Random Thoughts - Movies

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009): A (somewhat) belated review

ERTorre — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 19:57:18 GMT

So George Clooney's latest film, The American, is #1 at the box-office in this slow, post summer movie season. I figured Machete had a better chance of captured the #1 spot, but what the hell do I know?

On TV, Starz has been showing one of Clooney's 2009 features, the comedy The Men Who Stare at Goats, and I gave it a whirl.

To begin, this film is sporadically very, very amusing, but ultimately just misses the mark of greatness. Why? I'm not entirely sure...there are points in the film where I found myself laughing quite a bit, a plus for a film that bills itself as a comedy.

No, the problem seems to lie mostly in the characters, or at least those not played by George Clooney or Ewan McGregor. Those two make a fascinating straight man/crazy man duo...but the other characters, alas, never quite jell. They never become more than...characters. This is particularly the case for Kevin Spacey's Larry Hooper, the "villain" of the piece. He simply doesn't do all that much to make us hate him like I'm sure we're supposed to.

There is one other problem with the film: It tries almost too hard to be a "Coen Brothers"-type of farce...even to the point of recruiting Jeff Bridges to play a role in this film that is curiously similar to one he played in the Coen Brother's Big Lebowski.

In the end, to me this film ultimately falls in that gray area between success and failure...I suspect that had I paid money to see it in the theaters I'd have been quite disappointed. But as a movie on TV on an otherwise slow day, it isn't all that bad.

Do Freelance Assassins Really Exist?

ERTorre — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:43:49 GMT

I've mentioned it before but it bears repeating: One of the most fascinating things about the internet is that if you look around, you can find articles concerning just about everything.

With the upcoming release of the George Clooney film The American (wherein he plays a killer for hire), Brain Palmer at Slate magazine examines a question that bears some investigating...Do freelance assassins such as the one George Clooney portrays in the movie really exist? If so, can that really be their only career?

http://www.slate.com/id/2265748/

> > >

25 Classic Science Fiction Movies That Everyone Must Watch...

ERTorre — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:51:16 GMT

...at least according to Charlie Jane Anders:

http://io9.com/5619137/25-classic-science-fiction-movies-that-everybody-must-watch

With a list this large, it is hard to refute many of his choices. In that respect, I would certainly agree that these films should be on any science fiction lover's list of "must watch" films:

Metropolis
The Day The Earth Stood Still (the original)
Forbidden Planet
The Planet of the Apes
2001: A Space Odyssey
Alien
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Blade Runner
Brazil
Robocop
The Matrix
Primer

Which leaves some 12 films on his list that I don't believe are quite as good as he does. That's not to say many of the films included aren't good -perhaps even great- to many people. The Empire Strikes Back, indeed the first three Stars Wars films are obviously viewed very positively by many and would make many of their lists. Just not mine (different strokes, folks).

So, what would I add?

To begin with, I would substitute Terminator 2 with the far, far superior (IMHO) original The Terminator.

And I wouldn't be hesitant about adding multiple films by a director. Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange would both fit into my top 25 along with the included 2001: A Space Odyssey. And while we're on the subject of 2001, note what the author says about the film Moon:

As much as it's true that we're drowning in a sea of derivative garbage, as Hollywood tries to churn out as many cookie-cutter films and sequels as possible, some really original and clever films have sneaked through.

So, Moon is "really original"? Now, don't get me wrong: I like the film. Not enough to put it on my top 25 list, but the fact of the matter is that this film is quite derivative of 2001, especially with regard to the moon-base and the eerie computer company our protagonist has. It is a clever film, I'll give it that, but like District 9 (another good, but not quite up there for me film), it presents old/recycled concepts into a somewhat new and interesting milieu. However, both films are hardly works of incredible originality.

I also have to question putting The Incredibles onto this list but not the original Superman film. If you want to include "superhero" films into the sci-fi mix, then that would be my choice well above the amusing (but no where near good enough to make my Top 25 list) Incredibles.

So, what's missing?

I know Alien is on the list, deservedly, but I'd also put Aliens in there. While director James Cameron's more recent films haven't done all that much for me, the one-two punch of Terminator and Aliens remains a highlight for me of great white-knuckle sci-fi entertainment.

I would also include the classic "giant animals/insects on the attack" film Them! to the list. Great, great excitement.

Like Stanley Kubrick, a trio of John Frankenheimer directed sci-fi themed thrillers also belong on my list. You simply can't beat the trio of The Manchurian Candidate (the original), Seven Days In May, and Seconds for "near future" sci-fi.

I would also include the original The Thing as well as John Carpenter's remake. Both are incredibly effective horror sci-fi films.

Finally, I would include the original Dawn of the Dead to my list. Granted, it is considered more of a horror film than a sci-fi film, but it does concern the end of the world and remains one of the best films to deal with an apocalypse.

Whatever your choices are and however your taste goes, you can't beat a great science fiction film!

Update: I feared that as soon as I wrote the list, my mind would start working on other films and I'd recall something that I probably should have included on this list but didn't. So far, there are only two films that have come to mind:

Five Million Years to Earth aka Quatermass and the Pit: Love this eerie British film.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: One of those properties that has been re-filmed many times. The original is a classic.

Almost as interesting as alternate movie castings...

ERTorre — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:15:36 GMT

...are examples of various stars' "first gigs". It's always interesting, to me anyway, seeing a now familiar face in a very small role in TV or the movies or commercials. Click on this link and you'll see 9 examples of comedians that are quite well known today in (for the most part) commercials during their early, lean days:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/29/comedians-first-gigs_n_698698.html

One of the more memorable "early" turns for me was Bruce Willis as villainous Tony Amato in "No Exit", the seventh aired episode of Miami Vice (1984). I thought his performance as a wife-beating villain was truly memorable. I suspect others did as well, as he soon landed several other gigs. (BTW, if you click on the "No Exit" above, you're directed to IMDB.com and the full episode is there, available to be seen).

> > >

If movies followed their original casting...

ERTorre — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:40:01 GMT

One of the more intriguing things to ponder is the concept of "what if?"

You can go any number of ways here...what if John F. Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? What if the American Revolution failed? What if Hitler had chosen not to invade Russia?

But there are other, less serious "what if?" scenarios to ponder, such as movies with alternate casts, as presented here:

http://wildammo.com/2010/06/03/if-movies-followed-their-original-casting/

A couple of my favorite original movie castings aren't included on this list, but some astute readers have noted those alternate castings in the commentary section. One of my favorite original casting ideas was for Dirty Harry. For a while, it looked like the role would go to...Frank Sinatra! Paul Newman was also in the running, but turned the role down.

And then there's poor Tom Selleck. He was Steven Spielberg's original choice for Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Arc. The story behind this story is that Mr. Selleck couldn't free himself from his Magnum P.I. role, that the producers insisted he finish off the work assigned to him before running off to make Spielberg's film. Alas, Spielberg and company couldn't wait and they went in a different direction, and Harrison Ford landed the coveted role.

I can only imagine the thoughts that cross Mr. Selleck's mind now and again. While Magnum P. I. made him a world-wide star, Harrison Ford arguably became a HUGE movie star following his work in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Could Mr. Selleck's career followed a similar path?

Alas, we'll never know.

Ghost Ship (2002) - A (belated) review

ERTorre — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:11:03 GMT

Unlike some of my other (belated) reviews, I've seen Ghost Ship before. Years ago, perhaps on video or when it was on cable, but not in theaters (I think I'd remember that). My original impression of the film: It was terrible.

But after a few years and a mellowing attitude toward others' works, I gave the movie another try. I recalled only bits and pieces of the film and, as it was on AMC and I had nothing better to do, I figured why not give it another try. So how did the movie fare this time around?

About the same, with some caveats.

To begin, the whole concept of a "ghost ship" can draw my attention just about any time. I love the concept of a ship sailing without guidance, corroded and mysterious, in the high seas (or space, or wherever). What happened to the ship and, especially, its crew? So you start with that concept and work your way around the movie itself. The plot (and villain) of the piece were interesting enough, and the justification for all the ghostly appearances was fine. The cast and budget were also good, and the film had Joel Silver and Robert Zemekis as producers.

So what went wrong? Why didn't the film succeed?

Ultimately, the blame lies in the storytelling.

As the film began, I had a recollection of the first few minutes being really, really gory and over-the-top. This opening sequence was presented, I think, uncut (Ouch. Sorry for the pun), and it was just as over-the-top...no, even more so...than I recalled, to the point where it was downright silly. But say what you will, a great deal of effort was put into that sequence and, sadly, the same creativity was not shown in the rest of the film.

I've often heard it said that one should plan a book or movie's story as a series of events that lead to a smashing conclusion, something that, if done right, will take people's breath's away (if this is your goal). Unfortunately, Ghost Ship delivers its most shocking sequence right off the bat, and everything that follows is interesting but never quite up to that level.

