Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > March
March 2009
Toy Story double feature coming/A new look at ‘Up’
Disney/Pixar had already announced that Toy Story and Toy Story 2 would be reissued to theaters in 3D, as a prelude to 2010’s Toy Story 3, which will also be in 3D.
Today the news is that Disney has turned this into a package deal. On October 2 of this year, Disney will reissue both movies in 3D as a double feature, and the trailer for Toy Story 3 will make its debut then as well.
It goes without saying I’m in. I’ve made my love of Pixar’s movies clear multiple times on this blog, and I’ve also voiced my support of 3D as well. Sometimes 3D renderings of older movies don’t always work well (witness the relatively plain presentation of A Nightmare before Christmas), but I trust Pixar to do it right.
The only thing that concerns me is the wording in the announcement that this is a “limited engagement.” I hope that means limited time as opposed to limited cities, because Dayton doesn’t always make the latter cut.
Also on Disney’s slate is a 3D reissue of Beauty and the Beast, although I’m a little wary of that. It’s my favorite film of the Disney renaissance, but I find that hand-drawn animation doesn’t render well in 3D. I guess we’ll find out on Feb. 12, 2010.
And in other Pixar news, the studio is playing it very smart regarding its next movie Up, out May 29. The previews so far have focused mainly on Carl Fredricksen and his flying house. A new clip on Yahoo gradually reveals the other part of the movie: what happens once Carl and his explorer buddy land.
As was the case with WALL-E, the gradual reveal of Up makes it look more enticing. I gotta say, that clip alone is much more entertaining than the entirety of Monsters vs. Aliens. Can’t. Wait.
Are you in for a Toy Story 3D double feature? What do you think of the new Up footage?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
DVD’s - Slumdog and real dogs
Today’s DVDs bring us several kinds of dogs, as you will see by this list.
Marley and Me: There have been many “a boy and his dog” stories, this is, more than anything else, a “man and his dog” story, and a very affecting one to boot. The movie gets a little too hung up on the angst of its lead character, played by Owen Wilson; it works best when it’s about the his family and their rambunctious dog that chews through things like the Tasmanian Devil. Anyone who has ever had a pet is bound to tear up at least a little. GRADE: B+
Seven Pounds: Will Smith and his Pursuit of Happyness director reunite for another tearjerker, but this time out their effort goes badly awry with a story that’s so bizarre and impenetrable, it doesn’t foster much sympathy. One thing’s for sure - you’ll never look at jellyfish the same way again. Full review: GRADE: C
Slumdog Millionaire: Let’s see. It deservedly won the Best Picture Oscar and was my favorite live-action film of last year. Nah, no reason to buy this one. (End sarcasm). Actually, there IS reason to buy it. As I mentioned in this post, the extras will not be available on rental copies, so buy it if you want to know more than just the movie. Full review: GRADE: A+
Tell No One: Regular reader Kim S. reminded me that this French thriller comes out today also, and I was remiss in overlooking it. It’s a gripping film about a man falsely accused of murdering his wife. It has a few dry patches, but when it works it works very well, thanks in no small part o a solid turn by the underappreciated Kristin Scott-Thomas, who excelled in another French film, I Loved You So Long, also available on DVD. GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
UPDATE: Farewell to a great film composer
The cinema lost one of its greatest composers this past weekend with the death of Maurice Jarre.
The AP story about his passing mentions that Jarre is the composer of Dr. Zhivago, which is more than reasonable, considering how ubiquitous “Lara’s Theme” was.
To my ears, however, his greatest score was for another David Lean film. When I think of Lawrence of Arabia, one of the first things that springs to mind is that sweeping, majestic score. Here’s some video of Jarre conducting it.
Although Jarre was best known for his work with Lean, he wrote fine scores for many other films, including several by director Peter Weir, such as Witness and the ever-underappreciated Fearless. Jarre scores include movies as varied as Hitchcock’s Toapz, Ghost, and of all films, the Zucker-Abrams-Zucker spoof Top Secret! On the whole, his lush, enveloping style made for a sound too rarely heard in movies today.
