all time best car chase ever filmed. 5) Airplane! (1980) - My all time favorite comedy, one that features clever banter as well as plenty of physical comedy and sight gags. And remember, don't call me Shirley. 6) Duel (1971) - As a youngster back in about 1971, this film, whose plot involved a simple man being menaced by a very big truck, was the first I saw and understood from start to end. It wouldn't be until years later, when I saw it again, that I realized why: In spite of some dialogue here and there, this is essentially a silent film, and a superb one at that. Steven Spielberg was the director, and this was his first step toward superstardom. Jaws, which he made in 1975, is essentially a thematic remake of this film. 7) The Maltese Falcon (1941) - Third, and best, adaptation of Dashiell Hammet's mystery. Director John Huston and actor Humphrey Bogart shine in this tale of low lifes who are attempting to double cross each other and gain possession of "the stuff dreams are made out of". The dialogue is brisk and witty, and the movie moves. 8) Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) - First (unauthorized) filmed version of Dracula remains, to me, the best, despite some heavy competition that followed. Eerie and somber, with a villain that genuinely makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck. 9) Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) - John Carpenter's first really successful film, to me, remains his best. Do not confuse this with the very weak 2005 remake! A great example of a very successful low budget filmmaking. The tension ramps up with every minute that passes as a skeleton crew in a to-be-closed police station is assaulted by waves of gang members, intent on killing everyone within! 10) Diamond Are Forever (1971) - I may get grief for this choice (of all the James Bond films, this is the one you recommend?!), but I really, really enjoy this tongue in cheek Bond film. Granted, Sean Connery looks much older than he should, and any pretense of seriousness is thrown out the window early on, but I really enjoyed this film. From the effeminate killers to the stereotypical mobsters in Vegas, to the death defying feats, this is the definition of a "popcorn" movie. At least to me! 11) Superman (1978) - To this day, my favorite superhero movie ever. Pure magic from the first minutes on, and one of those rare films that gives me goosebumps just by listening to the theme music. There are detractors out there, those who think the Krypton scenes went on too long or that Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor was too campy. I couldn't disagree more. To paraphrase Roger Ebert: I love, love, love this film. 12) The Wicker Man (1973) - Please, please, please ignore the Nicholas Cage remake. The original Wicker Man is one of the more fascinating films you'll ever find: A horror story that doesn't feature all that many scares (until the end, that is) but does feature musical numbers (!) and a fascinating look at a fictional Pagan society, as viewed through the eyes of a devout Catholic. The ending is haunting in more ways that one, and brutal with regard to religions of all types. 13) Dirty Harry (1971) - If there's one Clint Eastwood film you should see, this is it. Clint Eastwood was already a star thanks to the "spaghetti westerns" he made a few years before (and are very much worth seeing as well), but this film made him a superstar, and rightfully so. A brutal cat and mouse game develops between a crazed serial killer and an at times brutal cop. The ending is terrific, and should have shut the door on any sequels. 14) Mad Max 2 (1981, aka The Road Warrior) - Well, we've reached the end. There are sooo many more films I could mention ( Vanishing Point, The Killers (both versions), Out of the Past, etc. etc.), but I'm going to end this list with my favorite "car crash" type action movie. Back before Mel Gibson became...odd, he first attained stardom with his role in this film. The plot: In the near future oil is gone and society has disintegrated. Now, a lone survivor with a painful back history (presented in the original Mad Max film) roams the desert waste, scavenging whatever gasoline he can. He stumbles upon a small village encircled and protected with high fences. They have an oil pump, something a group of very unsavory characters outside the perimeter is very aware of. What follows is pure, adrenaline pumping chaos.
I found this interesting article from Slate magazine, featuring a list of stunts from films that stuntmen rate as their favorites: http://www.slate.com/id/2221388/There are two stunts that I've always been amazed by, and both were in Roger Moore James Bond films. The first, in Live and Let Die, has the stuntman run across a pond filled with alligators. The clip below is found in the "special features" section of the DVD, and features all the "takes" to make this stunt. The second stunt, in the otherwise very disappointing follow up to L&LD, The Man With The Golden Gun, features one of the loopiest car jumps ever filmed. I couldn't find a clip of that particular stunt, so you'll have to look up the movie itself...
Coming soon is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, the final film that Heath Ledger was involved in (alas, he could not complete it. Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell stepped in to film the remaining scenes involving his character). I'm intrigued to see how director Terry Gilliam completed the film. I can't say I'm a HUGE fan of Terry Gilliam. He's made some intriguing films, and some genuinely great visual scenes. But sometimes, his films just don't "work" for me. I would say Brazil is probably his best overall film, and I loved the acting he got out of Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys (even if, overall, I didn't care for the film all that much). Still, it's interesting to read his thoughts about Imaginarium, and other matters... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/03/terry.gilliam.parnassus.ledger/index.html
I found this interesting list of "Top 50 movie villains" at ew.com: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20186285,00.htmlIt got me to thinking about what are some of my favorite movie villains. I won't try 50, but here the ones in my top 10 (and in no particular order): Nosferatu: Vampire Count Orlok, in the first (unauthorized) movie version of Dracula. Released in 1922, the widow of Bram Stoker (Dracula's author) tried to have the movie destroyed. What a shame it would be had she succeeded, as, with all due respect to Bela Lugosi and that fantastic version of the film, this remains my favorite, and Orlok (as played by Max Shreck) remains one of my favorite movie villains. Bullitt: My favorite Steve McQueen film has the taciturn cop ultimately matching wits with Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn), a pretty boy politician whose hands are very dirty. What makes Chalmers a great villain is that he's your classic two faced dirty politician: He knows to look great for the news cameras and his constituents while, in reality, he moves around people like pieces on a chess board, ultimately revealing himself to be in bed with the mob. Duel and Jaws: I know, I know, I'm cheating a little here, but the villains of these two famous Steven Spielberg films are essentially the same "type": Relentless killing machines. In the former, we have a maniacal truck driver who will not stop until he kills the bland David Mann (Dennis Weaver). In the later (and do I really have to explain?), we have a monstrous killer shark that is hell bent on taking down our three protagonists. Both films are examples of Spielberg at his hair raising, suspenseful best. The Caine Mutiny: In good conscience, I cannot reveal who the ultimate villain of this piece is, because doing so would be a very big spoiler. On the surface, the villain of this movie appears to be the mentally unstable Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart). But