I suspect that had there been a revision of the movie's story and a changing around of some of the events (the fact of the matter is that they didn't have to show that sequence at the start. They could have built up to it and shown it toward the end), Ghost Ship could have been a perfectly good, even perhaps great, horror story.

But, as it is, I can't help but feel that the film was a missed opportunity.

> > >

Rubicon, episodes 1 & 2

ERTorre — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:31 GMT

About a month ago AMC premiered the first two hours of their new series Rubicon. The reviews were good, so I put it on the DVR to record but, alas, haven't had a chance to catch the show until now.

The reviews for the show were good, noting that it delivered an uneasy mix of paranoia and government conspiracy. It sounded right up my alley, but I was worried. AMC botched the remake of The Prisoner, a show that originally had a good deal of both elements. While the first couple of episodes were OK, the mini-series spiraled downward, ultimately ending with a thud. How would Rubicon fare?

Pretty well, at least so far.

Granted, I've so far only seen those original two hours (the other three hours are patiently waiting in the recorder), but so far so good. While the show does feature intriguing paranoia and (thus far) an implied massive conspiracy, Rubicon isn't so much The Prisoner as a variation on the 1975 Robert Redford film The Three Days of the Condor. In that film, Redford plays a member of a team of very intelligent government information gatherers, and so too does our protagonist in Rubicon. In Condor, Redford's office and staff are wiped out, assassinated for something they have uncovered, something Redford's character needs to uncover before he too is killed (this is hardly SPOILER material as it happens in the movie's opening minutes). In Rubicon, similar devious plots are at work, leading to the suicide of one character (this too is hardly spoiler material as it is also presented in the show's opening minutes) and a possible governmental plot.

While I'm a bit uncomfortable about the similarities in style and subject between Rubicon and Condor, the show is intriguing enough to give it a look. But if Max Van Sydow shows up in Rubicon as an assassin, I might just check out...;-)

Worth a look.

A litte more on the recent Box-Office fates...

ERTorre — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:33:06 GMT

Over at /Film, they explore the failure to ignite for Scott Pilgrim vs. the success of The Expendables:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/22/box-office-the-expendables-stays-1-scott-pilgrim-drops-to-10/

I can't argue with many of the points made, but will offer the following:

Say what you will about the quality of The Expendables, but that film knew what it was about and marketed itself in a proper way. We had a bunch of aging (and some not so aging) action stars together in a film that promised mayhem, explosions, and, duh, action. The timing for such a project was just right: Sylvester Stallone, after a string of box-office failures, had achieved some redemption with both Rocky Balboa and Rambo. Both films were reasonably well accepted (the former critically a little more than the later), which made audiences curious as to what Mr. Stallone would do next. He didn't disappoint, striking while the iron was hot and assembling a monstrous cast to play in what was touted as a throwback film. As I said, audiences were primed and ready for this.

On the other hand, Scott Pilgrim was hurt by a terrible promotional push. As I said before, of the commercials I saw (and there were many), I laughed at only one joke. One. For an alleged comedy, this is alarming. Add to that the fact that, unfortunately, Michael Cera may have appeared in too many recent films and audiences may have simply had enough of him AND the fact that the audiences this film was intended for may be a little too proficient at downloading films and you have the makings of a lackluster box-office. Will the film gain audiences/respect as the years go by? It is certainly possible. There have been plenty of films whose initial release was met with disaster or mediocrity only to rise up in public estimation over the years, and the fact is that those who saw the film liked what they saw may well aid its eventual rehabilitation.

As for me, looks like I'll give it a try when it eventually arrives on DVD/Blu Ray, as I intend to do with The Expendables.

How I wish there were more hours in the day...

The Lackluster Movie Weekend...

ERTorre — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:52:15 GMT

Further proof that what you think might be a success doesn't necessarily become so...

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/21/expendables-and-vampires-suck-vie-for-first-place-on-a-lackluster-weekend/

Or, as I've mentioned before, screenwriter William Goldman famously said: Nobody knows anything.

Even though the commercials were dreadful, I thought Scott Pilgrim would make more money than it did last week. The reviews were mostly positive and I figured word of mouth might help it. Looks like that wasn't the case.

This week, I figured for sure Piranha 3D or The Switch would do decently. Again, I based this more on reviews, which have been generally positive, for both pictures (and, unlike Scott Pilgrim, the commercials for both films were pretty decent...at the very least you knew what you were getting).

So, what happens? The Expendables and Vampires Suck, the later a film that had not even a single commercial (that I'm aware of) and was made by the same people who were responsible for some pretty poor "comedies" in the past couple of years, are vying for top dollars this week.

Granted, the "top dollars" they're vying for are pretty weak...it seems like people decided not to bother with the films too much over the past few days, but still.

I suppose its a matter of timing. Twilight is still quite popular, so rushing a parody of the film/genre makes good sense.

But still...

Renee Zellweger/Bradley Cooper film finally gets release date...

ERTorre — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:26:19 GMT

I mention this article, from Entertainment Weekly, mostly because it always fascinates me when a movie winds up sitting around on the shelf (so to speak) for a long time before it is actually released. In this case, the horror film Case 39 starring Renee Zellweger and Bradley Cooper is being released after a two year wait:

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/19/renee-zellwegerbradley-cooper-film-case-39-finally-gets-a-release-date/

Now, the theatrical trailer (viewable in the article linked above) is actually pretty good, IMHO, but one wonders why a film winds up not being released for so long, especially when it features pretty big names in its cast. And that whole "internal management changes" excuse usually doesn't wash.

Even more interesting, however, are the comments posted below the article. Not only was the film released in foreign countries, but note the people who have already seen it through -ahem- other means.

I recall someone noting that movies may start to skew to an older audience. Scott Pilgrim, for example, skewed to a younger audience and at least part of the reason it has failed at the box office so far (other than the fact that the commercials were horrible) could be that people interested in the film, the younger crowd, might well have downloaded it rather than spend the money in these tough economic times to see it in the theaters.

A possibility, certainly, given that several posts indicated people had already seen Case 39 by similar means.

When Should Directors Stop Messing With A Movie?

ERTorre — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:42:42 GMT

I've been fascinated with "director's cuts" or "alternate versions" of films for a while now. Matt Zoller Seitz at Salon.com offers an overview of the recent spate of "director's cuts" of films, and offers categories that the fixed films fall into:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/08/16/not_so_final_cuts/index.html

I've added some commentary to the article, as have several other people. Off the top of my head, some of the best "director's cuts" (or quasi "director's cuts") have been Touch of Evil (mentioned in the article itself), Blade Runner (ditto), Payback, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. In most of these cases, the original theatrical cut of the film was usually inferior -sometimes far inferior- to the reworking. Payback and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, in particular, were dreadful as originally released and a revelation when re-released in their director's cut.

Some of the worst re-imaginings, however, feature films that were perfectly fine when they were originally released and, when re-released in a director's cut, were worse. In that category, I would nominate The Warriors as one of the very worst of the bunch. I love, love, love director Walter Hill, and I really, really love The Warriors...at least the original theatrical cut. But the director's cut of the film is/was a BIG mistake. Granted, Mr. Hill notes that this was the way he originally intended the film to be, with its more "comic booky" elements. However, these elements unfortunately detract rather than strengthen the film. Even worse, only the "director's cut" is available on Blu Ray. This is the unpardonable secondary sin, which Star Wars fans are only too aware of: The "director's cut" becomes the only version available, and audiences have to kick and scream until the original version finally becomes available. Other misses: Donnie Darko (the original is, again, superior to the director's cut, IMHO) and, after all is said and done, Superman: The Movie (while I actually love most of the very many extra scenes. However, the fact remains that the theatrical version of the film was better than the "director's cut").

Anyway, it is an interesting article, if like me you're into that stuff.

Star Wars to Blu Ray

ERTorre — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:06:18 GMT

Inevitably, it had to arrive...the link includes a (by now) well distributed "cut scene" from Return of the Jedi:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/14/star-wars-blu-ray-announced-for-fall-2011-deleted-scene-revealed/

If you've read around here for a while, I'm sure I've already mentioned the fact that, despite my age and general sci-fi interests when the original Star Wars was released, I never really got into the film.

I was eleven years old and recall the theater I went to to see the film. I recall this just as I recalled the drive in theater showing Jaws a year or two before. It was a circus (and I say this in a good way!). People were jubilant and eager to see the film. It must have been released only a few days before, and I was eager to see what all the fuss was. Even at that young age, it was obvious to me that Star Wars was taking hold of the nation's -indeed the world's- imagination.

I sat somewhere toward the back of the theater, probably with my father or mother or friends or all the above, and the film came on and...

...it did nothing for me.

Yes, people were cheering at all the right parts and ohs and ahs rained down during the more extravagant effects. But throughout the feature I felt curiously detached. The film simply wasn't speaking to me. Perhaps I was different than other kids...I lived off a steady stream of pulp adventures, both in comic books and films, and instantly recognized the Flash Gordon-like elements present in the movie. By that time I had also seen a great deal of Japanese anime, so seeing flashy space opera/combat wasn't that "new" an experience. Indeed, the "effect" I found the most intriguing in the film was the weird colored drinks (if memory serves, they were blue) the Skywalkers had at their dinner table.