According to Wikipedia, Jarre once said: “One could say my life itself has been one long soundtrack. Music was my life, music brought me to life, and music is how I will be remembered long after I leave this life. When I die there will be a final waltz playing in my head and that only I can hear.”
(Update 5/12/09) News stories have revealed that Jarre never actually said that. A shame. But his music sings for itself.
More on Maurice Jarre: A fine tribute by film critic Joe Leydon, highlighted by an amusing anecdote about how Jarre almost shared the Lawrence score with one Richard Rodgers (yes, that one, with a D). See also Jarre’s fascinating interview with fellow composer Alexandre Desplat (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) on CNN.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
‘Monsters vs. Aliens’ frenzied but fun
While I watched Monsters vs. Aliens, I thought it was visually dazzling, fast, funny and even delightfully clever.
So why can’t I remember much about it only a few days after seeing it?
I had a lot of fun in the theater, but after it was over, I felt like I had been zapped by a very slow-working version of the memory eraser from Men in Black. I remember certain scenes, characters and jokes well, but as a whole, the movie has faded from view, like the Invisible Man.
My usual beef with DreamWorks’ animated movies is that they emphasize gags over character and story, which is what happened with lesser entries like the Madagascar films and Bee Movie. Occasionally, DreamWorks overcomes that and produces a winner like Over the Hedge or Kung Fu Panda.
Monsters vs. Aliens falls somewhere in between those extremes. It’s good, solid fun that would have been even better had the filmmakers not overstuffed the movie. The central character is Susan (Reese Witherspoon) who gets struck by a meteorite on her wedding day. At the altar, she finds herself growing and growing (with newly white hair) until she’s just shy of 50 feet tall. Before she can say “Fee, fi, fo fum,” the military is tying her down and whisking her away to a top-secret facility.
Turns out the military has been capturing monsters for years. Other guests at the facility include the mad genius Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie), the amphibianesque Missing Link (Will Arnett), the smart-aleck B.O.B (Seth Rogen), who resembles one of the Pac-Men monsters, and the massive Insectosaurus, who’s even bigger than Susan, now stuck with the ungainly name Ginormica.
The government has been storing the creatures away for military purposes, and wouldn’t you know it, a threat arrives in the form of Gallaxhar (Rainn Wilson), a dastardly alien who wants the power source that turned Susan into a giant.
That’s an awful lot of plot, and that’s the main problem with Monsters vs. Aliens. It tries too hard.
To its credit, the movie does have more heart than some DreamWorks films. However, the story piles on so many characters, sidekicks, subplots, and razzle-dazzle effects, it creates sensory overload. It felt good at the time, but I came crashing down from the rush.
Kung Fu Panda juggled a lot of supporting players too, but it never lost sight of its central character, and Monsters vs. Aliens does, to a certain extent. Susan makes a good heroine, but all the sidekicks and action scenes keep getting in her way. It doesn’t help that Gallaxhar is a dull villain who never seems all that threatening.
As for the much-ballyhooed 3D effects, they’re well done, but I wouldn’t say the 3D is essential to the viewing experience the way it was for The Polar Express. The main action scene in San Francisco, however, is a blast that justifies the glasses (and the higher price).
Monsters vs. Aliens gets the job done and is an enjoyable ride, but I can’t escape the feeling that all that razzmatazz trapped a great movie inside this good movie that I began to forget right away.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Movies that mention/are set in Ohio
My colleagues at the DDN have put together a nice story package about Mark Donahue, a Dayton native who has written a novel about a Cincinnati Reds player and wants the movie of said novel to be shot at least partly in Dayton. Here’s the main story, a sidebar about the particulars of filming locally, and a list of movies shot in Ohio.
Fun stuff, but that puts me in mind of another list: Movies that mention or are at least set in Ohio, if not shot there.
Off the top of my head, and in no particular order
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes: This Marilyn Monroe vehicle most famous for its “Diamonds are a Girl’s Best Friend” number, name-checks Dayton a couple of times because Tommy Noonan’s character is from there. That got great laughs from the audience when it played Victoria Theatre’s Cool Films series last summer.