as we watch, the true villain is revealed to be a man who pulls everyone's strings, but when it comes time to stand up to his convictions, backs off and proves himself a coward. In this movie's case, the villain isn't your standard killer or maniac or power mad megalomaniac, but a man with no moral fiber. Dr. Strangelove: Of the villains on this list, this one is the loopiest...and the most dangerous. After all, by the end of the film, he has achieved what he wanted: Nuclear war. Even worse, he's unknowingly instigated the end of the world. Who am I refering to? General Jack D. Ripper, played with straight faced seriousness (despite the lunatic words that come out of his mouth) by Sterling Hayden. While the work of Peter Sellers and George C. Scott rightfully receives plenty of kudos, the unheralded triumpth of this brilliantly demented film revolves around Mr. Hayden. The Shining: Another great Stanley Kubrick film, one that has grown on me with each viewing. Many critics felt that Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) went crazy from the get go, that the film would have been better to show his madness coming on gradually. To this I say: Sit back and relax...or try to anyway. Jack Nicholson has rarely been this scary. Psycho: I'm refering, of course, to the original Alfred Hitchcock film and not the remake. By now, almost everyone knows about Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). But one has to remember that, at the film's original release, the big reveal at the end was a big surprise. In fact, way back in high school, I had a friend who read the novel and afterwards couldn't stop telling me how shocked he was by that ending (he never saw the film, obviously). A great film, a great villain. The Untouchables: Brian DePalma's film version of the popular novel and TV show featured what is, to me, Robert DeNiro's best villainous turn, playing mobster Al Capone. He is arrogant and mad with power, emotionally volcanic and eccentric. Although his appearances in the film were little more than an extended cameo, he was truly memorable. Dirty Harry: Clint Eastwood's seminal role featured an equally brutal villain in the Scorpio Killer (Andy Robinson). In fact, I would say that while Clint Eastwood rightfully received kudos for this role, the movie wouldn't have been anywhere near as good without Andy Robinson's brilliant turn as the bloodthirsty, warped, yet very intelligent serial killer. He dogs Callahan throughout the film, alternately one step ahead (or behind) his nemesis, until the final confrontation. Cape Fear: I'm refering to Robert Mitchum's chilling portrayal of Max Cady in the original film and not the (to me) over the top Martin Scorsese directed sequel (with Robert DeNiro in the villainous role). Robert Mitchum has always been a favorite of mine: He can look sleepy eyed but always seems to know where he's at and what he's doing. In Cape Fear, he uses that sleepy eyed look to, outwardly, look innocent. But then, in the shadows, the beast is revealed, and Cady turns out to be more than a handful. A great movie villain.
I have a real soft spot in my heart for the works of Michael Mann. When he's good, he's really, REALLY good: Thief, Manhunter (the first, and in my opinion BEST film with villainous Hannibal Lector, much better, IMHO, than Silence of the Lambs, which followed and featured Anthony Hopkins for the first time in the role), Heat, The Insider. Even though I'm not much of a fan of either Tom Cruise or Jamie Foxx, I also greatly enjoyed Collateral (the movie's biggest flaw, alas, revolves around the central plot itself...after a while, it seemed unlikely that Cruise's ultra-cool hitman character would hang around with Jamie Foxx's taxi driver that long). I aslo greatly enjoyed the TV shows Miami Vice and Crime Story. But, of course, that's not to say Mr. Mann's output has always been great (show me someone in the entertainment field that long who hasn't hit a bump or two now and again). The Miami Vice movie was something of a disappointment. I recall wandering the DVD section in Costco one day and a pair of ladies were, like me, sorting through the available movies. One of them picked up the Miami Vice DVD and said something to the effect of: "I liked the TV show, but this was NOTHING like the TV show." I couldn't have disagreed more. Unfortunately, Miami Vice the movie was too much like Miami Vice the TV show...both in the good and, unfortunately, some of the bad. We have an infiltration of a drug dealer, double crosses, higher ups screwing our boys up, a big shoot out, a resolution that promises nothing has changed. I was hoping that in all the years away from Miami Vice, Mr. Mann would come up with something new and interesting to say, but in this case he didn't, IMHO. It also didn't help that the chemistry between the leads was nonexistent, something that made the TV show work. But moving along, Mr. Mann's latest film, Public Enemies, is out today, and I'm at the very least curious to see it. But already I've seen two wildly divergent reviews. If you're interested, here's a review that gives the film a magnificent 3 1/2 stars:
http://www.miamiherald.com/1054/story/1120878.htmlAnd here's a review that didn't: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1907150,00.htmlToo hot or too cold? Here's a review that hits the middle ground: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2009/07/01/_public_enemies/
Going into this, I didn't expect much. Especially when Rottentomatoes.com has this one ranked pretty low ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mutant_chronicles/). I suspect it made its TV debut because the star of the movie is Thomas Jane ( The Punisher, The Mist, Deep Blue Sea), an actor who I've always found interesting, even if his movies have generally not been so great. Anyway, he's in the new HBO series Hung, so I think the timing of showing The Mutant Chronicles may coincide slightly with the former series' release. I recall reading about TMC and its plot sounded at least semi-interesting. That and the fact that the movie featured the already mentioned Jane, Ron ( Hellboy) Perlman, Devon ( Sin City) Aoki, and, even I had a hard time believing it, John freaking Malkovich (although his role is a slightly extended cameo). What impressed me the most, if I could use such grand terms to a film that, at best was rather mediocre, were the interesting special effects used throughout. The film was obviously low budget despite the cast, and the filmmakers attempted to make up for that shortfall by giving the film a Sin City-type effect vibe. As far as I could tell, the actors mostly worked in a blue/green screen and the effects were added via computer afterwards. And, I must say, they made an interesting impression. The film's drawback, and its a BIG one, is the fact that the plot is pretty pedestrian. Its your classic suicide mission: A group of military types head into the heart of enemy (in this case mutant enemy) soil to try to destroy their conversion machine (the mutants were once humans) and wipe out the menace once and for all. And, being a suicide mission and all, you know that the team's casualties would be very high. But the predictability is also high. When all is said and done and we reach the closing minutes, you know who the sole survivor will be. You also know that a certain high level character who appears dead will return...as the enemy. The only thing missing (and would have surely been there had Alistair MacLean written the script), is a traitor in the ranks. However, given the enemies in this movie are very distinguishable mutants with razor sharp claws for arms, this theoretical traitor would have been difficult to hide among our Dirty Dozen-like humans. So, for a rainy evening, it passed the time, but I can see how and why TMC didn't achieve (at least I don't think it did!) a full theatrical release. Even if it had John Malkovich in a cameo role.
