tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23270517781924433572024-03-13T14:16:50.285-04:00The Movie LoonyThe Movie Loony aims to provide a wealth of movie reviews and commentary in an effort to help readers discover and enjoy great films and avoid terrible ones. Because no one deserves to see a bad movie.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-42106991057248904122012-02-22T21:00:00.010-05:002012-02-22T21:37:19.241-05:00No Eyeballs Were Harmed in Buñuel's 'Crusoe'In fact, the eyeballs of yours truly were very grateful.<br /><br />Luis Buñuel has always been one of my favorite directors, and I was very happy to see a movie of his that I hadn't seen, 1954's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044386/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe</span></a>, on TV the other day. I was curious about his treatment of the classic Daniel Defoe tale, as the other Buñuel films I've enjoyed all have featured the director's famous surrealist visuals and anticlerical dialogue.<br /><br />I wasn't too surprised to find that I enjoyed <span style="font-style: italic;">Crusoe </span>just as much. The reason: Buñuel was a great director. And most great directors can work with a broad range of subjects.<br /><br />Not that surrealism was entirely absent from the film. A bizarre dream sequence involving the the titular marooned character (played poignantly by Dan O'Herlihy) and some startling imagery--including a scene in which the famished Crusoe cracks open an egg to find a live bird inside--peppered the movie, which otherwise flowed much like a well-made Hollywood treatment. Buñuel has always been great at telling a story, a trait that I feel is often overlooked, and his adaptation is typically involving...even exciting and moving.<br /><br />I'm now interested in seeing <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046675/">his version of Emily Brontë's <span style="font-style: italic;">Wuthering Heights</span></a>, a book I've always loved. It's another film of Buñuel's that I haven't yet seen; I somehow think I'm about to open a treasure chest like one of those found in Crusoe's ship.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-1917245184920559262012-02-19T10:56:00.005-05:002012-02-19T11:23:17.104-05:00The Glibness of the Long-Distance 'Road'I forgot just how smug Stanley Donen's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062407/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Two for the Road</span></a> is.<br /><br />The Albert Finney/Audrey Hepburn vehicle is not one of my favorite films, though I remember appreciating its modish banter back when I originally saw it.<br /><br />Now, upon seeing it again, I believe I've lost that appreciating feeling.<br /><br />It's still slick and well-crafted, but it feels artificial, with "witty" (read: grating) repartee that has seemingly been manufactured for the married FinBurn characters. The leads are, as always, reliable, but the film to me is just a shell--the frosting on an old cake.<br /><br />For wit+soul, I prefer films such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kind Hearts and Coronets</span></a>. Or Alfred Hitchcock's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038787/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Notorious</span></a>. Or Donen's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0045152/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Singin' in the Rain</span></a>. Intelligence without self-satisfaction--that usually makes for a good movie.<br /><br />With apologies to The Hollies, this <span style="font-style: italic;">Road</span> is long...with too many a winding turn.<br /><br />I should've taken the last exit.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-44544516459709344302012-02-15T16:11:00.006-05:002012-02-15T17:18:51.496-05:00I'm a Celebrity--Get Me a Publisher!At some point, the Oscars will have to create a category honoring the worst books "written" by a star of the silver screen.<br /><br />Before we come to that dreadful day, however, we can enjoy the splendors of <a href="http://celebrityautobiography.com/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Celebrity Autobiography</span></a>, an ongoing theatrical series dedicated to poking fun at some of the most agonizing literary twaddle known to man. Last night's installment, which Trudi and I attended at a venue on Manhattan's Upper East Side, featured a cast that included Carol Kane, Dick Cavett, Judy Gold, Alan Zweibel and host/co-creator Eugene Pack, with selections read (in character) from the autobiographies of luminaries such as Hedy Lamarr, Burt Reynolds and Mötley Crüe's Tommy Lee.<br /><br />Taste may be subjective, but I think it's safe to say that Lamarr's musings on what it means to be a "star" were among the most ludicrous I've ever heard.<br /><br />Fortunately, the talented cast read these selections with aplomb--especially Kane, whose languid Lamarr basically stole the show. It was quite an evening, and I have to say that I'm now even more reluctant to pick up a celebrity autobiography than before...which is, I suspect, a positive.<br /><br />Now I wonder when we'll have a production skewering <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aida_%28musical%29">celebrities' attempts at classical music</a>. Or...do we really need that?The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-91244336583256452542012-02-12T12:21:00.006-05:002012-02-12T12:40:57.176-05:00Soylent Green Is...Related?Some things are easy to identify as coincidences. Some aren't.<br /><br />In watching Richard Fleischer's 1973 eco-policier <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Soylent Green</span></a> today, I got the chance to reacquaint myself with Edward G. Robinson's lovely performance as the wistful but pessimistic Sol, who both rooms with and helps Charlton Heston's heat-weary detective, Thorn.<br /><br />My grandfather had actually met Robinson many years ago, and their amiable exchange has become part of family lore.<br /><br />My grandfather's name: Sol.<br /><br />I thought about this today while watching <span style="font-style: italic;">Soylent Green</span> and wondering whether the similarity was a coincidence. Possibly. I'd like to think it wasn't.<br /><br />But I can appreciate the film--and Edward G.--all the same.<br /><span style="display: block;" id="formatbar_Buttons"><span onmouseover="ButtonHoverOn(this);" onmouseout="ButtonHoverOff(this);" onmouseup="" onmousedown="CheckFormatting(event);FormatbarButton('richeditorframe', this, 8);ButtonMouseDown(this);" class=" down" style="display: block;" id="formatbar_CreateLink" title="Link"></span></span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-24887625534094204482012-02-10T09:53:00.003-05:002012-02-10T10:54:57.422-05:00Guess 'Cahiers du Cinéma' Got It Wrong, Huh?Next time I see another TV spot touting a film as coming "from the producer of" such-and-such a movie, I'm going to light another mental candle to honor Fran<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>çois Truffaut.<br /><br />Without producers, we wouldn't have movies, and the existence of many masterpieces, such as Akira Kurosawa's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080979/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kagemusha</span></a>, can be chalked up to the faith of those who supported these films, financially and otherwise.<br /><br />But is the image of the producer really greater than the image of the director?<br /><br />I'm not suggesting the application of a loftier ideal to marketing materials for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253864/">high-concept cinematic dross</a>. This kind of practice often seems to be the province of ads touting spectacle or thrills derived from a source known for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/">similar content</a>.<br /><br />The director, however, should still be the one credited for such work...or, perhaps, deemed responsible for it. I don't think we've come to a point--even in the age of CGI--where everything is all laid out like a connect-the-dots book, requiring just a pen to link everything together.