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...
An amusing list from msnbc.com, recounting 10 wildly varied forms of idocracy in the past decade: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34481925/ns/us_news-decade_in_review/Missing on that list has to be the invasion of Iraq, although I suspect it wasn't included because it was related to the "mission accomplished" banner (a big mistake). However, one could have included the response to Katrina (if there was ever a "big" mistake, it was here). Then again, maybe they just didn't want to pile on the Bush administration...
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.
Continuing the best/worst of the year/decade, here's an amusing list of what Time Magazine's James Poniewozik feels are the worst TV shows the past year. http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2009/12/21/vacation-robo-post-the-10-worst-tv-shows-of-2009/I have to whole heartedly agree regarding Osbornes: Reloaded. Caught just a couple of minutes of that "comedy" show and was shocked at how incredibly awful it was. I enjoyed (at least initially) the MTV Osbornes reality show. It was startling and original and voyeuristic (in a good way, though!  ). This "variety" show was neither, a great waste of time and incredibly unamusing.
Amusing (and depressing) video from CNN regarding what the editors of Politifact think are among the biggest (and THE biggest) lie of the year:
When last I talked about the subject, I was done with the show. Finished. I had an episode (I believe it was Belonging, the fourth episode of the second season and one that received plenty of positive reaction) to watch, I read plenty of good things about it from those who had advanced previews of the show, but upon watching the first few minutes, I just couldn't get into it. I had enough. A few weeks pass, and Dollhouse goes on its hiatus, is officially canceled, and my mind is cleansed of the whole affair. Then, last week, I'm away from town, sitting in a hotel, with nothing better to do and no book to read, so I turn the TV on and catch the concluding minutes of Meet Jane Doe (Episode 7). Not too bad. Now Fox is burning through the episodes, eager to play them out and be done with the show once and for all, so they're playing two hour blocks of Dollhouse. What immediately follows is A Love Supreme, the return of arch-villain "Alpha" to the proceedings. And I'll be damned if it wasn't pretty freaking great. So this week, Friday, they air Stop Loss and The Attic, episodes 9 and 10 one after the other, and, if I may, let me say they were GREAT. THIS IS WHAT DOLLHOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING! The "bad" episodes featured weak and murky characterizations, erratic pacing, little suspense, and weak plots. The last three episodes had GREAT characterization, GREAT suspense, and, finally, a comprehensible and exciting story to match! Yeah, yeah. We're at the end of the road here, I know. There are only three more episodes of the show left to go and then she's done for. However, to anyone out there that may still have even a little interest in the show, it's worth watching again. And regarding my earlier critiques of the show: I still stand by them. Dollhouse may be running great episodes now, but the fact is that until these last episodes it was erratic at best. However, I'm happy to see it heading to the finish line with a real, perceivable, and delightful head of steam. I sincerely can't wait to see this through its end!
That rather unique dishonor falls, shortly, to Laredo Texas, population 230,000: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34452179/ns/business-retail/Allow me a moment to get on my soapbox: It's sad that books, today, appear to be in such dire shape. While I love the huge mega-bookstores (like Borders and Barnes and Nobles) I worry about the smaller booksellers. In the case of Laredo, the last remaining bookstore is one of the big ones and, granted, they may have another bookstore in a little over a year's time, its just sad that a city of that size somehow got itself in the position of having only one, and one alone, bookstore. Books are a passion for me, and to find that a city could be without a single bookstore simply amazes, and depresses, me.
...and it looks an awful lot like one of the ones director Christopher Nolan used for his Dark Knight film. See for yourself...
I didn't think there could be a stranger story than the one of the library book returned after 99 years ( 99 YEARS!). I was wrong: http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/gambler-blows-127-million-should-casino-share-blame/19269948I really, really, REALLY hate the way our society seems to be moving into a "don't blame me-whatever went wrong is someone else's fault" ethos. From the big to the small, there's always room to blame others for your screwups. Slip on a staircase during a rainstorm? It was the building's fault for not putting up signs. You failed a test in class? It was the teacher's fault for asking tricky questions. And on and on... HOWEVER, this might just be the one case where I kinda/sorta sympathize with this individual. Understand, if what happened to him is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt any of the information presented in the article) the man is an IDIOT. How can you possibly gamble away $127 MILLION dollars in one years time?! But, on the other hand, didn't the people at the casino realize that this man was clearly out of control? What's the limits of loss? $200 million? $300 million? Seriously, someone at the casino had to have seen that this man was totally out of it and blasting far, FAR too much money. Someone should have put a stop to his craziness, even if, ultimately, it was his choice to blast away all that money.