From Ain't It Cool News comes this article. Although the writer didn't see the whole thing, he offers some interesting comments regarding the upcoming Blu Ray release of The Watchmen. Most interesting is the fact that we'll get the "Director's Cut" of the film, and it will be longer than the theatrical version (I wonder, however, if this is a good thing, given that many seemed to feel the theatrical version could have been cut down some). You guessed it, I haven't seen the film (either theatrical or, obviously, the "Director's Cut") yet. Add it to the list. Anyway, the article follows: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41527A little side-note update: Just found this article that talks about how the "DVD market is rewriting the history of films". Fascinating stuff that points out how films are being released as "definitive" or "Director's" editions when they can't possibly be this. The very last line in the article (found on the article's second "page") is both hilarious and devastating: http://www.slate.com/id/2220740
CNN offers this article. It points out the fact that despite considerable public interest (and strong advanced ticket sales) critics have been most unkind with the new Transformers film. I must admit, I never saw the first one and will likely never do so (there remain so many films I've bought on DVD that I still haven't gotten around to...and I'm more interested in seeing them than the first Transformers film!), but I am fascinated by the vitriol directed toward this movie's sequel. For what it's worth, our local paper gave the film 2 1/2 stars. http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/24/transformers.reviews/index.htmlBy the way, my favorite Transformers II movie review quote, and its quite a nasty one, comes from Peter Bradshaw of the (UK) Guardian: Like watching paint dry while getting hit over the head with a frying pan.
I'm like so many others in asking: Has it really been 20 years?! I agree with much of what Mr. Mendelson states in this article, but I suspect he's taking it a bit far when noting that "it redefined the modern screen villain". Maybe he should have added: a "big budget blockbuster" type film. After all, powerful villains have existed since the dawn of film (check out Rotwag in Metropolis (1927) or the vampire Nosferatu in (what else?) Nosferatu (1922)). Hell, check out Jack Nicholson, that movie's Joker (of course), as he made a far more sinister movie villain in The Shining nine years before Batman. Though he doesn't really explain it that well (at least to me) what I suspect he's referring is the by now cliched "over the top" villain that seems to regularly show up in many of the summer type films. But even then, I don't think he's entirely right, given his own examples of Bond villains. Regardless, an interesting article well worth reading http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/20-years-later-how-batman_b_220087.html
I'm always intrigued by the "what did they do before they got famous?"
question. Especially in the case of actors. What roles did they take
on before actually achieving their success? In the case of Megan Fox,
here you have a list of some of her roles pre- Transformers (although the list includes Transformers I and II and a couple of yet to be released films as well): http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20286966,00.htmlBtw, one of the more intriguing pre-stardom appearances has to be by Bruce Willis as an extra in the Paul Newman film The Verdict.
If you happen to have the film, look closely at the jury behind Newman
in some of the court scenes and you'll spot a recognizable Bruce Willis
back there. A few years later Willis and Newman would star in Nobody's Fool. By then, Willis was big enough to merit some dialogue.
Yesterday I watched, thanks to the DVR (I taped it off of TCM), The Carey Treatment, and all but forgotten film from 1972 based on a novel by Michael Chricton and featuring James Coburn and Jennifer O'Neil. The plot of the film: A young, 15 year old woman dies due to a botched abortion. James Coburn plays doctor Peter Carey, free agent, who comes to the defense of a fellow doctor and friend who is accused of performing the procedure and tries to solve the murder mystery. While the movie wasn't all that great (nor was it all that bad), what was most interesting about it was the fact that this was a film made pre- Roe v. Wade. In other words, abortion was illegal, and yet we have at least two doctors presented in the film (including the one Dr. Carey is trying to prove is innocent) who perform abortions. There is a bit of dialogue here and there about this, about how abortions are performed regardless of the legality, but the film is a curious capsule of a time before abortion was legalized. I mention this only because today I stumbled upon this fascinating article regarding the high level of interest the FBI had in the film Deep Throat upon its initial release. Once again, its interesting to step back in time and see where we were, as a culture and a nation, at one time. In these days, you only have to go so far as turning on your computer to find pornography, but back then... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/20/deep-throat-fbi-tried-to-_n_218509.html
Sphere, the 1998 movie directed by Barry Levinson and starring Dustin Hoffman, Sharon Stone, and Samuel Jackson and based on the novel by Michael Crichton was on TV late last night (perhaps one of the Starz channels, I'm not sure), and although I missed the first fifteen or so minutes, I got sucked into it and watched it to the end. I've seen the film before, and my opinion of it was that it was a dreadful film. But watching it again, I realized that it was actually a pretty good film with a truly dreadful ending. Indeed, up until the point where (SPOILERS!) we're down to three cast members, the film is very intriguing, mysterious, and, dare I say it, quite exciting. The plot: A group of the best and the brightest are brought together to go deep underwater to examine what appears to be an alien spacecraft that crash landed there some three hundred years ago. What they find defies description: The craft seems to be an American vessel from the near future. What happened? And what is that mysterious sphere that the ship has within it? As I mentioned before, the ending of the film, indeed the whole last third, is so bad that it almost defies belief. And the ultimate resolution is silly, to say the least. So, upon further review, Sphere becomes, to me, one of those films that really worked, until it fell apart at the end. Inverse relationship: Mulholland Dr.: The 2001 David Lynch film to me is the exact opposite of Sphere. For the first half hour or so I didn't like the film at all. I couldn't tell where the hell Lynch was going, and he sure was taking his sweet time to tell whatever story it was he was telling. And then came the "audition" scene. That scene, where aspiring actress Betty
(Naomi Watts), delivers an incredible reading, was where everything "clicked" in my mind and I realized what it was Lynch was up to. SPOILERS: Betty's story was obviously a dream. She is first presented as a naive, outsider coming to the big city and almost instantly becoming involved in a mystery. And she's an actress who auditions for a role and turns out to be the best damn actress in the world. Clearly, Lynch was presenting a woman's fantasy/wish of a glamorous Hollywood. And when the movie delivered the crushing reality of her life in the final act, it was devastating. But, as I said, this movie was the opposite of Sphere: A slow start (to me) lead to a terrific end. Sphere started well enough, but fell totally flat in the end.
An interesting article regarding the emergence of movies available online: http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/btm/feature/2009/06/17/digital_dist/The internet has truly changed the world, for the better in many ways (the situation in Iran, and its eventual resolution, is perhaps the first major political upheaval transmitted to the world on a second by second basis...and I suspect the fact that it IS being transmitted through the internet is what's keeping the regime from cracking down harder on the dissidents, and may well lead to a more democratic Iran). It has also done some bad (illegal downloading of copyrighted material...from songs to books to movies...the people who produce this material may gain listeners/viewers/readers, but on the other side their financial investment loses money to illegal downloading). On the other hand, there are those who post their works online specifically to promote their material, and this article notes that movies are showing up more and more (and can be downloaded or watched legally, for that very purpose) on the internet. It seems a trite statement to make but, truly, this is the age of the availability of a massive amount of information...educational or leisure.