<br /><br />An outlook is essential--it's the voice of a great film. And that's what a good director provides.<br /><br />Wouldn't you be drawn to a film "from the director of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037824/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Ivan the Terrible, Part I</span></a>"?<br /><br />Sigh.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-86084678238247110822012-02-07T11:17:00.005-05:002012-02-07T11:53:27.401-05:00What the Dickens? Where Are the Film Classics?The <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/britain-marks-charles-dickens-bicentenary-134241153.html">festivities celebrating Charles Dickens' 200th birthday</a> have led me to wonder why the cinema hasn't seen more great adaptations of his works.<br /><br />The standards, in my opinion, are David Lean's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038574/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Great Expectations</span></a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040662/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Oliver Twist</span></a>. No other adaptation on the silver (or Technicolor) screen approaches the quality of these works, which, though streamlined, are masterpieces of acting, directing, editing and cinematography.<br /><br />I know the much-vaunted Hollywood versions of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027075/"><span style="font-style: italic;">A Tale of Two Cities</span></a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026266/"><span style="font-style: italic;">David Copperfield</span></a> are held in high regard, and Carol Reed's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063385/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Oliver!</span></a> won a Best Picture Oscar. But when I think of films of Dickens novels, I think of the Leans, not the Reed, which I believe lacks the impact of the 1948 <span style="font-style: italic;">Twist</span>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Scrooge</span></a> is fun, but its impact has waned on multiple viewings. I'm not going to put <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095530/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Little Dorrit</span></a> in Lean's company, either; I found the film rather static and uninvolving. And to date, no one has made even a serviceable film of <span style="font-style: italic;">Nicholas Nickleby</span>, despite <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082660/">a definitive stage adaptation from the Royal Shakespeare Company</a>.<br /><br />So why aren't we seeing any more masterpieces that can compete with Lean's behemoths? It's not that we don't have directors talented enough to put his works appropriately on screen or that his novels are too labyrinthine to translate to film.<br /><br />My feeling is, Dickens' characters are so vividly cut that only expertly cast actors and actresses can fit the bill. I can't think of his books without picturing in my mind what the players are like. And if a performer doesn't live up to those images, I consider the movie a failure.<br /><br />It may well be that I am the issue here, not the filmmaker--that my expectations are too rigid. But why not expect something along the lines of Lean's adaptations? Why settle for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039657/">the mundane</a> or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119223/">the ridiculous</a>?<br /><br />Viewers shouldn't need to take <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/">Nurse Ratched's pill</a> when it comes to movies. We deserve top-notch quality, especially from top-notch sources. I don't believe we'll never get another great Dickens movie, but to do so, we need a commitment from the creators that the material--as well as the audience--will be trusted.<br /><br />And when that happens, of course...what larks!The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-65284154236217691942012-02-05T18:48:00.006-05:002012-02-05T19:35:53.587-05:00Punting on Pigskin PicturesSorry, but <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032676/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Knute Rockne All American</span></a> isn't exactly <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078902/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Breaking Away</span></a>.<br /><br />Earlier this evening, I charged myself with thinking of great football-themed films that, if viewed prior to tonight's Super Bowl, would provide an excellent context to the Big Game while encapsulating the beauty of the sport itself.<br /><br />Strangely, the only movie I could think of that best represents the gridiron was a Marx Brothers send-up, the hoary but still hilarious <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023027/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Horse Feathers</span></a>.<br /><br />Something's wrong with this motion picture, right?<br /><br />Perhaps not. Football, for some reason, doesn't translate to the big screen like baseball does--in part, I believe, because the Heroes of Winter haven't dug their cleats into the lexicon of American lore as much as the Boys of Summer. Yet I think there's another factor: a strange inability of the game itself to register as much with viewers in terms of suspense as other sports.<br /><br />Football fans, please feel free to swear at me in protest. I realize movies like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079640/"><span style="font-style: italic;">North Dallas Forty</span></a> and <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071771/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Longest Yard</span></a>, to a certain extent, inform our perspective of the game. But I don't think they're an inextricable part of our cinematic fabric the way <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035211/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Pride of the Yankees</span></a> is. Heck, I was a lot more concerned about the results of the tennis match in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044079/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Strangers on a Train</span></a> than I was during any scene in Robert Aldrich's <span style="font-style: italic;">Yard</span>.<br /><br />It may be just a coincidence that football hasn't spurred a cinematic masterpiece the way baseball has. I'm wondering, though, whether there's something on the green diamond that trumps the snowy gridiron innately on the silver screen. Or maybe it's the idea of "outs" rather than a clock that makes things more cinematic--that a limited number of lives is somehow more critical than a limited amount of time.<br /><br />I don't think they're the same thing. On film, there's a difference. It's odd in a way, because to many a casual viewer, baseball can be static, while football is almost constantly in motion. One would think football would leave baseball in cinematic stardust.<br /><br />As evidenced by films such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087781/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Natural</span></a>, however, there are a lot more sparks in the ninth inning than the fourth quarter.<br /><br />Swordfish.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-1601728730141024422012-02-03T12:11:00.010-05:002012-02-13T08:08:38.256-05:00The Power of Throwaways Compels YouTo borrow (and then wreck) a line from Wallace Stevens, I don't know which to prefer, the beauty of a primary plot device or a throwaway line.<br /><br />I've started to mull this minor musing after revisiting John Huston's <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Treasure of the Sierra Madre</span></a> last night, which I watched specifically for a few scenes in which Humphrey Bogart's no-goodnik bum asks a well-to-do gentleman on no less than three separate occasions for money. For some reason, I find these exchanges hilarious, as it points to the knee-jerk freeloader quality of Bogie's character...but it also doesn't seem to drive the narrative. Instead, it's just an aside--a bit of texture that helps make the film.<br /><br />I guess I'm in love with these little throwaway moments.