This has to be some kind of record: http://www.sphere.com/nation/article/stanley-dudek-returns-library-book-99-years-overdue/19282703The most fascinating aspect of the story, even if it is on the headline, is the actual date when the book was originally borrowed from the library: May 10, 1910. Yeah, yeah, one can calculate the date in one's mind but still, to actually see the date that the book was taken out is rather mind boggling. Simply thinking about all the history that came afterwards...
There was a time a while back that I had absolutely no interest in sports. None whatsoever. If there was a baseball game on TV, I'd hunt another channel. Same with football. Same with (gasp) golf. And then something happened. Perhaps it was, in part, the rise of quarterback Dan Marino in my hometown team, the Miami Dolphins. Yes, quite a while back. But while my interest in sports grew to the point where I enjoyed watching Mr. Marino perform amazing feats for the Miami Dolphins, I didn't care much for any other sports. Until I did. I don't recall exactly what happened, but suddenly I was watching baseball, football, basketball, hockey, and, yes, even golf. I spent an inordinate time relishing the wins, cursing the losses. I spent a magical year watching almost every single game of the Florida Marlins during their first World Series run (I kid you not, I missed maybe 2 games at the most during that whole season). And then something happened. Again. I realized that too much time was being spent on this. Time, for lack of a better word, wasted that could be spent elsewhere. The link below lists another author's recent disenchantment with sports, although his reasons were at times different, at times the same, as mine: http://www.slate.com/id/2237640/It strikes me that the easiest time to become a sports fan is when the teams you enjoy watching (hometown teams) are doing well. The author of the above piece is from the New England area, and he's had a pretty good decade for a sports fan. Similarly, when I started getting way, WAY too involved in sports, my local teams were also doing well. This line from his article is particularly fascinating, at least to me:
My complaint with sports doesn't hinge on the inflexible hours. There's
also the issue of return on my investment. The games are relentless,
the experience of them too often ephemeral.
The fact is that in this day and age (as opposed to when I first got into sports) there is just SO MUCH out there to see. Too much, perhaps.
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).
They were rock GODS in the 1990's, only to be pummeled, in the end, by the Britney avalanche. Yet their music, to me, remains quite good, although I can certainly forgive those who can't get past Billy Corgan's voice. The band, which features Corgan and no one else of the original lineup, nonetheless remains out there, and are now releasing 44 songs online one month at a time. Originally, they were releasing them free to anyone who wanted to download the songs (legal and free, that's fine by me!). For now, the first of the songs can be heard here: http://www.spinner.com/2009/12/07/smashing-pumpkins-a-song-for-a-sun-song-premiere/Not bad, although I suspect that maybe the songs won't be available for free as originally planned (despite what the article states...they need to earn some money in the end, don't they?!). UPDATE: Oh ye of little faith...the song, as of 12/8, is now available for download. Click on this link: http://www.smashingpumpkins.com/This is the live version of the song:
Now and again I try to catch Attack of the Show on G4. Its a breezy, fun show, mostly focused on new technology and/or entertainment with occasional forays into other topics. The hosts, Olivia Munn (not featured in this particular clip) and Kevin Periera are a delightful duo, and often make me laugh out loud during their (deliberately) cheesy skits. This past week, Mr. Periera and Morgan Webb (co-host of X-Play on the same channel, a show devoted to reviewing video games), did a very funny trashing of Tony Hawk Ride, which, given this review, appears to be a pretty lame video game available for the holiday season. Sometimes, the sadist in me loves a good skewering:
Still don't know what to buy for the family, for your friends, for your co-workers... ...for yourself?! Here's a list of some fascinating music box sets available for the holiday season: http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Box-sets/G1349I find the Beatles USB stick particularly fascinating, although I already have the albums (not the mono ones, alas).
|