Writing up about Dr. Strangelove got me to thinking about my favorite comedies. Dr. Strangelove
is easily in my top three. Below, and in no particular order (although
the first one listed is my all time favorite) are the other 19
favorites of mine: Airplane!
(I don't think there is another film out there with as many laughs per
second than this one. I could probably recite the whole movie from
memory...and I still chuckle) Life of Brian (In my opinion the best of the Monty Python movies and, to boot, a great examination on the absurdities of religion) Blazing Saddles & The Producers (Mel Brooks in his prime. The Producers refers to the original movie, not the remake that was based on the theatrical play that was based on...the original movie) Naked Gun (the criminally short lived original TV series, Police Squad!, would probably rank as my all time favorite comedy TV show) Kentucky Fried Movie (the parody of Enter The Dragon, in particular, is inspired. Also like the very, very un-PC skit "the world's most dangerous stunt") Used Cars
(talk about un-PC...this film is a gem, although sadly it doesn't seem
to be as well known today as it should be. Kurt Russell, and everyone
else in the film, is hilarious) Blues Brothers
(probably the best of the "massive car chase/crash" comedy films.
"It's dark and we're wearing sunglasses" is one my all time favorite
lines) Kelly's Heroes
(I mentioned this film before in the Clint Eastwood posts, and, yes,
it's hard to believe a Clint Eastwood film would rank up there with my
favorite comedies, but there you have it. Best line was delivered by
Don Rickles, when his character suggested that, rather than fight to
the death, the American soldiers talk to the Nazi tank commander, that
he may have a common interest with what they're up to, and that, you
know, "Maybe he's a Republican.") Duck Soup (The best Marx Brothers comedy) His Girl Friday (The best Cary Grant comedy, and rivals Airplane! for laughs per second) Top Secret! (I know, I know, a lot of ZAZ comedies here, but what can I say, I like them! Only serious problem with this film: The ending is way too abrupt) Hot Shots! and Hot Shots! Part Deux (I think "Part Deux" was a little better than the first, but both were very enjoyable) Gumball Rally (THE original Cannonball Run film) The Great Dictator (Charlie Chaplin takes on Adolf Hitler) A Fish Called Wanda
(time has lessened this comedy a bit, in my mind, but its still pretty
damn funny. Featuring close to 1/2 the cast of Monty Python) M*A*S*H
(Never really liked the TV show all that much, but the movie was
something else entirely. The climactic football game was hilarious) Monty Python and the Holy Grail (I love most of this film, but like Top Secret! I wish the ending wasn't so abrupt) So, for what it's worth, there you have it.
Tuesdays are new DVD days, and the one that most intrigues me is Stanley Kubrick's 1964 pitch black comedy Dr. Strangelove. I was curious what this version offered, and how much better it looked versus the regular DVD, and I found this informative review: http://www.dvdreview.com/reviews/pages/3006.shtmlDr. Strangelove remains, to this day, one of my all time favorite comedies. Stanley Kubrick is rightfully considered a film making genius, he followed this movie with 2001: A Space Odyssey and he followed that with A Clockwork Orange. An amazing run for any director.
A word to the wise: If you're approached by a movie crew that wants to lease your home for filming purposes, you better know exactly what it is they're going to do, and make DAMN sure you get money up front for ANY AND ALL REPAIRS. Needless to say, I feel sorry for this lady...
Yesterday I made mention of some film remakes I thought were good and bad, and mentioned "stealth" remakes. By that, I meant films that are presented as "original" but in reality take a previous movie's theme/plot and essentially remake that film. Superman Returns, to me, is a good example. While the film featured a Superman story that was meant to follow the original Christopher Reeves films, if you look close enough you realize that what it really is is a remake of the first Superman film. We have Superman arriving on Earth (in Kansas). We have his time in the idealized farm. We have his 'first' night of action. We have Luthor and his real estate plan. You have Superman rendered weak by Kryptonite, then being thrown into water to drown. All that was missing, really, was turning back time. John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars, similarily, was structured very close to his Assault on Precinct 13. From my understanding (haven't seen the film yet), Drag Me To Hell takes the central concept of Curse of the Demon. And while The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice are very different James Bond films, they share the same central plot: A megalomaniac with special equipment (In TSWLM, a supertanker capable of swallowing nuclear submarines, in YOLT a space craft that swallows other space craft) is hijacking said billion dollar equipment and bringing the superpowers closer to all out nuclear war. (Also of note: Sean Connery's last foray into the role of James Bond, the non-official Bond film Never Say Never Again is a remake/reworking of Thunderball. However, I don't view this as a "stealth" remake because it was known going in that the plot of Thunderball was being used). Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In The West, if memory serves, takes the general plot of Johnny Guitar. Wes Craven's Last House on the Left is a more straightforward horror remake of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring. I'm not sure if that was obvious when the film was first released. Any others?
With the arrival of the remake of The Taking of Pelham 123, ew.com has provided a list of 21 "best and worst" movie remakes: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20284421,00.htmlI would quibble with some of their choices. The Departed and Cape Fear, both remakes directed by Martin Scorsese and both listed as "best" remakes, didn't do all that much for me. The Departed I felt never built up to anything and, I felt, focused too much on Dicaprio when the more interesting character (by far) was Matt Damon's. As for Cape Fear, I feel the original was far more effective than the hyper done remake. Robert Mitchum, looking as sleepy eyed as always, was much more menacing than the at times over acting Robert DeNiro. Some I might have added to the "Best" part of the list: A Fistful of Dollars (the movie that made Clint Eastwood a star and was a remake of Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo), Evil Dead II (the first portion of that film is, essentially, a remake of the first Evil Dead), The Man Who Knew Too Much (the only film Hitchcock made twice. I think the original is the better film, but the remake, with James Stewart, is quite good, too), The Spy Who Loved Me (a "stealth" remake of You Only Live Twice). Some I might add to the "Worst" part of the list: The Haunting (a terrific original movie, a super lame remake), Superman Returns (essentially another "stealth" remake, this time of the original Richard Donner directed Superman. Only this movie was far less exciting. Still, Brandon Routh made for a good Clark Kent/Superman), Rollerball (the original film with James Caan may not be on anyone's "best movie ever made" list, but it's Citizen Kane compared to the remake. This is easily the worst film ever directed by John McTiernan, and that includes the hideous Last Action Hero), The Getaway (the original Steve McQueen film is pretty damn good, the remake with Alec Baldwin and then wife Kim Basinger is far less so), Sleuth (the original with Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine is unforgettable. The remake with Jude Law and Michael Caine is pretty bad), The Wicker Man (I loved loved loved the original film, which was a non-too-subtle jab at all religions while offering a jaw dropping -and very chilling- end. The remake, with Nicholas Cage, was terrible), and, finally, Assault on Precinct 13 and Ghosts of Mars (the original Assault on Precinct 13, to me, is the best movie John Carpenter ever made. The same name remake is pretty mediocre, as is John Carpenter's stealth remake of Assault, The Ghosts of Mars. For that matter, Escape From L.A. was pretty much a remake of Escape from New York, and it too was pretty lame) Gotta agree with their last choice, though: The Maltese Falcon is probably the best movie remake of them all. And it was the third version of Dashiell Hammett's famous novel!