<br /><br />Oftentimes, I mark the finesse of a movie by the inclusion of such character development. Some other examples:<br /><br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053125/"><span style="font-style: italic;">North by Northwest</span></a>: Cary Grant's Roger O. Thornhill has an incredibly natural exchange with his mother over the phone after his arrest by a policeman. When Thornhill tells his mother the sergeant's name, Emile, there's a slight pause, and then the amused ad executive says, "No, I don't believe it, either." No further explanation...but none needed. Just funny.</li><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/"><span style="font-style: italic;">WarGames</span></a>: Two techies in a computer lab are reviewing some information Matthew Broderick's hacker character, David Lightman, passes along for opinions. One of the techies, played by expert character actor Maury Chaykin, chastises the other with these immortal words when the fellow gets out of line: "Remember you told me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively? Remember that? You're doing it right now." Where did this come from? It doesn't matter; it adds tang to the script...and suggests a history that these two have. Brilliant.</li><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056217/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance</span></a>: Ken Murray's usually intoxicated Doc Willoughby is summoned to determine whether Lee Marvin's cruel Liberty Valance is really dead. "Whiskey, quick," the good doctor says, receiving it. But instead of giving it to Liberty, he takes a swig. Then he kicks Valance. "Dead," he says casually. Just wonderful--a bit of comedy that suggests the morality of the doctor's character...as well as the disdain he has for Valance.</li><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081633/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Time Bandits</span></a>: "Mm?" queries the musician, as he is given unfamiliar sheet music by Charles McKeown's beleaguered theater manager, who is being pressured to provide adequate entertainment for Napoleon. The musician then proceeds to play--dreadfully--"Me and My Shadow." Probably the tersest throwaway moment in this list, but one of the most hilarious.</li><li><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080979/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kagemusha</span></a>: After witnessing the massacre of his clan's army, commanded by the rash Takeda family heir Katsuyori, Nobukado Takeda, portrayed superbly by Tsutomu Yamazaki, observes his defeat in a quick, short frame. The dismay and waste are conveyed so totally in this snapshot that we don't need any words. Yet another great moment from a great director, Akira Kurosawa.<br /></li></ul>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-13983390556698537242012-02-01T16:43:00.012-05:002012-02-01T17:16:17.163-05:00Hobbit 'Journey' Bound to Be Good as ExpectedThank goodness we don't have to call Ralph Bakshi's 1978 <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077869/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Lord of the Rings</span></a> "definitive" anymore.<br /><br />We live in a golden age. We've got Peter Jackson to give us endless <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/">LOTR</a> </span>installments. And now, this December, we're getting Part I of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey</span></a>.<br /><br />I saw <a href="http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1699192345/">the trailer</a>. Holy Gollum, this looks good.<br /><br />Too bad we can't get the entire adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's book in one fell swoop. I'd like to see how Jackson & Co. bring the dragon Smaug to life.<br /><br />But I'll have to wait. With this kind of quality forthcoming, I don't mind at all.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-6437696808901955992012-01-30T15:50:00.003-05:002012-01-30T16:07:28.241-05:00Please! Just Stay in Front of the Camera!I wouldn't mind looking like George Clooney. But I'd mind directing like him.<br /><br />Take <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Ides of March</span></a>. Well, actually, don't take it, because I wouldn't.<br /><br />I'm not sure why so many actors insist on helming movies. It's like they want to reinvent themselves, when their own, well-honed personas are good enough. Clint Eastwood's another I'd mention. Laurence Olivier, too.<br /><br />At least "Larry" had a vision for his interpretations of the Bard. In reviewing Eastwood's work, I'm not sure his is so defined.<br /><br />I know all professionals want to do what interests them, and many don't want to be pigeonholed into certain roles. But we know Eastwood's capable of turning in a good performance. Same with Clooney.<br /><br />Is being recognized as a good actor not enough? Or does one have to be an auteur to be respectable?<br /><br />I think you can be respected for what you do well and, to paraphrase Robert Frost, that can make all the difference.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-49019543055760322462012-01-28T15:13:00.003-05:002012-01-28T15:49:40.099-05:00The Sacred Space of the OriginalsI often think I like a movie better if it follows its source material faithfully.<br /><br />But I might be looking through silver-colored glasses. In revisiting <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King</span></a> last night on TV, I noticed that I still enjoy this film immensely, despite the tweaks to much of the dialogue found in J.R.R. Tolkien's book. There's at least one precedent: I also love David Lean's brilliant <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038574/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Great Expectations</span></a>, though the movie's end, in which Pip tears away the curtains hiding Estella from the world, is nothing like the novel's finale.<br /><br />So why am I fine with the changes in these adaptations...yet horrified by the ones in Garth Jennings' <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371724/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy</span></a>?<br /><br />I know--I'm comparing two masterpieces to a misfire. It's not fair. But I'm trying to find a pattern, and the only one I can see is a significant difference in quality, resulting from better direction, scripts, editing, and other elements.<br /><br />Could that be it, then? Could I like something that, theoretically, could be completely different from its source material if it's just done well?<br /><br />I'm not going to discount that. I'll have to mull it for a while. Maybe I'm not the purist I think I am. Or maybe I'm a purist just with movies.<br /><br />I know that if it's good, I'll like it. Maybe I'll just go by that.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-49870143682028049902012-01-26T15:46:00.009-05:002012-01-26T16:52:20.202-05:00Yes, Let's By All Means Admit ImpedimentsAre we sure no one else but Meryl Streep would've <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007029/">fit the bill as Margaret Thatcher</a>?<br /><br />I'm a little befuddled by these casting choices--though I recognize the need for star power.<br /><br />But Meryl Streep? What's next, Dustin Hoffman as Charles de Gaulle?<br /><br />It might be another Oscar this year for Streep, considered by many to be one of America's greatest actresses...though I often find her performances forced and mannered. I'm wondering, though, whether this kind of portrayal also takes the spotlight away from less well-known, though more deserving actresses, such as Rooney Mara and Viola Davis. Streep seems to be specializing these days in historical impersonations, which sometimes appear to be judged on how close they are to the real thing rather than how much they work within the context of the films.<br /><br />I'd like to see someone else get recognized for a less showy role. Maybe this year's <a href="http://oscar.go.com/">Academy Awards</a> will accommodate. I'll be cautiously optimistic.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-44257583731717091502012-01-23T19:17:00.009-05:002012-01-24T07:35:41.525-05:00Go Gently into that Good Night, Will You Please?It's high time a number of film franchises were retired.