I also had a hard time sympathizing with the leads, and the non-ending "end", wherein Darth Vader gets away, angered me. Bear in mind, back then the concept of a movie "sequel" was very new. Other than James Bond, films generally were self-contained and very, very few had sequels. I thought it galling that the makers of this film would be so bold as to all but shout out the fact that they wanted, indeed intended, to make sequels.

It was a testament to how little I thought of Star Wars that, when Empire Strikes Back was eventually released, I didn't bother seeing it in the theaters. The first time I saw it was when it was played on television a few years later (but before, I believe, Return of the Jedi was released).

So it seems obvious: I won't bother with the Blu Rays, right?

Well...maybe. But not this first round of releases. When they remaster the original cuts of those original films and include a good deal of the outtakes/deleted scenes, I might, for the sake of curiosity, give them a whirl. The fact is that, as the years have passed, my impressions of those original three Star Wars films has improved. Mind you, I'm still far, far from a fanatic, but there is stuff there, particularly in the earlier sequences of Empire, that are worth re-watching.

Summer's last hurrah in films...how are they doing?

ERTorre — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:41:41 GMT

A part of me has always wondered why people have become so fixated on how well a film does, box office-wise, in its opening. Which scored better, which disappointed? Does it really, in the end, matter to you or me as potential clients? After all, in its day Blade Runner was a pretty big box office disappointment, yet today is rightly recognized for its groundbreaking visuals and eerie story (as well as its multiple versions). And didn't The Phantom Menace make a ton of money when it was released, only to be viewed today as a pretty big disappointment, at least from a story standpoint?

And then there's that other part of me that is just like everyone else, and is curious as hell as to what tickled the audience's fancy. So, how did the three way matchup of The Expendables, Scott Pilgrim, and Eat Pray Love do on their first day of release? Check it out for yourself:

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2010/08/14/expendables-eat-pray-love-scott-pilgrim-box-office/

Interestingly, of the three films, Scott Pilgrim scored the highest -far and away- of positive critical reaction. Yet audiences clearly weren't all that interested in seeing the film, at least based on the first day's receipts. After the performances of both Watchmen and Kick-Ass, I'm starting to see a theme emerging. Comic book based films can be very popular, but I suspect some of the edgier, off the beaten path concepts simply don't fare quite as well when turned into features. All three films received generally good reviews, yet audiences seemed to shy away from them, something that could well be happening with Scott Pilgrim.

I think there's still plenty of life (and money to be made) in adapting comic books to movies, but perhaps the studios should tread a little more carefully in works that aren't quite so easily defined. After all, Watchmen (the comic book) came after decades of evolution in storytelling and art, and Kick-Ass (the comic) came many years after that. Maybe when dealing with the public outside of comic books, we need to understand that they're not quite as up to speed on these concepts and may find them alien when they show up on movie screens.

Then again, as I also suspect is the case with Scott Pilgrim, maybe they just need to make better commercials. (I believe it was George Clooney that said a film's success or failure lay squarely in how good the commercials for it were).

Winding things up...

ERTorre — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:23 GMT

School begins (for some) next week already, and the 2010 summer movie season, derided for being more miss than hit, is going out with a bang. Not one, not two, but three pretty highly advertised films make their way to the theaters, only one of which I'm genuinely curious to see.

That would be The Expendables, the Sylvester Stallone project that seems to feature just about every major action hero around (omitting, alas, a few notables). What says Rottentomatoes.com about the film? As of this writing, the film is scoring a slightly below mediocre 42%:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/

Next up, the film that it seems impossible to get away from: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. I know there are those who can't stand actor Michael Cera, and one could (successfully) argue that perhaps he's appeared a little too often in movies recently playing, essentially, himself. But I enjoyed his work in Arrested Development and would be willing to give this movie a try. Alas, of the many, many commercials for the film shown on TV, none have really made me terribly eager to see it. Indeed, the exact opposite has happened: I feel less inclined to see the film now that when I first heard about it. To be fair, of all those many commercials, the one that featured that "lesbian/lesbians" bit was humorous. Anyway, the movie, directed by Edgar Wright, who has earned a good reputation with his previous work, is currently earning a quite good 79% at Rottentomatoes.com:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/scott_pilgrims_vs_the_world/

Then there's Julia Robert's latest, the romantic Eat, Pray, Love. Is it me or is the release of these three films on this day a prime example of counterprogramming? One is for the "guys", one is for the younger audiences, and this one is for the women. Alas, of the three this is the one polling the worst, at 35%, on Rottentomatoes.com:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eat_pray_love/

So there ya go.

Free the Black Looney Toons!

ERTorre — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:26:14 GMT

Interesting article from The Root regarding the "censored eleven" Looney Toon cartoon which remain thus far hidden away in the vaults because of their subject matter:

http://www.theroot.com/views/free-black-looney-tunes

I'm intrigued, although I can't help but wonder if author John McWhorter is somewhat overexaggerating the quality of these animated shorts. To be more specific, is Coal Black and the Sebbin Dwarfs really "one of the 10 best Looney Tunes ever made" (his words)? Considering all the fantastic cartoons the studio produced over the years, I wonder.

Then again, that's the beauty of the internet. With minimal looking around, chances are you can see for yourself. All you need to do is click the link below (Beware, however, the print quality. It isn't all that good):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aSw5qDBn-o

I guess one can add these cartoons along with the still hidden away Disney film Song of the South.

The Most Ridiculous Bootleg DVD Covers...

ERTorre — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:53:00 GMT

If you're impatient and/or only have time to see one, then make it the very last one. Hilarious!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/09/the-most-ridiculous-bootl_n_676490.html

7 Bits of Movie Magic that Disappeared...

ERTorre — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:10:04 GMT

From CNN.com, a list of seven famous movie/movie related props that have gone missing:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/08/mf.stolen.movie.props/index.html?hpt=Sbin

Fascinating stuff. Sad to learn that some of these things (perhaps most especially the choppers from Easy Rider) are missing and presumed gone forever. I suppose if there is any silver lining, its the fact that these props most certainly served their purpose and are immortal...on the screen anyway!

Matthew Vaughn agreed to direct X-Men: First Class because...

ERTorre — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:29:47 GMT

...he thinks the Superhero movie genre is just about done:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/08/07/matthew-vaughn-agreed-to-direct-x-men-first-class-because-he-believes-superhero-movies-will-be-dead-soon/

I can't find fault in his opinion. Like all things, people's taste/interest in things has a certain threshold. Once they grow bored of a certain genre, it tends to fade away.

Superheroes first appeared in film, I believe, in the Fleischer Superman cartoons. Pulp adventure serials featuring the likes of Superman, Batman, Captain America, Spy Smasher, Captain Marvel (my personal favorite of the pulps), etc. etc. soon followed and, with the dawn of television, the well received George Reeves Superman TV series appeared. A little later we had the campy Adam West starring Batman series. There were cartoons featuring both Marvel and DC heroes of varying qualities, but the next really big superhero to movie appearance had to be the Christopher Reeve starring/Richard Donner directed Superman (him again!). That film took the superhero genre to a place it had never quite been: Richard Donner's Superman featured heavy doses of mythology, sentimentality, seriousness, and yet often hilarious (and, yes, campy) humor.

To me, this film remains the high point of the superhero genre in movies.

But what immediately followed in the wake of that very successful movie was decidedly hit and miss. Some more TV shows, some pretty dreadful movies (including the pretty good Superman II and the incredibly bad Superman III and, even worse, Superman IV), until Tim Burton's Batman, a decade later, really seemed to kick off the more "recent" superhero releases. What happened? Two things: 1) I suspect many folks currently in Hollywood were avid comic book readers when they were younger, and many of them were/are only too eager to take a shot at the heroes they enjoyed in their youth. Equally important is 2) the fact that the technology is finally here to make all those amazing comic book scenes come to life.

When Richard Donner made Superman in 1978, the promotion for the film stated "You will believe a man can fly". Back then, seeing Christopher Reeve apparently fly was an incredible, even mind-blowing effect. Today, its as simple as digitally erasing the wires (they had to somehow hide them back then!). And those equally mind-blowing scenes you found on the comic book page? The ones that were limited only to the artist's imagination? You can do them now.

But, as I said before, like all things people's taste/interest can reach a threshold and fade. As I said before, I can't fault Mr. Vaughn's opinion. We are, I suspect, on the verge of seeing too much/too many superhero to the screen works, and one day the return on the studio's investment will no longer be worth the trouble.

That day may be coming sooner than later...

> > >

L.A. Times Overrated/Underrated list

ERTorre — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:19:29 GMT

It wasn't all that terribly long ago I posted the somewhat controversial list of author Mark Juddery's "overrated" items and, subsequently, 8 underrated things that should take the place of the 8 overrated items (check it out here).