One of the films I've been curious to see is Moon, starring Sam Rockwell and directed by Duncan Jones (a long time ago, in a very different era, he was known as Zowie Bowie. He is the son of David Bowie). An interesting interview with him can be found here: http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2009/01/14/QA-with-MOON-director-Duncan-JonesEntertainment Weekly (ew.com) offers a review:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20284265,00.htmlBONUS: I also found a review of The Taking of Pelham 123, a remake of the classic thriller starring John Travolta and Denzel Washington, there as well: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20284260,00.html
Interesting article regarding the dearth of "grown up" films being made and/or released. They start by noting that Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man made a ton of money, while The Soloist, his follow-up film, was a box office dud ($50 million to make, $30 million take, according to this article). Personally, I think its the quality of the material that matters, and how its presented to potential audiences. I like "grown up" films as much as summer spectacles, but The Soloist, simply based on its commercials, looked very unappealing to me. Grand Torino, on the other hand... http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/11/ew.movies.adults/index.html
For those who clicked the link on the article two stories below, my apologies for providing the wrong link. The actual link to Clint Eastwood talking about several of his films can be found here: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,1547569,00.html
Going over Clint Eastwood's filmography on IMDB and you find a ridiculous number of great, even classic films. A Fistful of Dollars (his first "big" move role); For A Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly; Play Misty For Me; The Beguiled; Dirty Harry; The Outlaw Josey Wales; etc. etc. etc. In fact, one could argue Mr. Eastwood's filmography is enviably good. Which got me to thinking: What are Mr. Eastwood's strangest movies? I'd have to go with The Beguiled (an oddball Civil War psychosexual thriller that plays like a demented Harlequin novel) and Paint Your Wagon (a *gasp* musical?! One that also featured...Lee Marvin?!). Honorable mention goes to Any Which Way But Loose and Any Which Way You Can, the "orangatan" films. Funny at times, but decided an odd choice to make. Ok, what are his worst film? I'd have to go with either Pink Cadillac
(a terrible, and boring film featuring the titled car and some home
grown neo-Nazis. Even Clint couldn't make the material interesting.
One of the few films I saw in the theatres that I found myself sorely
tempted to get up and walk out of) or Heartbreak Ridge (Mr.
Eastwood plays a good role here, a tough as nails army sergeant, but
the film itself, which culminates in the U.S. invasion of Granada, is
completely forgettable. I also saw this one in the theatres. I also
thought about walking out). (Dis)Honarable mention goes to The Rookie (Charlie Sheen and Clint Eastwood make a very, very unlikely pair of cops, but the film itself isn't quite so godawful as those two I mentioned above) and City Heat
(another oddball cop pairing: Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds!
Neither as funny nor as involving as it could and should have been,
which is a great shame. Still, more of a collosal
disappointment/missed opportunity than truly terrible film). Arguably
Clint Eastwood's best known character is Harry Callahan ("Dirty"
Harry). The first film is a classic and may well be one of his best
all time films. The second ( Magnum Force) is a decent follow up
but tried a little too hard, in my opinion, to make a "statement" (in
that case, showing that Callahan, despite all appearances from the
previous film, was not a "true" vigilante). The Enforcer is a great (nonserious) popcorn action film. What of the last two? Sudden Impact had a great line (Go ahead, make my day) but was too long. The Dead Pool (featuring very, very
early appearances by both Liam Neeson and Jim Carrey(!)), was decent
enough, and had a very clever car chase that evoked the one featured in
Bullitt, but overall the film's main failing was in giving us a
bland villain whose eventual comeuppance elicits a ho-hum reaction
(compare that to Scorpio in the original Dirty Harry). Finally, the one Clint Eastwood film most people may not even know about, but should: Kelly's Heroes.
I love that film, a curious mix of WWII action and some very glib
humor. Clint Eastwood, while the "star" of the film, is really just a
part of a large and very good ensemble. It may not be the best war
movie ever made, or the best comedy ever made, but it is very much
worth your while. Loved the quick cut toward the end of the film, when
Eastwood and company tell the Nazi tank commander what lies in the
building he's guarding, and what their intentions are. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Yours may vary, of course!
Found this article on ew.com, a great overview by Clint Eastwood of several of his films. Needless to say, they don't get into every one of them, but I was happy to see his (non movie) impressions of Where Eagles Dare, a great WWII film with Eastwood and...Richard Burton. Loved the film for the most part, but felt it got ridiculous in the last third, when Eastwood and Burton kill pretty much every Nazi that crosses the screen. There are plenty of films that are not focused on, from High Plains Drifter to The Outlaw Josey Wales (although that is refered to obliquely in his comments regarding The Unforgiven) to The Eiger Sanction. The last one is one I wish Mr. Eastwood had commented on. The Eiger Sanction is far from one of Eastwood's best films, but it is certainly one of the more...odd ones. In it, Eastwood essentially plays an American version of James Bond, a man who works for some very strange organization that hires him to kill the bad guys (license to kill?). The film's climax features some great mountain climbing sequences, but the whole project is just so strange. If anyone other than Mr. Eastwood had starred in the film, I don't think I'd care for it at all, but Eastwood's presence alone makes this one very intriguing. To me, of course! Anyway, the link to the article follows: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,1547569,00.html(sorry about posting the wrong link! It's been corrected now!)
I mentioned a couple of columns below how surprised I was by the box office take of The Land of the Lost. Apparently, someone else has been thinking about this, and here is their take, ominously titled "Is America Over Will Ferrell?" Rough stuff. Though I have noted before I was never a terribly big fan of his, it seems like just yesterday people considered Mr. Ferrell one of the bigger comedy in the business today! http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/06/is-america-over-will-ferrell.htmlEven more intriguing is this article, an examination of Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell, and its similar lack of box office draw. I think maybe the author of the article is overthinking this: I don't think any of Sam Raimi's horror films (particularly his delighfully morbid Bruce Campbell collaborations, Evil Dead, Evil Dead II, and Army of Darkness) drew all that much upon their initial releases. I could be wrong, but I think the money came over time, with subsequent (and plentiful) DVD releases. Anyway, the article can be found here: http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/06/drag-me-to-hell-why-didnt-it-do-better-.htmlThen again, its my understanding Drag Me To Hell is Bruce Campbell-free. Maybe that was the problem?