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1399103/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Transformers</span></a>, head to the hills. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615918/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Chipmunks</span></a>, get outta Dodge.<br /></div><br />And <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1622979/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Final Destination</span></a>, let this be your last slaughterfield.<br /><br />This void should not be filled, because, as Woody Allen remarks in <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073312/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Love and Death</span></a>, it's an "empty void."<br /><br />What needs to arise is a spate of quality sci-fi and fantasy pictures.<br /><br />Sorry, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816462/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Conan</span></a>, you don't fit the bill--not until your script's as strong as your biceps. But I'd like to see some escapism in a similar vein, from great source material.<br /><br />A smattering of Isaac Asimov. A dose of Ray Bradbury. Slices of Theodore Sturgeon.<br /><br />There's a surplus of content out there. Why aren't we seeing more of it...and I'm not talking about travesties such as <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/"><span style="font-style: italic;">I, Robot</span></a>? Faithful adaptations that trust the viewer. Where are they?<br /><br />We can update these stories so they're even more relevant, without losing their "heart." And we've got all the CGI we need to lure eyeballs.<br /><br />Let's lure the brains, too. We're primates, not chipmunks.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-24584613155514976432012-01-20T07:26:00.006-05:002012-01-24T07:36:23.903-05:00Bridging the Cinematic DivideI'm at a loss. Trudi and I like different movies.<br /><br />OK, we're of one mind on some films--mostly those directed by Billy Wilder. And we're in agreement on the Marx Brothers, though she doesn't care for <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019777/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Cocoanuts</span></a>. (Consternation! Uproar!)<br /><br />But almost anything else released after 1929...pffft.<br /><br />I admire Trudi's taste. It's impeccable. But I wonder why I was so enthralled with <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064118/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Damned</span></a> and she wasn't. Or why I can't convince her that <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050613/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Throne of Blood</span></a> is one of the best interpretations of Shakespeare on the silver screen. Or why, for that matter, any flick featuring a battle scene lasting more than 10 minutes isn't something to avoid.<br /><br />Or why I struggle through the Jennifer Aniston oeuvre and she embraces it.<br /><br />I've decided this can't be chalked up to purportedly innate differences in taste between the sexes. I like some "chick flicks." Really. For example: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062695/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Stolen Kisses</span></a>.<br /><br />I provide crummy examples.<br /><br />Fine, so I prefer a great epic. A drawn-out drama. That's not for all viewers, though Trudi at one point admitted to me that it's hard for her to watch the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Lord of the Rings</span></a> movies, as she needs to absorb each in its entirety rather than piecemeal, as I tend to watch things on TV.<br /><br />So my feeling is, she probably has an inner <span style="font-style: italic;">jidai-geki</span>.<br /><br />Perhaps we're destined never to cross this divide. I've tried, though--I've watched <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804503/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Mad Men</span></a>. I've sat through Ryan Reynolds comedies. And to her credit, Trudi has tried, too. She sat through most of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058279/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kwaidan</span></a>. I give her many props for that.<br /><br />I just think now that taste...I can't believe I'm writing this...may be subjective.<br /><br />What an admission.The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-67505688770251227062011-02-12T06:35:00.004-05:002011-02-12T07:09:26.065-05:00An Unexamined Battle Scene Is not Worth Viewing<span style="font-family: arial;">The biggest problem with cinematic battle scenes today is that they don't have a perspective.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/">Gladiator</a> </span><span style="font-family: arial;">is the film that most comes to mind. Also </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Braveheart</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">, and the abysmal </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Troy</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"> and </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346491/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Alexander</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">. In these movies, the primary purpose of the staged conflicts seems to be a Peckinpah-esque revelry in blood and guts, as well as an "isn't it cool how that guy killed the other guy" sensibility catering to the Grand Guignol set.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">In other words, a lot of posing and yelling, but little substance. That contrasts greatly with the best cinematic battle scenes, which always have something to say.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Mind you, such commentary doesn't have to be anti-war. In fact, oftentimes, it isn't. </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Alexander Nevsky</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">'s frozen fight is exhilarating. So is </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King'</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">s massive (and beautifully directed) orc-a-thon, which incites viewers to cheer against the forces of evil. And </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058279/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kwaidan</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">'s otherworldly boat contest in which the Heike clan meets its doom is like some gorgeous scene from a Kuniyoshi print.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">All of these movie battles provide superb direction, varying camera angles and beautiful cinematography. That's not to say that they encourage viewers to enjoy the splattering of blood; instead, they make you care, involving you in the decisions and the developments leading up to them.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Here is my list of the greatest battle scenes in film, in no particular order:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Alexander Nevsky</span><span style="font-family: arial;">: Still the top, owing to a combination of logistics and sheer cinematic skill</span><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089881/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Ran</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">: perhaps the greatest anti-war battle scenes ever depicted on film; confusing, sad and powerful</span><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059012/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Chimes at Midnight</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">: brutal, anti-war banging of maces in the mud--terrific Wellesian comment</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King</span><span style="font-family: arial;">: CGI used in the best possible way</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Kwaidan</span><span style="font-family: arial;">: like a painting, both gorgeous and disturbing</span><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080979/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kagemusha</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">: you don't really see the fighting in the climactic battle, but you do see the results. Brilliantly anti-war; an assault on the waste of life</span><br /><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425637/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Red Cliff</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">: nicely handled direction of a popular tale, with a bit of preternatural powers thrown in to support the good-versus-evil thrust</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-80797382786047117232011-02-08T07:16:00.005-05:002012-01-23T19:49:47.633-05:00Do I Have to Watch the Oscars This Year?