Anyway, in a somewhat similar vein, the L.A. Times offers their list of overrated/underrated things, for what its worth...

http://www.latimes.com/theguide/la-overrated-underrated2010-pg,0,4281951.photogallery

Can't say I find much fault in their opinions, at least on the items I'm familiar with/have an opinion about. Am curious about the music of Josh Clayton-Felt, item #13.

Andrew O'Hehir on the films of Joel Schumacker

ERTorre — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 13:47:10 GMT

Lately, I've been looking forward to movie reviews by Mr. O'Hehir. Here's his look at the films of Joel Schumacker, and particularly his latest, Twelve:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/08/05/schumacher/index.html

His conclusion regarding Mr. Schumacker is intriguing (I don't want to spoil it, read the article for yourself, but I will talk about it in a second or two).

Looking over Mr. Schumacker's filmography, I see a bunch of films that were OK, a few that were crap, and one that, to me at least, was a tremendously entertaining success (1987's The Lost Boys).

But the film that will forever haunt Mr. Schumacker and his career is likely to be 1997's Batman & Robin. Derided for its campy attitude and nipple baring muscle suits, I find the anger directed toward the film somewhat confusing. After all, this was Mr. Schumacker's second Batman film, the first being 1995's Batman Forever, and that Val Kilmer starring film doesn't get nearly the bad press the subsequent, George Clooney film does. Frankly, I find them both on the same level. Neither is particularly great, and both skirt waaaay to close to camp for my taste, but still...

Anyway, back to Mr. O'Hehir...I think he's correct in noting that Mr. Schumacker work, compared to some other directors, shows a genuine love for the product...even when the product itself may be lacking. In reviewing his career, Mr. Schumacker presents an excellent example to any directors -indeed any individuals who want to create something- to be careful of what they create. Looking at these two Batman films, there seems to be a fine line between success (Batman Forever) and ridicule (Batman & Robin). The later, it can be argued, cost Mr. Schumacker his career as an "A" list director. Subsequent films were smaller budgeted and (perhaps) more restrained.

As for me, I've got a hankering to fire up my copy of The Lost Boys...

Tom Mankiewicz, RIP

ERTorre — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:48:44 GMT

It comes as something of a surprise that screenwriter/director Tom Mankiewicz's passing merits little notice. Then again, his last major original works came in the 1980's, and after that the only "new" feature released with his name on it was the "director's cut" of Superman II.

I think he'll mostly be remembered for his work on the two original Superman features, particularly the first one. While Mario Puzo is given credits for the screenplay, it was really Mr. Mankiewicz who provided much of what is seen on the screen. I don't have Mr. Puzo's screenplay in hand to compare, but I've heard that what Mr. Puzo delivered was more in line with the old, campy Batman TV series. How much of that remained in the final product is, to me, unknown. However, much of the same type of humor present in the first Superman film can be found in the James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever, also credited to Mr. Mankiewicz. He would also go on to script the next two Bond films, Live And Let Die, which introduced Roger Moore as James Bond, and The Man With The Golden Gun, that movie's follow up.

If you've read my comments for any length of time, then you should know that I absolutely love Diamonds Are Forever. Almost as much as I hate The Man With The Golden Gun. I found it curious that so many comments on Ain't It Cool News are critical of all three of these Bond films, and most of the venom seems directed towards Diamonds:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/46015

So, in Mr. Mankiewicz's defense, let me explain why I love that film so much: It's fun.

Yeah, Sean Connery looks considerably older than his age, certainly too old to be a dashing superspy. However, the whole film plays like an old Republican serial...Lots of action and suspense and a surprisingly pleasant tongue in cheek. The film features, almost as a bonus, some incredible "boners". Bond's Mustang goes into a narrow alley on two wheels, comes out the other side on the other two wheels. Also, watch closely during the Moon buggy chase sequence. When one of the pursuing cars flips over, you can clearly see one of the Moon buggy's tires bouncing to the side of the frame.

Yet I still love the hell out of this film, and I wish that we could have even more of Mr. Mankiewicz's works available to us. Both he and director Richard Donner were removed too early from the Superman films. Had they had more freedom, one wonders just what they would have done with "their" Superman II (let's face it, even the "director's cut" is not what would have eventually made it to theaters). And what would they have done from there?

Mr. Mankiewicz also wrote a screenplay for a Batman film that was never made. While I didn't think that screenplay was particularly great, it might well have made for a better film than what Mr. Burton eventually delivered.

It is truly sad that such a talented man is gone. RIP Mr. Mankiewicz.

> > >

Bad Day at Black Rock: A (belated) review

ERTorre — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:26:46 GMT

I've mentioned before that there exist a list of films that I long to see. Thanks to modern technology, plentiful cable channels, and plentiful DVDs, that list has dwindled to almost nothing.

Take another one off that list.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955) is not a complete unknown to me. I've caught most of it here and there over the years but never managed to see it from start to finish. Directed by the great John Sturges and starring Spencer Tracy, the film also features the sadly under-appreciated Robert Ryan and Dean Jagger as well as early roles for Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, and Anne Francis.

The movie's plot involves a WWII veteran (Tracy) arriving in a very small western town looking for one of its residents. When he asks about this resident, the town folks quickly turn very hostile to him...to the point where he might well find himself murdered before the day is through.

As I was watching the film, a thought quickly occurred to me: This film is, essentially, an earlier generation's version of the original Rambo film, First Blood.

We have a war veteran entering a hostile town and having to deal with corrupt officials and, eventually, fight for his very life. Unlike First Blood, where the hostilities ultimately had no purpose, there is a hidden secret in this town, one that our protagonist unwittingly steps right into. It is also interesting to see the attitude some people have to a soldier who served in WWII versus the attitude toward a soldier who fought in Vietnam.

When watched in its proper aspect ratio, the film is quite beautiful. Director John Sturges takes full advantage of the vast western panorama which makes the protagonist's isolation all the more chilling.

If the movie has one flaw, to me it was the casting of Spencer Tracy in the lead role. While his acting was perfectly fine, the man looked a little too old to be a veteran of WWII. He was 55 when the film was released and, assuming the film takes place in the then present and WWII had finished ten years before, he would have been in the war from the age of 40 (had he entered in 1940) to 45 years at war's end. Again, this strikes me as a little old for a foot soldier (granted, I can't recall it ever said what his rank in the conflict was, but I get the impression his character was supposed to be fighting on the front lines...hardly the place for higher ups).

If you can overlook this admittedly minor detail, the movie is very much worth your while. Recommended.

The Last Flight of the Argus...

ERTorre — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:23:41 GMT

My latest novel is out and available at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Flight-Argus-E-Torre/dp/0972911553/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280533518&sr=1-1

For more information on the novel, as well as my other books, you can click here:

http://www.ertorre.com/Books.html

The Last Flight of the Argus has been a very loooong time coming. The germs of the idea first came out, believe it or not, in 1988 or earlier. I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt because I originally called the story The Abyss and, when James Cameron's movie with the same name arrived a year or so later, I realized my story needed another title. The novel's central theme hasn't changed much, although the details and focus are very different. What was originally a space opera/fantasy has evolved into a complex science fictional mystery featuring a cast of characters whose motivations are murky almost to the very end.

If you like your stories to have plenty of twists and turns, this should prove a fun ride.

As if the arrival of my latest novel wasn't thrilling enough, I received an email from Platinum Studios today indicating that The Dark Fringe is closer than ever to being made into a film. Obviously, I'm keeping my fingers crossed!

20 "Classic" Movies You Call Overrated

ERTorre — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:02:10 GMT

...at least to Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20406056,00.html

I suspect that much of the impression a film makes on you depends on when you've seen it. Many of these "classic" films were pretty big hits when first released. In that time frame, they connected with audiences. For example, one of the films listed as "overrated" is The Exorcist. The blogger pointed out that when he saw the character of Regan spitting green vomit and while turning her head, he "laughed". The fact of the matter is that The Exorcist was released in 1973, well before so many "hard" horror films that, I suspect, modern audiences coming in to see this film for the first time simply won't see what the fuss is all about.

Or, to put it another way: When Alien was first released, it featured some brutally disgusting effects that had me squirming in my seat. Yet not so very long ago, the film was shown uncut (except for the foul language...that's still a no-no) on TV. The chest ripper was, by that time, so passe that it could be shown in its entirety without so much as a peep from the league of decency.

But moving to other films: Citizen Kane basically defined most modern cinematic conventions. But, again, time has dulled those incredible technical achievements to the point where, I suspect, modern audiences simply won't find it as engaging.

And so on, and so on.

I suspect that one has to give some leeway to older films when reviewing them. They were made in a different time with different audiences in mind. While they may not work as well in some cases with modern audiences, they are usually considered "classics" for a reason (A quick note: I don't know if Love Story was every considered a movie "classic". Even when it was originally released, it was a huge success but many critics at the time derided its schmaltzy nature).

> > >

DiCaprio pulls out of Mel Gibson directed film...?