Sunset Blvd. - Another movie with its lead character, WIlliam Holden, hailing from Dayton, where he held a job as a newspaper writer, no less, for the -ahem - Dayton Evening Post. When Andrew Lloyd Webber turned it into a musical later, Dayton even made it into the lyrics.
Kit Kittredge: An American Girl - Set in, but not shot in Cincinnati. As is so often the case these days, Toronto stood in for American locales.
Annie Get Your Gun - Annie Oakley was from Darke County.
Gummo: This film by Harmony Korine, the writer of Kids, set his film about disaffected teens in Xenia, complete with a tornado. I worked for the Xenia Daily Gazette at the time, and locals there were none too pleased with the reference.
That’s my preliminary list. Can anyone think of any others?
Permalink | Comments (14) | Post your comment | Categories: Lists
What’s opening Friday, March 27?
The last week of March brings us three new movies, one of which is sure to be a big hit, and the others, well …
The Haunting in Connecticut: Another Lionsgate horror cheapie that seems to be generating more notice for the trouble it’s causing in real life than for anything actually on the screen. And what the heck is Virginia Madsen doing in this? (She provides the answer here.) Or Elias Koteas, for that matter?
Monsters vs. Aliens: The obvious behemoth this week. Review posts Friday, but in 2D only. Sorry.
12 Rounds: An action flick with wrestling star John Cena and directed by Renny Harlin, who has been doing his best to make us forget he once had talent. I won’t even take one round of that.
At the arthouses
The Neon hangs onto Two Lovers and the ever-popular Slumdog Millionaire, adding the acclaimed French Oscar nominee The Class to the mix.
The Little Art opens the excellent I’ve Loved You So Long, with outstanding performances by Kristin Scott-Thomas and Elsa Zylberstein as sisters trying to overcome a very troubled past. Also new: Waltz with Bashir, the acclaimed animated film about the Lebanon war of the early 80s.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Does 3D draw you in to the movie theater?
Monsters vs. Aliens comes out this Friday, and what with all the hoopla surrounding the 3D effects, from the 3D Superbowl ad on down, I’ve been wondering: Is 3D really the next big thing in movies, as some Hollywood execs would have you believe?
Jeffrey Katzenberg, the chief of DreamWorks Animation, which made Monsters vs. Aliens, has been particularly loud in beating the 3D drum - so much so that all future DreamWorks movies will be released in that format. Disney/Pixar has done the same, in that all their titles, except this year’s hand-drawn The Princess and the Frog, will be released in 3D. Toy Story and Toy Story 2 will also be reissued in 3D, ramping up to the release of Toy Story 3 in 2010. James Cameron’s 3D film Avatar, his first feature since Titanic, promises to dazzle later this year as well.
For the most part, I think 3D is a lot of fun, and if a movie is available in that format, I’ll go out of my way if need be to see it. Here’s an earlier post I wrote about the 3D movies I’ve seen, and here’s one that covers the 3D movies in the Disney theme parks.
To my 3D list I have to add Henry Selick’s wonderful film Coraline. I heard people say the 3D was disappointing, but I disagree. The 3D was subtle but immersive, much like the way Hitchcock used it in Dial M for Murder. And in fact, I thought its 3D was much more effective there than in the flashier Monsters vs. Aliens, which I will review Friday.
The problem is, the 3D systems are so expensive to install and operate, that theaters have been slower to add them than Hollywood would like. So that’s why for now, these movies also go out in regular “flat” versions. (The expense also explains why 3D movies carry a higher ticket price.)
So I ask: Is 3D enough to draw you to the movie theater more often, like Hollywood hopes? If a movie is available both ways, do you see it flat or in 3D? Is the experience memorable enough to justify the more expensive tickets?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
Anne Hathaway as Judy Garland? I like it, but …
Anne Hathaway has been cast as Judy Garland in an upcoming movie and stage show, and I have to say, I have mixed feelings about this news.