<span style="font-family:arial;">I still have nightmares about that dreadful "dance" number </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >en hommage</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> to </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Adventures of Baron Munchausen</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> on the </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/index.html">Academy Awards</a><span style="font-family:arial;"> so many years ago.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Did we really need to see people in fancy dress fall all over themselves--literally--for the sake of "comedy"? And the movie wasn't that broad, was it?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It's the prospect of viewing travesties such as this that makes me wary of turning on the Oscars later this month. Another factor is the thought of seeing great films not get the attention they deserve. (That's right: I still haven't gotten over why </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0457430/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Pan's Labyrinth</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> didn't win Best Picture.)</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Sure, there are delights to be noshed on, such as Akira Kurosawa's speech after winning an honorary Oscar more than 20 years ago. But I'm not sure it's worth getting through the dross to find the diamonds.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Heck, I liked </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The King's Speech</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> a lot, but is it really a Best Picture-type of movie?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Then again, is </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Braveheart</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm just hoping there's no pseudo-period "dancing."</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-72136895752580358812011-01-23T07:28:00.008-05:002011-01-23T08:26:29.474-05:00In Classical Music We Cineastes Trust<span style="font-family:arial;">I'm starting once more unto the breach with </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The King's Speech</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, but this time from an angle that I forgot to cover in my previous post.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">One of the biggest reasons Colin Firth's speech at the end of the film was so successful, in my opinion, was that it was tied to a bit of music from the old Ludwig van: specifically, the brooding second movement of his Seventh Symphony.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, the segment was edited superbly, cut to convey a tenseness that helped drive the scene. But without that second movement, would it have been so great?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I don't think so. Which leads me to think about other films that have been so inextricably tied to masterpieces of classical music.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">You've got to start, methinks, with </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029850/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Alexander Nevsky</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> and </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Ivan the Terrible, Parts </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037824/">I</a><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" > and </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051790/">II</a><span style="font-family:arial;">. That's kind of like cheating, though--Eisenstein brilliantly melded Prokofiev's sublime scores to his films, which were a perfect fit right off the bat.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">But what about something like "Il Mio Tesoro" from Mozart's </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Don Giovanni</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> being used in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Kind Hearts and Coronets</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">? I can't think of that film without thinking of the aria, which threads the flick like a serpent. Or the ominous use of Schubert's "Unfinished" Symphony in Carol Reed's </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039677/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Odd Man Out</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, which sets the tone as two of James Mason's cronies wait in a "friend's" living room before being betrayed?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">These moments are just as important to the contexts of these films...and wouldn't have been so without the help of certain masterpieces of classical music.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">We can always go back to </span><a style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/">2001: a Space Odyssey</a><span style="font-family:arial;">, with its famous use of music by two Strausses. But again--that's kind of easy; those works, though not expressly created for the film, are now nearly impossible to think about without it. And composer's biographies are out, too--especially </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073298/">any Ken Russell bizarre-o-thon</a><span style="font-family:arial;">--owing to the natural link of the music to the movies.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I guess what I'm talking about are the more unheralded, but no less vital, choices. The use of Mascagni's </span><span style="font-style: italic;font-family:arial;" >Cavalleria Rusticana</span><span style="font-family:arial;"> in the opening of </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Raging Bull</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> and the final scene of </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099674/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Godfather, Part III</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, for example. Or the Ravel chamber music in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105682/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Un Coeur en Hiver</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">. Or the use of the prelude to Act I of Wagner's Lohengrin in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032553/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Great Dictator</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, where Chaplin plays with the world.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Were these pieces made for these films without actually being made for them? Did the directors have the same aesthetic sensibilities as the composers?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I wonder if they were all part of each other in previous lives. </span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-42108731698232361972011-01-16T08:57:00.004-05:002011-01-16T09:52:34.644-05:00Speaking the 'Speech,' Firth, Rush Shine<span style="font-family: arial;">Even though I knew </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1504320/"><span style="font-style: italic;">The King's Speech</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;"> would be entertaining, it wasn't a movie I was jumping to see.