For those interested in this sort of thing, the weekend box office results can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/07/boxoffice.ew/index.htmlI find the results intriguing. As I had mentioned below, I'm no big fan of Will Ferrell, but I thought the ads for The Land of the Lost were clever, humorous, and actually made me interested in seeing the film. The people behind the ads did their jobs: A film I had no desire to see was suddenly...interesting. (This interest expired when I read a few more reviews) On the other hand, I was hearing great early word of mouth on the other big comedy release, The Hangover, but the commercials, to me, were flat. The only thing I found humorous were the scenes with Mike Tyson. However, after his personal tragedy occurred, I found it hard to laugh at the man. Regardless, I figured the good commercials and the presence of a big star like Will Ferrell ensured that The Land of the Lost would do reasonably well. And I figured even with the good early word of mouth, the bad commercials and lack of any really big stars all but ensured The Hangover wouldn't. I was wrong on both counts. In the end, I suppose it all worked out: The comedy film with the good reviews did well, while the one with the bad reviews didn't. Still, I find my totally off box office predictions intriguing. How often I've heard people in the movie business lament about how hard it is to predict what will capture an audience's interest, how great films can meet with public indifference, while average or even crappy films capture box office gold. I may not be in the business, but I suppose my predictive abilities seem to be in line with them.
No, I didn't see it (yeah, like I have the time! Well...I wish I had the time...), ew.com has a review of the film. http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20282750,00.htmlI'll be looking for other reviews...I have to admit that, despite not being a terribly big fan of the works of Will Ferrell (or the original Land of the Lost TV show), the commercials for this movie have made me curious. Even if the film itself isn't all that good (and the reviewer above thinks so), I gotta give credit to whoever was in charge of promoting this product. At least with me, they've done their job.
Give credit to aintitcoolnews.com...they have produced what I think are the first spy pictures of Josh Brolin in full Jonah Hex makeup. In the 1970's, I loved the Jonah Hex comic books. Today, DC comics has a new series and it is one of the best out there. Stand alone stories, often brutal, yet almost always very entertaining. As for the Josh Brolin "look", not bad, although his right eye should be more "bulging" and open. Some have offered comments (below the article) that hopefully they'll use some CGI effects to make the eye more "open". Hope so. http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41289
At least according to ew.com. http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20186843,00.htmlI have to agree with many of the choices, from Ghost Rider to The Phantom (I know there are many who think this is a good film, but like The Shadow and Judge Dredd (also on this list) I feel this is a film that, while it looks absolutely great, is so lethargic and uninvolving that you can't help but shake your head at what a missed opportunity it is). Swamp Thing, the original film, is also listed, but I think the people behind this should have listed the far worse sequel, Return of Swamp Thing. While the original film might not have been great, neither was it anywhere near as bad as that turd. And speaking of sequels: Supergirl and Superman IV. What kept Superman III off this list? All three of these later Superman films should be in the comic book movie hall of shame. I recall when Superman IV came out, going to the theater the day after it was released, on a Saturday, and finding the theater completely empty, except for me. I should have taken that as a sign. ew.com places Judge Dredd at the top of the list of worst comic book films, but, given my feeling for Superman IV, I beg to differ. Those two hours or so I spent in that empty theater watching the crumbling remains of what was once the most promising superhero movie franchise go down in flames was one of the most excruciating movie experiences I've ever experienced. The effects in Superman IV were amateurish (and that's being kind), the acting was stilted (even Gene Hackman seemed embarrased), the main villain was laughable, and the plot alternatively so stupid and too earnest. It was also considerably cut down: I bought the comic book adaptation of the movie a week or two before and much of the plot of the film was jettisoned before it was released. The comic book, however, didn't hint at the calamity I was about to see. In retrospect, all those cut scenes couldn't have helped the film. Such a shame.
A list from ew.com, twelve films director Sam Raimi (Spider Man, Evil Dead) had a hand in... http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20246950_20263257_20281097,00.htmlFor fans, many of these films will be somewhat obvious, although they do list some really early movies and/or cameos Raimi made in other films, and his feelings regarding those cameos. I was also intrigued to read that Sam Raimi acknowledged that his latest film, Drag Me to Hell, was something of an homage to the 1958 film Night of the Demon (also known as Curse of the Demon). When I first heard about DMTH's plot, wherein the protagonist is cursed and will be confronted by a demon, I immediately thought of Night of the Demon's plot, which is essentially the same. In that film, the protagonist (played by the very underrated and mostly forgotten Dana Andrews) is a cynical, no-nonsense man who examines a series of murders. He is cursed and, for most of the film, doesn't believe a demon will come to take him away. He eventually comes to believe, and the ending in particular is quite tense. The film, btw, is an interesting curio in that it seems to be the template for The X-Files, only the roles are reversed. The leading male is the unbeliever, the leading female is the believer.
Liked it, but I can't say I was totally floored by it. Don't get me wrong: it's clear the talent both in front of and behind the cameras has a considerable love of all things Star Trek, and they endeavored to give the fans everything they could possibly ask for. Therein might lie part of the movie's problem. At times, I felt like I wasn't so much watching a Star Trek movie but a "greatest hits" of Star Trek conventions and ideas, presented one after the other. Sulu wielded a sword in an original Star Trek episode, let's show him with one here. Kirk has eyes for women, let's show him oogling them throughout the movie. Spock is half-human and has been prone to emotional outburts, let's make sure to show him being emotional. McCoy gets big laughs stating he was "a doctor, not a..." so let's make sure to give him a couple of lines like that. Checkov has trouble with his accent, let's show that up. Scotty's always trying to push the engines just a little more, let's have him do that... After a while, I was wondering where they'd put this element or that element into the movie, and it threw me off from the story. And that's where the film's biggest problem lies: It's story. Eric Bana, a fine actor, is given very little to do here but "act villanous". He's a walking cliche rather than a fully formed bad guy, and his story arc seemed created entirely to bring old Spock (Leonard Nimoy) into this story. (Also, the cliche of the villain "creating" the hero is in full force here, yet it's never really explained why our villain, after a devastating first appearance, simply disappears for some twenty four years in spite of the fact that he has a ship far, FAR superior to anything the Federation has. Surely he would have gone ahead with SOME nefarious plan in all those years rather than simply waiting passively?). Leonard Nimoy's first appearance, wherein his Spock literally bumps into a young Kirk, is probably the movie's most contrived piece of business, and illustrates the lengths to which the screenwriters reached in trying to get everything to work together. However, in spite of these criticisms, please understand I liked the film. It may not be perfect, but it's a decent first stab at reinventing and reinvigorating the franchise. I just hope future films (or at the very least the next one) will feature a stronger, less contrived story and won't focus quite so slavishly on hitting each and every one of those Star Trek-ian notes.