ERTorre — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:59:59 GMT

The news surrounding Mel Gibson and his personal life hasn't been all that good of late, and it appears to have affected a film he was to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as its star:

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/source-dicaprio-pulling-out-mel-gibson-movie

Frankly, I find the stories surrounding Mel Gibson very sad. I like his work, in general. I was blown away with The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2) way, way back in 1981, sneaking into the "R" rated film a couple of times on separate occasions. I would have seen it three times back then, but the third time around they asked for an ID and I was sunk. I followed Mr. Gibson's career with interest, but that interest, inevitably, waned. He made some very good films and some not so memorable ones, but I was always at least somewhat curious to see what he was up to.

I can't say I feel the same now. There is, obviously, a great rage churning within him. I hope he finds a way to work it out, if only for his family's sake.

Guillermo del Toro to direct "At The Mountains Of Madness"...

ERTorre — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:28:23 GMT

...and James Cameron is producing!

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/28/guillermo-del-toro-to-direct-at-the-mountains-of-madness-with-james-cameron-producing/

This may well be the first, grade "A" production of a work of author H. P. Lovecraft. Yes, there certainly have been a lot of films based on his works (For a good list, click here), but the best of the best works have often veered far from the original text. Interestingly, some of the more successful "Lovecraftian" works have been original works that clearly have the author's unique horror ideas in the story (the original Alien, to my eyes, featured a pretty good Lovecraftian vibe).

Thus far, the work closest to the actual text has to be the 2005 independent short The Call of Cthulu. What was most intriguing about that film was that they shot it as if it were made in the 1920's, ie as if the film were made while Mr. Lovecraft was still alive and producing some of his most classic works!

I look forward to seeing what Mr. del Toro does with the work.

Manliest Movies

ERTorre — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:00:51 GMT

From Rottentomatoes.com, their list of what they feel are some of the "Manliest" movies ever made:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/manliest_movies/

You know what I might include? Rather than The Longest Yard, I might favor Burt Reynold in Deliverance (then again, that movie and Southern Comfort, another macho film, are on my mind).

> > >

Southern Comfort a (belated) review

ERTorre — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:50:30 GMT

For the most part, I love the films of Walter Hill. To most people, his name probably doesn't evoke much of a reaction, but his first seven films as a director, starting with his 1975 feature Hard Times and working his way to 1984's under-appreciated Streets of Fire, this man was...well...on fire. His movies during this time firmly tread on the concept of myth and his characters, both heroes and villains, were larger than life.

Coming out in 1981, Southern Comfort appeared the year before Mr. Hill's biggest hit as a director, 48 Hours. I recall, rather vaguely, when the film was released. The film was, at best, a modest success, although I recall several of the critics at the time were quick to point out the fact that the film was very similar, at least thematically, to Deliverance. In fact, if there was a reason to dismiss the film, that was it. Deliverance, both the novel and the subsequent film, were (and still are) considered classics. When you tread in the shadow of giants, you damn well better be on your "A" game. I honestly don't know if I saw the film when it was originally released. But if I did, all that lingered in my mind was the movie's climax, and this memory could well have been thanks to a televised viewing.

But being a fan of Mr. Hill's and seeing the film being shown on a cable channel (uncut), I set the DVR and, some four or five months later, I've finally had a chance to see the film all the way through. It was the last of those seven original Hill films left for me to see, and I was eager for the opportunity to gauge it against my favorite Walter Hill films (The Driver, The Warriors, and the already mentioned Streets of Fire).

So, how did it stack up?

Quite nicely, as it turns out.

To begin, yes there are echoes of Deliverance throughout Southern Comfort. If those similarities in theme bother you, there is little that can be done. Like Deliverance, we have a group of weekend warriors (in this case, almost literally...they're National Guardsmen) off into the dark places just outside civilization. As with Deliverance, the group faces off against both the forces of nature and the shady locals. This place is their playground, and they are clearly out of their element.

However, while Deliverance was a story about self-confident city folk who head out to the woods with their state of the art hunting gear and find themselves quickly in over their heads, Southern Comfort offers more of a parable of the United States and Vietnam. The "weekend warriors" head out to the woods on a training mission and are equipped with fearsome machine guns but blanks. They're in a land with its own rules, where the people speak their own language and have their own culture. The terrain shifts, and nothing is clear.

The National Guard group we follow are barely cohesive, pushing things this way and that and, ultimately, the troubles they find are of their own making. Going along with the whole Vietnam analogy, they have no real mission other than survival and the enemy is literally a part of the scenery. Powers Boothe, a sadly under-appreciated actor, simmers in the role of Cpl. Charles Hardin. While his actions within this film aren't always right, he more than anyone else is aware of the gravity of their situation. Keith Carradine plays Pfc. Spencer, a good-natured "city boy" is presented as almost the opposite of Hardin. In this case, the near opposites form a strong bond and they eventually realize they have to work together or fall apart.

Southern Comfort, in the end, is another very enjoyable Walter Hill film. While the action comes in spurts, the tension is well maintained and the dialogue is very snappy. A highlight is the building, and final, confrontation between Boothe's Hardin and Fred Ward's Cpl. Lonnie Reece. On the other hand, the too-fast decomposure of Cpl. 'Coach' Bowden never quite rang true.

Still, the film is very much worth a look, if you're interested.

A little more on "overrated" things...

ERTorre — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 11:38:46 GMT

I posted a link yesterday to Mark Juddery's "11 Most Overrated Things" (if you're interested, scroll down or read it here).

Frankly, I wasn't all that impressed with his article because his reasons for including the various items on his list were at times very weak. Anyone can point out anything that is considered popular or successful and state that it is an "overrated" product. The trick is to offer a cogent explanation of why you feel said item is overrated.

But I would be lying if the list didn't make me think. Later in the day, I stumbled upon this article, from Entertainment Weekly:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/07/20/what-classic-movies-have-let-you-down/

I realized this too was an exercise in naming "overrated" things...in this case "classic" movies. Several posters below the article itself mentioned one of my all time favorite films, 2001: A Space Odyssey as being a classic movie that let them down. Their reason? It was dull. It was boring. It went on forever. While I (obviously) disagree with their sentiment (the film is one of my top three films of all time!), I can't argue with their criticism: 2001 is a long, slow ride. I can understand if today's audiences don't have the patience to see it. Thus, in a few words they managed to do something that Mr. Juddery could not: Offer a cogent argument as to why they felt what many consider a "classic" movie is, essentially, overrated.

Anyway, for what its worth, here are a few of the things I think are overrated. Unlike Mr. Juddery, let me say up front that these are my opinions ONLY. No snark, no attempt to "win you over" if you disagree. Just things that were/are very popular but I've found not quite as good...

#1) Saving Private Ryan. Director Steven Spielberg holds a very, very high spot on my list of favorite directors. The first movie I ever saw as a child and actually understood was Duel, way back when it (probably) originally aired on TV in the very early 1970's. To this day I absolutely love the film. Jaws, similarly, I consider a fabulous work of directorial art. But when you have a career as long and varied as Mr. Spielberg's, there are bound to be ups and downs. He's made some great films, he's made some duds. But his very famous WWII film, to me, might well be one of his most overrated. I don't deny the opening D-Day sequences are absolutely smashing: Both terrifying and heart pounding. Mr. Spielberg accomplished something almost unique with those opening minutes: We were there. We were bobbing in the surf and running up the beach and dodging bullets and it was simply magnificent. And several of the battle sequences that followed shared this white knuckle excitement.

But when you set aside the action sequences and look at the movie from a story standpoint, you realize that the film is filled with an awful lot of WWII movie cliches. The most egregious, to me, was that not once, but twice, we get the "important-character-is-mortally-wounded-during-battle-yet-battle-subsides-quickly-enough,-and-character-lives-just-long-enough,-to-say-a-few-important-things-to-his-fellow-comrades-before-passing-on". Add to that the inevitable sniper duel, the battle against a tank, the ethnic group of soldiers, etc. etc. and you have, essentially, a running check-list of things you're bound to find in a WWII film.

It is undeniable that watching the movie will send chills down your spine. I certainly felt that way. But after, I couldn't help but notice the cliches.

#2) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (the novel): If you're new here, you probably haven't read the various posts I've written about this currently phenomenally popular book. While I thought the central mystery was OK and the character of Lizabeth Salander was a major plus, the book itself, I felt, was very overrated. My reasons for thinking this can be found here and here. For the sake of brevity and avoiding repetition, I'll leave the links for you to read.

#3) The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (the movie): Having never read any of the J. R. R. Tolkien books and only having familiarity with the cartoon feature The Hobbit, I came into The Lord of the Rings films with only a light awareness of the story that had enchanted so many. I loved the first two films, The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, and was eagerly awaiting the third, and concluding, chapter.

Wow, was I disappointed.