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Part of the problem was the subject (not the king's, ha, ha, but the movie's), which seemed, to my mind, rather a strange, trivial focus. It was almost as if the filmmakers were homing in on minutiae, rather than the important elements of the period (such as World War II), while producing what appeared to be an Oscar-targeted picture featuring components generally regarded as being agreeable to voters (kings, an early 20th century setting, fine British actors, etc.).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">What I didn't know--and I chalk this up to my own ignorance--was that the speech impediment so painfully navigated by Britain's King George VI (portrayed with literal tripping on the tongue by Colin Firth) played such a large role in the political and social climate of wartime England. This was evidenced by Firth's climactic, halting but well-paced radio speech at the end, which established a confidence in me that I supposed was mirrored in the confidence of British listeners at the time. That's not just cosmetic; it's a resonance that I expect served to inspire.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">And oh, yeah: The good guys won that war.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Directed by Tom Hooper, the film suggests that the king's impediment wouldn't have been soothed without the help of one Lionel Logue, a not-at-all-board-approved speech specialist played by the Geoffrey Rush with deft charm and sensitivity. I was somewhat disappointed that there wasn't more time spent on the "unorthodox" methods employed by Logue on the King, and that the movie seems to emphasize their sessions less than their results. The chemistry between the two actors, however, is wonderful, beautifully conveying the awkwardness of a commoner-king relationship that is absent in the romantic pairing of the king's brother (Guy Pearce, good as usual) with the not-very-royal (or demure, for that matter) Wallis Simpson (a strong but underused Eve Best).</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Speech</span><span style="font-family: arial;">, to its credit, conveys all of these politically charged developments without resorting to facile pageantry, though I can't call the film a masterpiece, despite the deceptive nature of its scope. It's just not innovative or risky enough, and certain scenes felt clipped, as if the viewer wasn't getting everything. Still, after watching it, I didn't ask myself, "What was the reason for seeing this," as I'd do after </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093822/">a typical Coen Brothers movie</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. The strength of Rush's and Firth's portrayals, among others, drives the film, and this helps it last in the memory. That's a far-reaching achievement, and come Oscar time, it may help this picture move to the forefront among voters.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-36430336895899010812010-12-11T08:04:00.002-05:002010-12-11T08:28:23.999-05:00You Don't Have to See a Movie to Hate It<span style="font-family:arial;">Sometimes I feel like the character in </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100142/"><span style="font-family:arial;"><em>Metropolitan</em> </span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">who pretentiously notes that he doesn't read literature--just literary criticism.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm confronted with this realization following incessant exposure to advertising for </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0970866/"><em><span style="font-family:arial;">Little Fockers</span></em></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, which I predict will be one of the worst films of the year.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And no, I don't have to see it to believe this.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I've already suffered through the first two installments of this trilogy: </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212338/"><em><span style="font-family:arial;">Meet the Parents</span></em></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> and </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290002/"><em><span style="font-family:arial;">Meet the Fockers</span></em></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, both incredibly junky, cynical "comedies" predicated, in part, on jokes relating to the protagonist's nearly profane surname and his supposedly effeminate profession as a nurse.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">This is the kind of humor that makes Jerry Lewis look like Moliere.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So far, I haven't yet read a review for <em>LF</em>, but I will...and I'm hoping whatever I read will corroborate my sentiments. I'd also like to think I can discern a reviewer with "taste" from a reviewer without it. You know--someone reliable.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Someone who can verify my belief that I don't need to see this flick...ever.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">For the record, I don't surround myself with "yes-reviewers" or newspapers that only share my opinions. But I know that a good review of a bad movie will provide a reader with a feeling of support that people often relegate to therapy sessions or Sunday dinners with the folks.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">"You're not alone," a good review conveys. "We're in your foxhole, too."</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And that's what makes good criticism: total, unabashed obsequiousness. Maybe that's what that character in <em>Metropolitan</em> initially liked. Before he changed, of course, and started reading literature.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Yeah, I'm still not gonna see <em>LF</em>.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-56204479685951040892010-10-31T09:54:00.003-04:002010-10-31T10:18:33.528-04:00Will We Ever Have 'Kind Hearts' Again?<span style="font-family:arial;">The most significant mark of a good film, in my opinion, is its capacity to show the watcher something new on every viewing.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Robert Hamer's savory classic </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041546/"><em><span style="font-family:arial;">Kind Hearts and Coronets</span></em></a><span style="font-family:arial;"> fits that bill. I must've seen this movie about 50 times, and yet every time I review it, I notice elements I didn't see before. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">On my most recent screening, however, I didn't observe anything new. I just enjoyed it. I think I'm at that stage where the film has become so satisfying for me that it's like a plate of <em>cassoulet</em>: very familiar, yet always tasty...despite the lack of novelty associated with it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">There's no doubt in my mind that this is a great film--the ultimate black comedy, in which the viewer is forced to side with a surprisingly scrupulous fellow who, nevertheless, decides that the best and quickest way to earn his rightful inheritance is to terminate all other potential heirs of the dukedom to which he aspires. The doubt in my mind stems from whether we'll see such a great film again.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Of this type.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm not a big fan of the negative comedies of today. They often seem forced and extremely poorly written, such as Gus Van Sant's lamentable "satire" </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114681/"><em><span style="font-family:arial;">To Die For</span></em></a><span style="font-family:arial;">, which was as dull as a potato sandwich. It's a hard genre to fit into, and even more difficult to be successful at. Which is why it's so amazing to me that <em>KHAC</em> ever got produced.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So will we see another one like it again? My feeling is that it's like asking if we'll get another Mozart. The product of a special time and social context cannot be replicated, though we may see further tries. The wit of <em>KHAC</em>, like the delicacy of Mozart, is inimitable, a historic anomaly.