Just stumbled upon this: http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/05/the-terminator.htmlAll I can say is...that wouldn't have been good. I actually kinda like the first part of the alternate ending. Its interesting and a bit ballsy. But the direction they were intending to go is soooo dark and bleak. A little too much so, even if I have to give them points for originality.
As of now, 5:00 P.M. on the date of its release, Terminator: Salvation is scoring a rather poor 34% on Rotten Tomatoes. The guide bodes badly for the film, and our local paper piled on by giving the film 2 stars out of 4 and stating: "In the end, it's not much fun." Apart from Supernatural (a terrific show he produces) I'm not much of a fan of the work of T:S director McG. But, for a little while very early in his movie making career, he was considered a promising young talent, and this was based almost entirely on his first movie, the big hit Charlie's Angels (2000). A curious thing about that film: I recall reading many near identical reviews about it when it was released. And these reviews seemed to all say the following, in varying ways: "I expected crap and found a surprisingly enjoyable film". As is depressingly usual, I missed the film while it was in the theaters. When it was released to DVD, I recalled all those glowing reviews and, based solely on that, picked the film up. Unlike many of the reviewers who were expecting crap and came away surprised by how "good" the film was, I was expecting a good film...and came away surprised by how awful I thought it was. I haven't had a chance to see Star Trek yet, a film I'm eager to see and one that has received almost universally glowing reviews. Given the current reviews and apparent bad word of mouth, I doubt I'll catch Terminator: Salvation.
Another item found this morning: I've read here and there about George Miller's interest in making a fourth Mad Max film. A script and storyboards were made (early word being that they were terrific). For a while it even looked like Mel Gibson would make it back in the role that, essentially, made him. Then came the delays. But now it looks like things are on track for a new Mad Max film, albeit without Mel Gibson. Too bad. The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2) remains one of my all time favorite action films. I liked the first Mad Max film a lot as well, although the good stuff is almost all crammed into the film's last twenty or so minutes. And I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I was with Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (has it truly been nearly 25 years since that film was released?!), a sequel that was alternately disjointed, uninspired, and weird. (How could they make a Mad Max film and rid themselves of the notion of major car chases throughout?! Granted, it was logical that gas would eventually be all but gone, but still...)
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25497750-2902,00.html
When the Serenity movie was a couple of weeks away from being released to the theaters (back in 2005), the first thing I did was buy the Firefly DVD boxed set. Back in those prehistoric (ie, pre-DVR and pre-Hulu) days, when you missed something on TV, that was pretty much it, until the DVD eventually made it to the stores. I watched the episodes and thought the show was good, but not quite as good as Angel (my favorite Joss Whedon series) or Buffy (second favorite). Then again, I heard about the problems the show had, being released out of order and Fox essentially doing just about everything in their power (whether intentionally or not) to sink the potential franchise. The rest you know, the show was a cult classic and big enough to allow Whedon the chance to make a feature film whose goal it was to try to tie up all the elements of Firefly. Hence, Serenity. As has become depressingly common in my life, I simply didn't have the time to see the film while in the theaters, so had to wait until it was eventually released to DVD. I saw it, thought it was good, but neither it nor the TV show stuck much with me. Until yesterday. Sci-Fi (or is it Sy-Fy yet?!) showed Serenity and I didn't have anything better to do so I sat down and watched most of it (missed the first half hour or so). I was surprised by how entertained I was, much moreso than ever before. And I got to wonder about how many times I've seen something that hadn't impressed me very much (or impressed me not at all) and, later on, I approach it with a different mindset, and suddenly, I get it. The best example would be Hitchcock's The Birds (1963). I'm a HUGE fan of Alfred Hitchcock, but for many, many years I felt the movie was a huge disappointment. Neither all that thrilling nor all that suspenseful. A plot that was annoying rather than terrifying. And then it clicked. Hitchcock was making his version of those plentiful 50's monster movies. You know, the ones with giant ants or giant scorpions or giant octopi. Nature gone big, and wild. Only Hitchcock's take on the subject didn't feature a giant anything. He used animals that are always around us, creatures that most people wouldn't view as threatening, and he turned them into the most threatening thing there could be. And where those 50's monster movies often featured a scientist figuring out some chemical contraption to end the terror's threat, Hitchcock chooses a far more apocalyptic ending. In the end, the passage of time is the ultimate judge for works of art, whether they be films or books or artwork. Blade Runner was a flop when it initially was released, but most people now view it as a classic. The works of H. P. Lovecraft are viewed as classics, yet during his lifetime the author achieved little financial success. On the other side, the book and movie Love Story were huge hits in their time, yet I wonder just how many people remember it today. Hits or misses, successes or failures. History is the ultimate judge.
Just stumbled upon this from another website. Very acidic (but humorous...unless you happen to be one of the writers of that particular movie) recap of Star Trek: Nemesis, perhaps one of the more disliked of the Star Trek films (and the last theatrical Star Trek film before the current one and quite likely the last to feature the "Next Generation" crew). http://www.stardestroyer.net/Nemesis/Pictorial-1.html
For some reason, I thought that with the release of the Star Trek movie sets (two of them, one featuring Star Trek II through IV, which form one "larger" overall story, and the other featuring films I through VI, all the ones with the original cast), that my favorite Trek film, The Wrath of Khan (STTWOK), would also be released on its own. I was wrong. The only way to get STTWOK, for now, is to buy one of the above mentioned sets. Amazon.com doesn't even list a blu ray release for any of the films on an individual basis, which means that we probably won't be seeing their release for a while. **** While mentioning STTWOK, I recall an interview or passage from a book by William Shatner where he states that, in retrospect, the powers that be should have left the events of that movie be permanent. In other words, what happened to one of the bigger characters in the film (I'm trying not to spoil anything for those who haven't seen the film yet) should have been permanent. I tend to agree with him. Subsequent events in the following two films couldn't help but lessen the emotional impact of the events of STTWOK. And, perhaps in a greater retrospect, STTWOK perhaps should have been the final film with the original cast. Granted, some of the films that followed were pretty good, and original cast members did pop up in other series (including Nimoy in the just released movie), but it certainly would have been a bold move to let the original franchise end with that particular film.
Click on this link quickly as the comments within change day
to day:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/index.html#mytwocents
Bill Hunt, the editor of The Digital
Bits, offers his views of the Star Trek films which will be released
today on Blu Ray. His opinion, frankly, makes me less inclined to seek
out the movie sets and focus on getting Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan.