While the first two films offered visual delights and interesting (new) elements, the final chapter of the saga, I felt, was repetition. While many complained that the ending was waaaayyy too protracted, I would agree and argue that the film itself was, as a whole, nothing we hadn't seen before in the first two films. I can't help but wonder, based solely on seeing the movies, if maybe the second and third books should have been compressed into a single film rather than two very long films.

Again, understand where I'm coming from here: I loved the first two films. But that third just didn't do all that much for me...

Anyway, I could go on but I think I'll stop, at least for now. Again, these are my opinions. Yours may most certainly diverge.

> > >

11 Most Overrated Things Ever...

ERTorre — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:16:07 GMT

...at least according to Mark Juddery:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-juddery/11-most-overrated-things_b_649671.html#s114727

Have to go with many of the comments, however, below the article.

#1: Who exactly is Mr. Juddery to make this list? Seriously?

#2: If you're going to list things you feel are overrated, then present a strong argument as to why you think such things are indeed overrated. For example, he notes that Star Trek is overrated because the first interratial kiss presented on this show was the product of...alien influence. Ok...but that's it?! What about the fact that this was one of the first truly intelligent sci-fi space operas (third season excluded)? The fact that it presented characters and situations that were a little beyond the cookie cutter standards found on TV during that time? Also, like it or not, the show spawned millions and millions of dollars in sequels, movies, merchandise, etc. Good, bad, or indifferent, someone was buying into all that stuff, and not just for a few years...we're talking generations!

But it goes beyond Star Trek. While Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band is not my favorite Beatles album (I'm more inclined to give that honor to either the White Album or Abbey Road) how can you argue that it is "overrated"? The album was a BIG hit when released and defined a generation while showing the Beatles were truly willing to push the boundaries of music...both as product and as art. How does that make it "overrated"?

For that matter (and crossing genres here) how is Superman overrated? Because he wasn't "real"? That seems a pretty weak argument. I suppose all fictional characters, from Sherlock Holmes to James Bond to Sam Spade to Harry Bosch are therefore overrated as well?!

I could go on, but I'm beginning to agree with one of the posters: This is more of a list of things Mr. Juddery thinks are overrated. Your mileage may vary.

This year's Comic Con...a preview

ERTorre — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:50:27 GMT

CNN offers a mild preview (and a decent enough look back) at the San Diego Comic Con and the products that have been promoted there:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/19/comiccon.rollout/index.html

As with many things, there have been products "rolled out" that have brought about considerable buzz. Sometimes, that translates into success when said product is eventually released. Sometimes, of course, it doesn't.

Jonah Hex, Kick Ass, perhaps even Watchmen, were films that received considerable buzz during Comic Con's of years past. Yet each of them either underperformed or did a little better than even.

On the other hand, you have Iron Man and Twilight, as well.

It's been a while since this was a comic con.

Saw Inception? Have some question about it?

ERTorre — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:08:49 GMT

Then you've found the place for answers:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/film_salon/2010/07/19/inception_explainer/index.html

Beware, however, if you haven't seen the film. The plot is pretty much laid out in detail here.

Despiable Me, a (not very) belated review

ERTorre — Sun, 18 Jul 2010 14:03:59 GMT

It isn't often I get to go out to the actual, real, honest to gosh movie theaters and see a film. Often, its to accompany the kids (and their friends) and, more often than not, I let the wife do it because there is just no way in hell I'm going to sit through something like Shrek Forever After without screaming long and hard (to be fair, the first one wasn't all that bad, and the second one had a couple of laughs, but I could see the writing on the wall well before the third washed up on shore).

With Despicable Me, released last week, the commercials were actually...intriguing. The concept itself was different from many of the usual computer animated type works. Here we had a main character that was a bad guy (as opposed to Shrek, where the Ogre was never really much of a bad guy although some people thought he was). And, even more curious, the computer artwork in those same commercials had something of a European flavor mixed with a Charles Addams-vibe to the art.

But even more importantly...the movie looked like fun.

So, with the kids (and friends) around, we headed out to the theaters and paid extra cash to see the 3D version of the film. I re-acquainted myself to the whole theater experience, admiring the surroundings and the crowds (the showing wound up being quite packed). After way, way too many commercials (both in 3D and not), the movie itself began. And after a so-so start (the film has a rather large cast and a unique situation to present, and it took time to get everything together), the bulk of the film played out like I hoped it would. In this world, one can imagine a James Bond or a Superhero(s) exist, but they're out there somewhere, doing their good deeds, while our villains go about their lives.

Indeed, one could say the movie's plot plays out like an alternative version of a James Bond film, wherein instead of focusing on Bond and how he uncovers what the villain is up to (usually right in the nick of time before said villain commits his criminal act), we have the villain planning his crime and finding the funds (yes!) and overcoming the hurdles to reach the point where (s)he tends to show up in said Bond film.

And its utterly, completely, charming.

Of course, Despicable Me's Gru (voiced by Steve Carrell) is hardly up there with some of the big baddies that confronted James Bond. In fact, his big three crimes, which he points out early in the film, would hardly be blips on James Bond's radar, much less any superheroes'. But this will all change...should his next planned crime pan out.

I won't give much more away, but suffice to say the film is (as noted before) charming. And fun. And tender. At Rottentomatoes.com it has, as of today, a healthy 78% rating (check it out here). To the critics who didn't like it, all I have to say is: You guys have got to lighten up. What's not to like?!

Are you kidding me...?

ERTorre — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:14:47 GMT

I have no words...none at all...

I lied. There is one thing in particular worth noting (other than "what the hell?!?!"): Eric Roberts?!

ERIC ROBERTS?!

Still more pseudo-Inception listings...This time 30 "I Can't Believe My Eyes!" movies

ERTorre — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:47:07 GMT

This list is via Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20399642_20402313,00.html

This list certainly goes back a bit.

Of note: Metropolis could well have been on the previous list of "dream sequences" as well. There is a pretty cool fever dream presented about halfway through. Glad they included Jason and the Argonauts in the list. The film had plenty of awesome eye candy, although my personal favorite sequence of the film was...

There's something about statues coming to (frightful) life that has always been intriguing to me. I'm guessing that comes from this sequence! ;-)

Beyond Inception: Best on-screen dreams

ERTorre — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:35:08 GMT

A slide show from Salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/2010/07/16/dream_movies_slide_show/slideshow.html

The REALLY big one missing from that list, IMHO, is mentioned a couple of times in the commentary: David Lynch's Mulholland Drive. When the movie came out in 2001, a particularly observant critic noted this film was really like one of those "greatest hits" music albums. It featured just about every Lynch-ian concept executed to a high polish. Personally, I'd go so far as to say this might well be Mr. Lynch's best film (and he's made many very, very good ones).

For me, my delight in the movie is based in part on deciphering it as it was unfolding. I had only read the review and recalled only a few of the details about the plot before seeing it. I knew it was something of a mystery, and I knew that it was a reality "bender".

But it was while watching it, when the movie presented the "audition" scene, that it all made sense to me. Suddenly, I understood what Mr. Lynch was up to and what it was I was seeing. It made what came later, during the film's climax, all the more heart-breaking. (And, no, I don't want to give away more details than that...although the trailer below kinda nudges you in a...um...particular direction). Suffice it to say, if you're in the mood for a modern classic, give Mulholland Drive a look.

> > >

Looking to see something other than Inception this weekend?

ERTorre — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:26:06 GMT

Rapidly becoming one of the more interesting critics out there, Andrew O'Hehir offers an alternative to this weekend's sure-fire blockbuster hit release, Inception:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/07/15/valhalla_rising/index.html

Color me intrigued, especially given the description of the works of director Nicolas Refn. Haven't seen any of his films, although I have heard of Bronson (I loved the description Mr. O'Hehir gives of that film). I may not be able to find the film in the theaters, but I'll keep it in mind when it eventually surfaces on DVD.

Alien Anthology on Blu ray...

ERTorre — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:14:50 GMT

It's coming sooner than I thought:

http://bluray.ign.com/articles/110/1106154p1.html

Perhaps the most intriguing thing in this in this article is this tidbit from Aliens:

Deleted Scene: Burke Cocooned

I heard of this scene, wherein the character of Burke (the slimy industrialist who, incredibly, becomes even more despised during the course of the movie than the aliens themselves!) is found by Ripley after he apparently is killed by the creatures. I can only assume that director James Cameron was reworking a cut scene from the original Alien film, wherein Ripley finds a cocooned Dallas. He begs her to kill him, and she does. While the scene was interesting, it was apparently cut from the original Alien film because it occurred during Ripley's run to the escape pod, effectively neutralizing the carefully crafted tension of her escape from the mother ship.

So James Cameron effectively repeats this sequence, only this time (I believe) Ripley is in the Nuclear reactor searching for Newt. She stumbles upon Burke, cocooned but still alive, and like Dallas, he too begs for her to kill him. But Ripley does not kill Burke. She walks away.

Or so I've read.