On the positive side, Hathaway is one of my favorite actresses, and Garland is my favorite actress of all time. So that combination is appealing in and of itself. As the world saw on the Oscar, Hathaway has an impressive singing voice …
although I knew about her vocal talents long before that, thanks to her performance int the movie Ella Enchanted, as seen below.
On the other hand, Hathaway’s voice sounds like it’s better suited to the younger Judy of 1935 to 1950, I’m not altogether sure how well she could pull off the throatier, more operatic style of her 50s and 60s material. I guess we’ll find out. I’ve heard it suggested that Hathaway could sing live on stage, but for the film she might be better off lip-synching, as Marion Cotillard did when she played Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose and won an Oscar for her trouble.
The other part of the project is that it’s based on the book “Get Happy” by Gerald Clarke. I haven’t read the book, but it doesn’t enjoy a good reputation among Garland fan, because, like too many biographies of her, it supposedly focuses on the tawdry, sensational aspects of her life rather than truly trying to understand her as an entertainer
Hathaway, producer Harvey Weinstein and company would do well to study the example set by Me and My Shadows, a TV movie in which Tammy Blanchard played the younger Judy and Judy Davis the older Judy - and both were outstanding. Moreover, that movie did not drown in all the tabloid fodder.
What do you all think of the choice?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
DVDs - Bolt, Bond and a very cool new idea
The DVD shelves this week bring us the latest Disney and Bond movies, with the Mouse House pretty much zapping 007. And in other news, Warner Bros. has come up with one of the most innovative DVD releasing strategies I’ve ever seen.
Bolt: Disney’s latest animated movie about a TV star dog who thinks he’s actually a superhero was the studio’s best effort in many years, with many clever gags and a particularly riotous sidekick in Rhino the hamster. It’s not as good as any given Pixar movie (and it would be foolish to expect as much), but Bolt shows that Disney is regaining the strength it had lost over the past decade. Full review. GRADE: A-
Quantum of Solace: Now that this James Bond movie is out on DVD, maybe careful use of the pause and slow-motion features will make sense of the poorly staged action scenes. Daniel Craig still makes an excellent 007, and the storyline, which continues the agent’s quest for revenge from Casino Royale is OK, but the fights and chases are so choppily edited and badly shot, the movie ends up being a major disappointment. Full review GRADE: C+
In other DVD news …
Warner Bros. has always been the studio that has done the best job handling its catalog titles, bar none. Good thing, too, considering its priceless library of MGM, RKO and WB classics. Now, the studio has taken its invaluable catalog to another level with a new service called the Warner Archive.
As this story explains, the Warner Archive will give movie lovers the chance to own made-to-order DVDs of somewhat lesser-known titles from the studio’s library that might not sell in mass quantities. For instance, many classic film fans know the movie Idiot’s Delight as the one in which Clark Gable (sorta) sings and dances to “Puttin’ on the Ritz,” thanks to a clip from That’s Entertainment.
Now, thanks to the Warner Archive, you can order Idiot’s Delight in its entirety, along with titles like the excellent Abe Lincoln in Illinois, with its sterling performance by Raymond Massey.
I love this idea and hope it takes off. Even now, with all the movies available on DVD, I know there are certain titles that still haven’t made it to that format. What movies would you like to see on DVD that haven’t been made available yet?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Can ‘Duplicity’ really be THAT bad?
Reading EW’s box-office wrap-up for this week, there was one stat that absolutely, totally floored me.
No, it wasn’t the fact that Knowing won the weekend with $24 million. I thought the film was borderline painful, but hey, the trailer sucked me in, so I knew other people would fall for it too. I expect it to drop off faster than Nicolas Cage’s script judgment, once word of mouth gets out.
But no, the passage that stunned me was this: “And with a woeful CinemaScore grade of C from a “one quadrant” crowd mostly comprised of older women, Duplicity doesn’t appear to be the comeback hit many hoped it would be.”
Um … wow. A C? Really??
A little background here - CinemaScore is a firm that polls audiences that attend the opening nights of movies and asks them to assign a letter grade. Usually, audiences that attend opening night are there by choice and so they tend to be generous. Therefore, a C grade does not bode well at all for Duplicity.