I was already somewhat dubious about buying the set because the first Star
Trek film was being presented only in its theatrical cut. While
intriguing to get (I believe this is the first time the cut is available since
the dawn of laserdiscs), I much preferred the recent "director's cut"
which featured completed/redone effects and a tighter cut of the film. It
is my understanding the "director's cut" is not available because the
new effects created for this film were made for the DVD release and did not
consider the higher video resolution of the Blu Ray format. This means
that we'll see the "director's cut" on Blu Ray when Paramount puts up
the money to re-doing the new effects. Regardless, I was planning to hold
out on buying the first film until all the versions were available (in one
package, of course).
As for Trek III to VI, according to Mr. Hunt's opinion, the Blu Ray looks fine
on smaller HD TVs, but not so good on bigger ones.
Anyway, buyer beware.
The day has finally arrived and Star Trek is opening in the cinemas. And the reviews have all been good. Some Trek thoughts, for what its worth: My first exposure to Star Trek was in the very early 1970's. The episode, coincidentally enough, was " The Man Trap", the first ST episode aired. Scared the crap out of me. My favorite ST episode is (as I mentioned before) " The Doomsday Machine". Great tension, with an ending that literally had me at the edge of my seat. Having read Harlan Ellison's original script for " City on the Edge of Forever"
and comparing it to what was actually filmed, I must say I prefer the
filmed version, although I can understand some of Ellison's complaints
regarding changes made in his story (in particular, he's spot on
regarding the silly contrivance of McCoy accidentally overdosing
himself. In the context of the episode, this is the gas that powers
the story engine, yet its handled in a very clumsy way). Of the movies, I'd go with popular opinion and agree that STII: The Wrath of Khan is the best of the lot. The worst (I'd go with popular opinion here as well) would likely be STV: The Final Frontier,
although I think what ruined the film was a half-formed script and
terrible, TERRIBLE special effects. Shatner's direction, IMHO, wasn't
all that bad, although if there is one major fault it is that he got
absolutely NOTHING out of Leonard Nimoy. I can't help but wonder if
our favorite Vulcan was miffed that he wasn't directing this particular
film or couldn't handle being under his co-star's thumb. Did not like, for the most part, all the subsequent Star Trek series, although I would grant you that " Yesterday's Enterprise" (among a handful of others) is a fantastic episode. Now then, off to the theaters!
You know, Will Smith is a BIG movie star. There's no getting around it. He exudes charisma, he can get the audience on his side, he can do action and humor. But he was grossly miscast as James West in the big screen version of one of my favorite TV shows: The Wild, Wild West. Frankly, I can't see him playing the moody Captain Nemo either. Apparently, someone can... http://www.cinematical.com/2009/01/14/mcg-wants-will-smith-to-play-captain-nemo/
I've noted Ron Howard, director of the upcoming sequel to The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons (among many other films) has written to at least one online publication (Huffington Post) gnashing his teeth about people within religious organizations trying to ban this film, as they apparently were not too thrilled with The Da Vinci Code. But this article makes an interesting point: Could Ron Howard be courting this controversy, stroking it so to speak, to help get word of mouth out there and, ergo, increase ticket sales? Who was it that said there's no such thing as bad publicity? If this is the case, one of the major players in the game doesn't seem to care, one way or the other: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/04/ent.angels.and.demons/index.html
Usually by this time in the morning, I'm sorting through all kinds of stuff to figure out what to post here. Not today. Seems like a slow kinda morning. At Ain't It Cool News they're starting to flood the site with reviews of the new Star Trek movie. Seems rather redundant by this point as the early word on the film is good and I think everyone interested in seeing it will go see it. The other major movie news, of course, is the successful launch of Wolverine, despite some very negative reviews. Over on the news sites, there seems to be a post-pandemic lull. The swine flu is still a concern, although there seems to be some thought that the whole thing might have been overhyped. For the victims of the virus, I doubt that's the case. In politics, the GOP is searching for itself. Seems like only yesterday they had an iron grip on all of politics. So I'm at the 100th posting today, and there's truly not all that much to talk about. Instead, I'll offer the following: The first 10 people who email me at atrocket@aol.com with their address will receive a free copy of The Dark Fringe graphic novel. Consider it my way of thanking you for sticking around for the first 100 posts.
OK, so I don't like Star Wars (and the sequels) all that much. What do I like? Fritz Lang's Metropolis for one. The most intriguing thing about this film is the fact that no one, until very recently, saw the film as it was originally made. For from the date that it was originally released, the studios trimmed down the film until it was thought that an uncut version was lost forever. Until, that is, a very grainy print was found in Buenos Aires. For those interested, this is a German newscast regarding the finding of the uncut Metropolis. Though I don't know what's being said (my German, alas, is nonexistent), the real treasure is seeing some of those long lost scenes. My understanding is that Kino will release the film soon, with the missing scenes added back. Their quality may never be great, but at least we'll finally see the film as Lang intended.
After the piracy issues, after the quality of film issues, the studios have got to be pleased:
X-Men Origins: Wolverine Grosses $35 Million On Friday Night - http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/05/x-men-origins-w.htmlHowever, I can't help but wonder if hype has lifted this film's performance beyond what it would normally have done. Hype is, after all, a powerful tool in getting your product sold. My first encounter with the power of hype occurred way back in 1977, with a little film called Star Wars. Everyone said (and many still say!) this was the greatest damned film ever made. I don't have to tell you the theaters back then were packed with lines unseen since Jaws. And wouldn't you know it, I was the ideal Star Wars fanatic in the making: I was all of eleven years old and interested in all things science fictional. I should have really, really loved this film. But as I watched it in a jam packed theater filled with screaming and whooping fans, I couldn't help but wonder what it was they saw up there on the screen that I didn't. Almost from the first to the last frame, Star Wars failed to capture my imagination. As the minutes passed, I found myself alternately bored or irritated. Until the film reached the end, and Darth Vader escaped. That's when I became livid! Back then, to my very young mind, the idea of making a film with a sequel already in consideration was an unknown. Films were supposed to have a beginning, a middle, and end. How could Lucas and company have the cogones to leave Star Wars so open ended? How could they let the villain get away?! Heresy, I know, but my personal feelings nonetheless. So unimpressed was I with Star Wars that it wasn't until Empire Strikes Back was eventually shown on TV that I finally saw that film. Didn't convert me to the cause, either.
Given these pandemic fearing days, Salon.com released this article featuring a look at movies that feature plagues.
I wonder if the genesis of the whole "end of the world by plague" genre may have been invented by Richard Matheson in his vampire novel "I Am Legend". The novel, already filmed three times (most recently with Will Smith), carries a mythological quality few other works in this genre have.
I have a great fondness for The Omega Man (1971), the second film version of that novel. The first half of the film, in particular, is quite good. Sadly, the second half ignores the whole "vampire" angle in favor of the idea that humanity has been "infected" into a zombie-like state.
Anyway, the article can be found here:
|