When the Alien Quadrilogy appeared on DVD a few years back, I looked around to see if this scene was included among the deleted sequences. Although I heard about it, I didn't know if it was actually filmed. After looking a bit, I didn't find it. Doesn't mean its not there (the set is almost overwhelmingly large). Regardless, I'll probably be in line for the Blu ray. First, to see the original Alien in High Definition. Secondly, to see that Burke sequence...

Smokey and the Bandit re-released to DVD...

ERTorre — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:00:47 GMT

Sometimes, you get a tidbit of information that turns your whole world apart. Like learning the sky is really orange, not blue. That darkness comes during the day, not night.

Or that the studios somehow managed to make not three, but SEVEN Smokey and the Bandit films.

From The Digital Bits (www.thedigitalbits.com):

Universal has set a Smokey and the Bandit: The 7 Movie Outlaw set for DVD only release on 10/12. The set will include all 4 theatrical films, along with all 4 of the follow-up TV movies. I wish the three theatrical films were available on Blu-ray, but it'll be cool to see a few of these again after so many years regardless.

Wow. I recall, vaguely, trying (and failing...it was a really dull affair) seeing one (maybe the first?) of the TV movies back in the day, but there were a total of four of them made?! As much as I loved the original film, it was a fluffy, mostly plot-less work, a genuine pleasure that, as good as it was, shouldn't have been revisited. Certainly the two very dreary theatrical sequels proved there was no more story to be told. The fact that the studios stretched the concept out to seven films proves that...I don't know.

As long as profit is made, however small, more movies will surely follow.

So, is Inception any good?

ERTorre — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:38:34 GMT

More and more critics are joining the fray. RottenTomatoes.com, as of today, has the film at a very healthy 87%:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inception/

So it looks like most critics enjoy and recommend the film. I most certainly will see it. While I feel that director Christopher Nolan's best film is still Memento, I've enjoyed almost all his films (his remake of Insomnia is the only one I've felt wasn't all that good, but it was because that film was simply not anywhere near as good as the original film).

In spite of these generally good reviews, I was curious to see what it was that the critics who didn't like the film thought were its failings. And this review, published through Salon.com, paints an intriguing picture of what the critic, in this case Andrew O'Hehir, thought went wrong:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/andrew_ohehir/2010/07/14/inception/index.html

Again, I haven't seen Inception yet, and I most certainly will at some point. But the review does, to some extent, give me pause. Perhaps its best to enter all films without sky-high expectations. There's less of a chance of being let down...

> > >

A world without Waterworlds...

ERTorre — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:01:49 GMT

...or, whatever happened to the box-office bomb?:

http://www.slate.com/id/2258370/pagenum/all

This is a curious article, indeed, because the box office "bomb" still exists. There have been movies released, even very recently (Jonah Hex comes to mind) that quickly exited theaters with their tails between their legs.

However, the main point of this article remains pertinent: We don't have those "mega" bombs of old, the films that seem to violently implode upon release, those that become topics of conversation and worth a chuckle (provided you weren't one of the investors in said projects).

To my mind, perhaps the last of the "big" bombs to come to theaters were, indeed, Kevin Costner films. The already mentioned in the article's heading Waterworld certainly became known as a mega-bomb (My own feelings: The film was ok. Not great, not horrifyingly bad, just kinda bland), but let's not forget Mr. Costner's other post-apocalyptic film The Postman. Released a scant two years after Waterworld (and with Tin Cup between them), The Postman was sheer pain. Boring, bland, overwrought, and stupid.

And this is coming from someone who loved many of Mr. Costner's films (The Untouchables and Field of Dreams are my two favorites).

Ah well, you can't win 'em all.

> > >

A "Rubber" review

ERTorre — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 11:45:46 GMT

A while back I posted the trailer for the film Rubber. Based on that trailer alone, I felt this was one of the weirdest movie concepts ever. But was the film any good? At least one reviewer, Quint from Aintitcoolnews.com, thinks so...

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/node/45742

While the film's concept was certainly...intriguing...I didn't know if the film itself would ultimately be worthwhile. I mean, we are talking about a killer tire. Apart from that...uh...novel idea, how would the rest of the film work? And could it?

After reading this review and gleaming some of the movie's plot, I have to admit my curiosity is even greater. I have to see this oddball film!

RUBBER TEASER 1 ! from oizo mr on Vimeo.

The summer of "blah" blockbusters

ERTorre — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:49:35 GMT

It would appear both critics and audiences are noting a decided lack of quality to this year's crop of summer movies (there are exceptions, of course, and a few features still to come):

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/08/summer.movies.bad/index.html?hpt=Sbin

I often think that when news like this reaches the "big" media, the story is already somewhat stale. I don't mean to sound like some old curmudgeon, but the whole "summer movie" thing, once an undeniable thrill, has become progressively less interesting to me for years now. And it all started, perhaps, as long ago as the summer of 1989. I mention that year because it was a summer that seemed ripe with great sounding/looking films. Yet all the big ones, just about every single one of them, were disappointing to some extent or the other. At least to me.

The biggest release (and the biggest hit of that summer) was the original Tim Burton directed Batman. The film was SO highly anticipated that even the sneak previews (I managed to get into one) were packed. People were cheering, people were excited...and for about 1/2 of the film I was mesmerized. And then Jack Nicholson took over the show, and his portrayal of the Joker, at first all dark shadows and fearsome delivery, turned decidedly campy. The plot seemed to lose focus (a condition not unique to Tim Burton films) and go wildly into odd directions, leading to a rather silly climax involving...poison balloons? I left the sneak preview with completely mixed emotions...On the one hand I loved loved loved the visuals. I loved loved loved that they got Jack Nicholson to play the Joker. I was pleasantly surprised that Michael Keaton wasn't such a horrible choice to play Bruce Wayne/Batman (back then, his casting was considered pretty controversial). But there was just no way to sugar coat it: I really did not like the second half of the film. At all. So what do you give a film that has a 4 star beginning and a 1 star second half? Two stars.

Other films released that summer that I had high hopes for but proved disappointing?

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Talk about history repeating itself. I know there are those who hated last year's Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Spiders, but I would argue IJATLC was a far bigger disappointment. Granted, the second Indiana Jones films, The Temple of Doom, was pretty freaking horrible (IMHO) as well, but Last Crusade managed to do the unthinkable: Waste the talents of Sean Connery. Think about it: We had Sean F'ing Connery in a Steven Spielberg ACTION film. Sean "James Bond" Connery...the suave spy, the man of action, in a film featuring Harrison Ford as another man of incredible action. And he was playing Indy's father. My mind was going wild: Just have Sean Connery play an elderly James Bond. The two could be out-dueling each other, out-adventuring each other. Indy being such a great action character, with a father who is an even BIGGER adventure hero. Only Spielberg and company, in their infinite wisdom, decided to make Mr. Connery's character...a complete twat.

Ugh.

Now, I know there are those who liked the movie and liked the character and would argue that this movie was infinitely better than Kingdom of the Crystal Spiders. While I would hardly put that film on a high pedestal, let's just say that I found Last Crusade a bigger disappointment back in the day.

Then came Lethal Weapon II. Back in those days, we looked forward to Mel Gibson films. I personally loved the first Lethal Weapon and looked forward to the second. I was severely disappointed. I know there are those who liked the inclusion of Joe Pesci into the cast, but to me his character was nails on the chalk-board bad in the film and every scene he showed up in I had the urge to walk out. Needless to say, I didn't feel the love.

And that was the summer Star Trek V: The Final Frontier also showed up. Another highly anticipated (especially after the very fun Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home) film release, another total dud. To call the film mediocre was being kind. Bad special effects conspired with a very weak story to produce one of the worst of the original cast Trek's.

But wait, there's more!

That summer I was also anticipating the second appearance of Timothy Dalton as James Bond in License To Kill. I thought Mr. Dalton made for a really great James Bond, and his previous (first) appearance as the character in 1987's The Living Daylights was, IMHO, quite good, even if the script itself was probably fashioned with retired James Bond Roger Moore still in mind. So I figured the studios surely wrong a stronger script, one that catered more to Mr. Dalton's far more serious take on the character. I was wrong. License To Kill proved a dreadful film. Sadly, it appeared Mr. Dalton's heart was no longer into the role. He ambled from scene to scene and looked like he was in a party he couldn't wait to get out of. As it turned out, this movie was his last in the role.

Another highly anticipated film, released late in the summer, was James Cameron's The Abyss. After completely wowing me with the one-two hits of The Terminator and Aliens, this movie might well have been my second most anticipated film of that summer (behind Batman). Alas, the movie proved to be a far more sedate offering, having little of the roller coaster, non-stop tension of either preceding films. While certainly not a terrible film, The Abyss didn't wow me either. I thought the plot was simply a reworking of the far more effective The Day The Earth Stood Still (the original, not the Keanu Reeves remake), and the setting, while original, wasn't as interesting as I hoped. And that ending...even in the extended video version, I thought the ending was not all that good. As a critic put it at the time: Watching The Abyss was like seeing a sprinter having the run of his life. And just as he's coming in to the finish line, he trips and falls on his face.