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm disappointed by this idea, but I think I should embrace it. It makes the art unique, unquenchable.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Maybe I should just be content with its greatness rather than its duplication.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-21719813233662338442010-08-01T11:54:00.003-04:002010-08-01T12:49:14.930-04:00Remaking Foreign Films in a Lowbrow Image<span style="font-family:arial;">It's summer time, and you know what that means, right?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Time for the usual spate of unoriginal movies to come our way.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The current crop includes a very high-profile remake: the Jay Roach-helmed <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427152/">Dinner for Schmucks</a></em> (I can't believe they included that word in the title!), which recreates Francis Veber's <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119038/">The Dinner Game</a></em> for American audiences.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Why? I ask. Why not leave well enough alone?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I do like <em>DFS</em> stars Paul Rudd and Steve Carell, two talented comedians who turned in hilarious performances in <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405422/">The 40-Year-Old Virgin</a></em>. But I'm skeptical that they can turn their latest collaboration into comedy magic.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The reason? Roach directed two of the worst movies in recent memory, in my opinion: <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212338/">Meet the Parents</a></em> and its horrid sequel, <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290002/">Meet the Fockers</a></em>, both of which were squirm-inducing "comedies" of embarrassment that made Jerry Lewis' <em>oeuvre</em> seem highbrow. Popular they were, however, as are velvet paintings and elevator music.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I realize I'm in the minority here. But are we really expecting "the Lubitsch touch" here?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Veber's a talented director and writer who specializes in slick, amiable comedies that smack more of Louis de Funes than Moliere (such as the charming <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085354/">Les Comperes</a></em>, remade in the States as <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119109/">Father's Day</a></em>), and he seems to have a new career as a font of inspiration to American directors looking for source material. Still, I'm a bit perturbed at this trend...it suggests original ideas for screen comedy are limited, and the need for an instant hit trumps the need for uniqueness.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I don't think we have to be worried about a remake of <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055032/">Jules and Jim</a></em> coming to our shores anytime soon or anything. I do, however, think that there's a pattern here, and it's one to be concerned about...especially if the new films don't do the originals justice.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And so to bed...with this argument.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-91246892046389784402010-06-27T20:22:00.005-04:002010-06-27T21:24:50.104-04:00Now I've Seen It: The Worst Movie of All Time<span style="font-family:arial;">All right, so that might be an overstatement. But I don't think it's by much.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Remember how, back in October of last year, I lamented the then-forthcoming issuance of another Tim Burton "vision," his dreaded reimagining of <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1014759/">Alice in Wonderland</a></em>? I wrote then that "I'm worried. I know it's gonna be horrible."</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">How right I was. Don't say I didn't warn me.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">To be fair, I went into the viewing of this cinematic massacre with a completely closed mind, aided, of course, by the wonderful Trudi, who sat through the entire film with me. Together, we gasped at the ludicrous back story (what seems to be a specialty of director Burton these days), tittered at the dreary dialogue, grumbled at the overly ominous lighting and smirked at the obtrusive CGI that squeezed out and discarded any vestige of inspiration produced by <em>Alice</em> author Lewis Carroll and illustrator John Tenniel in the original tale.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And then there was Johnny Depp. As the Mad Hatter, no less.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">It would be an understatement to call his performance "excruciating."</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">One of the peculiar things about this film was its dogged insistence on making Wonderland a sad, broken place...and Depp's Hatter some kind of tragic figure, who, like the other inhabitants of this creepy world, has found his joys and desires bound with briars by the e-vile Red Queen (played screechingly by Helena Bonham Carter).</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Hey, we know the Red Queen's off her rocker and is totally, thoroughly unjust. But isn't the real fun of Carroll's world the same as that of, say, the Freedonia of the Marx Brothers' <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023969/">Duck Soup</a></em>...that <em>nobody gives a damn</em>?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I mean, this is a Mad Hatter, for crying out loud. Not Henry Fonda in <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/">12 Angry Men</a></em>.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Then there was the problem of turning this wretched piece of celluloid into an action movie. Didn't work, Timmy. You know why? Well, there's this issue called character development that the film completely skirted. Makes it damned hard to care about anyone when the script is as tight as tapioca pudding.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Honestly, I would've thought the thing was ad-libbed if it hadn't been for that expensive CGI...which, shockingly, looked cheap and rather unrefined, despite what appears to have been an unconscionable number of labor-hours involved in the generation of such effects.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Perhaps the headline of this post is hyperbole. There are plenty of bad movies out there that might top <em>Alice</em>, such as <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060666/">Manos: The Hands of Fate</a></em> and </span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113987/"><span style="font-family:arial;">nearly anything by Oliver Stone</span></a><span style="font-family:arial;">.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">But <em>Alice</em> is definitely up there. And that leads me to one final thought. </span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I've indicated in at least one previous post that a remake of a classic has to differentiate itself substantially from its predecessor(s), and I'm not going to take that back. But I will add that if you're going to put your own spin on a masterpiece, you might want to run it by people of taste before launching it into the crowd.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">My feeling is, if it ain't frabjous, don't make it. Not nowhere, not nohow.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-76121902418111519762010-06-20T07:54:00.008-04:002010-06-20T08:54:01.885-04:00Weighing the Love for 47 Loyal Ronin<span style="font-family:arial;">I'm going to say it flat out: I'm not the biggest fan of Hiroshi Inagaki.