I’m very surprised for two reasons. First off, the reviews by and large have been quite kind. Second of all, I find it very hard to believe that Julia Roberts, Clive Owen and writer-director Tony Gilroy, who made one of my favorite films of 2007, Michael Clayton, could misfire that badly. The trailer looked delicious.
Looking through the reviews, I see a common thread popping up, in that maybe the movie was flying over people’s heads. Todd McCarthy of Variety, who quite liked the film, wrote: “The twisty, time jumping narrative forces viewers to keep on their toes, and it could well be that Duplicity is too smart for its own good as far as the popcorn masses are concerned.”
Similarly, Peter Travers of Rolling Stone was mixed-positive, saying: “Given the assault of devilishly clever plot twists that buzz-bomb your brain like a two-hour binge of quad-shot lattes, Duplicity goes down as too smart for its own good.” And perhaps Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, who was mezzo-mezzo, cuts to the heart of the matter for many people when he writes: “Its ironic complexities tease the brain without pleasing the heart.”
Mind you, none of this will deter me from seeing Duplicity one bit. I’m still very much looking forward to catching the movie this week, and I’ve disagreed with CinemaScore before. As I recall, some audiences gave Vanilla Sky an F, and I still think that film is underrated.
But if you have seen Duplicity tell me: Is the low grade warranted? Is the film indeed “too smart?” Even if you haven’t seen the film, what do you make of all this? Is it really so bad for a film to be “too smart” when so many movies these days are too dumb?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
‘Knowing’ when to quit on a dopey movie
I’d rather forget Knowing.
There were some telling signs this movie might not be great, such as the spring release date and the presence of Nicolas Cage, an actor who apparently has forgotten how to turn down a script. What else could explain Ghost Rider and Bangkok Dangerous?
Regardless, I held out hope for Knowing for one reason: Alex Proyas, a director who deserves the adjective “visionary” more than, say, Watchmen’s Zack Snyder. In films like The Crow and Dark City, Proyas created dazzling visual worlds around fascinating characters and stories. I even thought I, Robot came off better than most people were willing to admit.
Although the numeral-obsessed premise of Knowing smacked of The Number 23 starring Jim Carrey, which didn’t compute for most people, the science fiction/Nostradamus angle made it look intriguing enough. Cage plays a teacher, John Koestler, who lost his wife in a tragic accident and has a somewhat distant relationship with his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). Then, in a time capsule at his school, Caleb finds a sheet that has nothing but numbers on it.
Studying the sheet, John discovers what appears to be a code that predicted every major disaster from the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina to the fire that claimed the life of John’s wife. What’s more, the code seems to predict three disasters that haven’t occurred yet. Naturally, John becomes obsessed with finding the key to this mysterious code.
So far, so good, I thought as the story unfolded. Whenever Knowing sticks to this idea of trying to predict disasters, it actually works pretty well. Proyas’ eye for impressive visuals serves the movie well in the disaster scenes, like a harrowing plane crash in a field, and a teeth-clenching subway disaster in New York City. The director stages the action scenes quite well, hampered only slightly by a few dodgy effects shots.
Talented as Proyas may be with a camera, his visual skills are not strong enough to save a screenplay with major problems, and Knowing is stuck with such a screenplay. Wisely, the trailers obscure the most outlandish part of the story, which involve a mysterious band of rogues called “the Whispering People.” They’re somehow supposed to be behind the pending disaster that will end the world, but they look like refugees from the cast of Twilight, made by the same studio that produced this movie. Did someone there decide that all their movies should have pale villainous types dressed in shady costumes?
Then there’s the ending, which unfortunately involves the Whispering People and makes for the most ridiculous, logic-defying, who-came-up-with-this-claptrap conclusion this side of the absurd death penalty drama The Life of David Gale. The ending is so off the rails, my reaction worsened from “Oh, come on!” to the slightly more colorful phrase abbreviated “WTF?”
I won’t say what happens at the end, except to say I felt like Cage’s otherworldly character in City of Angels, looking on powerlessly as I was unable to stop the chaos before me. Put another way, I wish I could have definitively predicted Knowing would be a mess so I could have avoided it altogether.