Other odds and ends released that summer: Ghostbusters II (loved the original, thought this sequel was pretty weak), The Return of the Swamp Thing (liked -not loved- the original film. Heard that the sequel might incorporate elements of Alan Moore's brilliant re-invention of the character. Turned out they made a campy movie, instead), and the Clint Eastwood "comedy" Pink Cadillac.

Now, I've talked at length before of how much I love the work of Clint Eastwood. For the most part, the man can do no wrong.

For the most part.

Pink Cadillac was one of the bigger exceptions to that rule. Another anticipated film, another complete dud. I actually paid money and sat in the theaters watching this supposed "comedy" wondering who in their right mind thought this was a good idea. Critics pointed out that the film was similar, plot-wise, to the previous year's Midnight Run, and watching it one couldn't help but wonder if the producers of this film were going for that same vibe. Alas, they created something that was nowhere near as good. A big, BIG disappointment and a truly dull film experience.

So there you have it. Lest you think otherwise, there were some good films released that summer (A full list of the bigger films released that year can be found here). But my point remains: The films that were to be released in the summer of 1989 had me breathless with anticipation. But upon seeing one after the other, I couldn't help but be thoroughly disappointed. 1989 was truly the summer of "blah" blockbusters.

At least for me.

Why the hell not? 10 Films That Really Perspire...

ERTorre — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 21:25:06 GMT

It's summer, its hot. What more reason do you need to show the following slide show, featuring films that have plenty of sweat:

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/2010/07/10/heat_wave_slide_show/slideshow.html

One from my childhood that really featured plenty of the stuff: 1977's Capricorn One.

When I was a kid, I loved the hell out of that film. Exciting, scary, thrilling. Saw it not too long ago and, while it remains a decent enough thriller, age has dulled some of its excitement.

The plot? An American mission to Mars is staged by shady government types in a remote desert location. When the actual spacecraft supposedly carrying the astronauts malfunctions and is lost, the shady government types handling the hoax realize the three astronauts need to be eliminated. The astronauts realize this, too, and decide its in their best interests to break out. They do so, into the desert, and try desperately to reach civilization while, in the big city, an intrepid journalist (played by Elliot Gould) figures out the hoax from his end. Plenty of sweat ensues, at least from the astronaut's perspective.

Of note: The film does feature O. J. Simpson. 'Nuff said.

Alternate ending to Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory...

ERTorre — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:27:14 GMT

For all those who were wondering...

Identifying lost -and forgotten- silent films

ERTorre — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 12:10:44 GMT

The internet allows for some very, very productive efforts, such as the one described here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2257833/

As mentioned in the article, approximately 80 percent of the silent era's films are now thought to be lost. Why? Because the films were made with highly flammable nitrate film stock and, after a few years, were quite dangerous to store. Further, studios (and audiences) seemed to not have much of a sense of the need to preserve films. For too many years they were disposable entertainment, shown in theaters and often forgotten afterwards. Then you have the carelessness of the studios. For years the sad fate of the classic film Metropolis (considerably brightened because of the "uncut" copy found in Argentina) was emblematic of studios' desires to make money versus preserving an artist's vision. In the case of Metropolis, of course, the film was cut down and shortened because the studios were losing money on it and hoped shortening the run time would bring in more audiences. The cut scenes were, alas, discarded and thought lost forever.

But the website linked to above offers a fascinating peek into "lost" silent cinema, with the goal being to identify and understand the creators/actors behind these lost features.

I'm not knowledgeable enough in the silent films to be able to help with their endeavors, but I certainly will spend some time looking around!

A look back at...Grease!

ERTorre — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:36:00 GMT

Pretty much agree with everything Dana Stevens has to say about the film...

http://www.slate.com/id/2259845/

Great songs, really questionable story and morality. But, what the hell, can you see any of the negative stuff appearing on our PC screens today? Have we changed so much that such things are now so stunning to see?

While watching the (in my mind) best film John Carpenter ever made, Assault on Precinct 13 while listening to his commentary track, I stumbled upon an interesting commentary. There comes a scene very early in the film where the violent gang members (the villains of the piece) are out an about, driving around a neighborhood. One of them, the most psycho of the group and whose actions a few minutes later set off the chain of events that make up the film's plot, holds a fearsome hunting rifle and points it out the car's window. He looks through the telescopic lens as they're driving by, focusing on random pedestrians, training them in his sights...It's an incredibly suspenseful scene. At any moment he could simply pull the trigger, and an innocent person will be shot dead...

At this point, director John Carpenter notes that studios wouldn't allow such a scene in any modern film. I suspect he's right. But without that sequence and its implied violence, we wouldn't have the realization that these people were truly dangerous, something that pays off moments later in the film (and throughout).

Grease is another of those films that, if compared to the saccharine High School Musical, shows us where we were...and where we've gone.

Studio Accounting 101

ERTorre — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 01:24:22 GMT

You gotta love /Films...

Having just read from that website that the three young leads from the Twilight films stand to make a whopping $25 to 41 million each for Breaking Dawn (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/06/robert-pattinson-kristen-stewart-and-taylor-lautner-will-earn-25-41-million-each-for-the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn/), they've also uncovered the fact that the cast and crew of what just about every human being not living in a cave or on Mt. Everest for the past decade thought was the incredibly profitable Harry Potter movie franchise stand to make far, far less thanks to some -ahem- creative accounting...

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/06/insane-studio-accounting-warner-bros-claims-167-million-loss-over-harry-potter-and-the-order-of-the-phoenix/

These type of stories pop up now and again and give us a look at the ugly underside of the movie studios, a place where no movie has ever, if their accountants are to be believed, made any sort of profit. Especially the movies that have had, seemingly and most paradoxically, the most box-office success.

Out today...

ERTorre — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:55:26 GMT

Used to be Tuesdays were magical: It was the day new DVDs were released!

Back in the day, not so terribly long ago, it seemed each week brought several interesting new and older films. But over time, my movie collection was essentially -and inevitably- filled. The movies I really, really wanted to own I now own, either in DVD or Blu Ray. Truthfully, there are only a handful of films out there that I truly, deeply, and madly want to buy (all in Blu Ray): The inevitable high definition release of Jaws. The restored Blu Ray of Metropolis. The eventual (you know it has to be coming) Blu Ray release of the 1922 Nosferatu. I kinda/sorta want to get the eventual Blu Ray release of Raiders of the Lost Ark (but I've seen the film so many times now that I can wait). I kinda/sorta am curious about the original Back to the Future Blu Ray (more for the extras...I was never a particularly big fan of the two sequels).

What else? Not all that much. Mostly, I've found myself looking for newer films that I missed when they were originally released in theaters.

Which brings me to today's releases. Or rather, to the one release that has me...intrigued.

I've voiced my opinion regarding Stieg Larsson's novel The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo several times now. I've noted that the book is only OK, with one of the two leads (the male) a real stretch. I've noted that the story itself is interesting enough, if far from amazing. But there is one thing -a very, very big thing- the book does have that singlehandedly raises the book from mediocrity: The book's other main character, computer hacker Lisabeth Salander. Following her is worthy of reading the book alone, even if the author has her also "falling" -very improbably, IMHO- for the male character.

When I found out that a Swedish movie version of all three "Millenium" trilogy novels were made, I was also intrigued. Especially after reading interviews with Niels Arden Oplev, the director of the first film, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (DVD and Blu Ray out today) wherein he appeared to share many of my negatives regarding the book and worked to fix them in his movie (he noted, for example, that he toned down the book's sexually amazing Mikael Blomkvist while focusing the story more on Lisabeth). For those who are novel purists, I'm sure this comes as bad news. However, to me, that seemed like the way to go. I'll grant you that usually the book tends to be better than the movie version, but there have been notable exceptions. The already mentioned Jaws would be example #1. The movie version was far, far better than the novel. But the proof is in the pudding, and reviews of the film version of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo were strong and generally positive.

Therefore, I'm curious about the movie. Worth noting that the Blu Ray version of the film is "temporarily out of stock" through Amazon (the regular DVD version, as of now, is still in stock). The Blu is advertised at Best Buy for $19.99, should you be interested...Don't know if it will sell out there, too.

What think the critics of Inception?

ERTorre — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 11:39:46 GMT

Many have gnashed their teeth about the general low quality of this year's summer movie crop. Certainly there have been some very highly regarded films released, but for every Toy Story 3 you've got Jonah Hex or The Last Airbender or...

One film that's been on my radar for a while, and I'm going to try to (gasp) see it in the theaters if I can, is director Christopher (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) Nolan's Inception. The folks at /Film have done a RottenTomatoes-type service and provided a sampling of critical reaction, almost all of which is pretty good:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/05/early-buzz-christopher-nolans-inception/

Meanwhile, as of today and with only six reviews listed, RottenTomatoes.com has the movie listed at 100%:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1217219-inception/

I suspect with time that super-high rating will go down a little bit but, again, things are certainly looking pretty good, so far, for the film.