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I don't count the <em>Samurai</em> series of films (<em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047444/">I</a></em>, <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048579/">II</a></em> and <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049710/">III</a></em>) as among my favorite <em>jidai-geki</em>. So I wasn't too thrilled about the prospect of sitting down to watch <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055850/">Chushingura</a></em>, Inagaki's 1962 treatment of the famous Japanese tale of the loyal 47 <em>ronin</em> (masterless samurai). It was one of those things where I felt like I should see it, despite my reservations.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Well, I saw it. And although it was well made, it was typical Inagaki.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I say this somewhat contemptuously, because I feel Inagaki's cinematic "voice" has got to be one of the slickest, least critical ones in Japanese cinema. In <em>Chushingura</em>, the director fashioned a handsome-looking, straightforward version of the classic story, in which 47 ronin, whose lord is executed unfairly by corrupt officials, avenge their master against incredible odds...despite their inevitable fate: death. It's a story about love and unequivocal fealty, and the 47 ronin involved reflect the highest samurai standards, and are worthy of admiration through their sacrifice--a point made at the end during the samurai's long walk through the town after beheading their prime target.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Can you imagine how Kurosawa would've tackled this subject? Someone would've made a crack somewhere, I'll bet.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Inagaki's treatment is reverential, to say the least. He peppers the tale with a complex cast of characters but doesn't spend enough time on most of them for us to become too involved. That's all right, though--this is an all-star type of film with luminaries such as Toshiro Mifine and Takashi Shimura playing small but important roles. I'm OK with this kind of movie.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I'm not OK, however, with the lack of a perspective.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">That is what most struck me about <em>Chushingura</em>...and it's what I least like about Inagaki's films. It's a traditional, spectacle-oriented treatment--without much social commentary. You're supposed to hate the corrupt official (played with expert nastiness and no redeeming qualities by Chusha Ichikawa) and applaud the ronin's dedication, though this loyalty even extends beyond family. The values of note are the traditional ones, not the new ones, and one cannot question a samurai's dedication to his master, even at the expense of his wife or children, whom he must leave to avenge his lord and, consequently, commit ritual suicide.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Don't you think Kobayashi would have something to say about this?</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I don't think all films have to be critical, and there's something to be said for going "by the book" when adapting classic stories. But I do think Inagaki missed something in <em>Chushingura</em>, and that only affirms my belief that he was not one of the world's top directors. One of the ingredients that makes great cinema so special is vision, and only a few people have it. There has to be a reason for making a film of a well-known tale that differentiates the new version from others that preceded it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">This is, by the way, a systemic issue in cinema that's not solely relegated to Inagaki's canon. We do need more movie visionaries who aren't just purveyors of slo-mo and 3D.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">I know you're out there.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-5927681812872837262010-06-10T07:16:00.003-04:002010-06-10T07:37:14.366-04:00And Now for Something Completely Different...<span style="font-family: arial;">...and that is the subject of publication (sorry, no movies today). Two of my short stories are slated to appear in July: one in </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.goldenvisionsmagazine.biz/"><span style="font-style: italic;">Golden Visions Magazine</span></a><span style="font-family: arial;">, and the other in </span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;">Beyond Centauri</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> magazine, a print publication for younger readers produced by </span><a style="font-family: arial;" href="http://www.samsdotpublishing.com/">Sam's Dot Publishing</a><span style="font-family: arial;">. This is a first for me, and I'm very excited. Both publications offer a wealth of quality content.</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: arial;"> Golden Visions</span><span style="font-family: arial;">' online site will be down for about a week at the end of June while it reformats, and the print issue won't be available for purchase until after the first week of July, but there should be both print and PDF versions of the issue after that.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">Anyhoo (I hate saying that, but I do it anyway), I will try to post more when the issues come out. 'Til then...</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327051778192443357.post-39470836997894528072010-05-23T07:45:00.005-04:002010-05-23T08:14:52.041-04:00Altman's 'Goodbye' Proves Long in Tooth (& Script)<span style="font-family:arial;">That's it. I'm done with Robert Altman.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Having attempted, for the 4,637th time, this weekend to get through an entire film from the director's 1970s heyday, I have now resolved to avoid all further Altman flicks. The catalyst for this decision: 1973's <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070334/">The Long Goodbye</a></em>, an Elliott Gould-fest disguised as a Raymond Chandler mystery.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I made it about halfway before I left the room to manage my fantasy baseball team.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Trudi didn't get much further into the film and finally became disgusted with it during a scene in which a hood brutalizes his mistress.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">I, of course, had become disgusted with it much sooner.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">The fact is, when a Serious Movie spends the first 15 minutes or so documenting the protagonist's efforts to feed his finicky cat, there's something wrong.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">And I don't care if this is this is <em>un hommage</em> to Chandler, cats or quirky characterizations. It's not interesting. By the time the film got somewhere near a plot, I'd already given up on it.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Oh, and then there was the mumbling. <em>Overlapping</em> mumbling. A Robert Altman specialty that seems to typify his work.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">As <em><a href="http://www.dccomics.com/mad/">Mad Magazine</a></em>'s Alfred E.Neuman might say, "Ecch!"</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Look, I like a bit of overlapping dialogue here and there. It worked perfectly in the original, 1951 <em><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/">The Thing from Another World</a></em>. But Altman-directed actors always seem to be performing as if they are conversing with friends in their living rooms. Please, for the love of Ethel Merman, PROJECT!!!</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">Of course, that wasn't the only thing wrong, in my opinion, with the film. I though the cinematography, by the usually reliable Vilmos Zsigmond, was too murky and uninteresting, and Altman's lack of closeups made the movie cold and distant. It was hard to care about the characters, and this is a "quality" that, to my mind, informs other Altman pictures.</span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:arial;">So you can count me out of the viewing of any further Altman extravaganzas. I know he was a much-loved director of the '70s, but I'm just not in that corner. Give me <em>The Thing</em> any day. Or Ethel Merman.</span>The Movie Loonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05655237893308545912noreply@blogger.com0