GRADE: C-
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s opening Friday, March 20?
This week makes for one of the better movie lineups, this spring - not that that’s saying much, but there is one that rates as an absolute must-see for me. Again, film titles go to Rotten Tomatoes entries.
Duplicity: Here’s the must-see. Writer-director Tony Gilroy follows up the outstanding Michael Clayton with this romantic caper starring Clive Owen and Julia Roberts and has pulled down some very solid reviews so far, although overall word seems mixed. I don’t care, this is the movie I’ve been most looking forward to this spring.
I Love You, Man: Paul Rudd plays a guy not looking for a girl, but for a guy to be his best. man and overall best bud. One of the few so-called “bromances” not to involve Judd Apatow (although it does star two of his regulars, Rudd and Jason Segel), this movie has also gotten good buzz going. I’m a little worried though, since the last film by the director was the lame Along Came Polly.
Knowing: Nicolas Cage starts in a numerological sci-fi thriller, which I will review Friday - unfortunately.
At the arthouses
The Neon opens up Two Lovers, the “last” film starring Joaquin Phoenix (rolls eyes). Whatever. I can’t call myself all that interested because writer-director James Gray’s films never strike me as being very compelling, but this movie does have its admirers.
The Little Art opens Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino Friday, and plays Taking Root: The Vision of Wangari Maathai as part of the Black Oak Project of Central State University on Saturday.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Natasha Richardson, 1963-2009
I wish I could say I knew Natasha Richardson’s film work well, but I cannot. Still, I find myself deeply saddened by her untimely passing all the same.
That’s largely because of the sudenness and cruelty of her accident, no doubt, and of profound sympathy for her mother, Vanessa Redgrave, aunt Lynn Redgrave, sister Joely Richardson, husband Liam Neeson, sons Michael and Daniel, and the rest of her family.
I think it’s also because I wish I had known her work better. I read one article that said she was “best known” for playing the mother in Disney’s 1998 Parent Trap remake.
Really? That wasn’t true for me. Her best role was a performance I never even had the pleasure to witness.
When the Kander and Ebb classic Cabaret was revived on Broadway in 1998 by Sam Mendes and Rob Marshall, Natasha Richardson took on Sally Bowles (a role close to my heart because a friend of mine did an excellent job following in Richardson’s footsteps) and won a Tony for her efforts. Save for a few clips here and there, I never saw her performance, but I heard it on the CD cast recording, and she blew me away through sheer vocal prowess. Richardson wasn’t a singer, but then, Sally wasn’t supposed to be much of one, and Richardson sold that for all it was worth and then some.
Here’s a clip of her performing my favorite song in the show, “Maybe This Time.”
If that isn’t talent, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know what is. “Isn’t that long a stay” indeed.
Prayers and condolences to all.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Do you ever watch/listen to DVD extras?
Reading this Variety story about how well Netflix and Redbox are doing in the economic crunch, this sentence caught my eye:
“Fox has decided to pull extras, like commentary tracks and featurettes, off discs it offers as rentals, beginning with pics like “Slumdog Millionaire,” starting this month. Other studios are expected to follow suit.”
On the one hand, I understand this move. My educated guess is that most people who rent discs rarely, if ever watch the extras. I make an educated guess because, being a movie nut, I’m not like most renters. I actually eat up the extras myself.
So on the other hand, I regret this decision because occasionally I use Netflix to rent DVDs to see extras of movies I don’t intend to buy. For example, after I purchased Steven Spielberg’s Munich, I rented the bonus disc from Netflix to watch the making-of material, because I didn’t see the need to shell out more money for extras I wouldn’t watch more than once. If extras start to disappear from rental copies, that’s something I will miss.
I understand most people are happy to own just the movie, but if you’re missing, say, the second disc of the WALL-E package, you’re missing some fascinating and fun material about how the movie was made, including an illuminating piece on how Pixar hired cinematographer Roger Deakins (who shoots most of the Coen brothers’ films) to help them achieve the look they wanted.
If you haven’t heard Francis Ford Coppola’s commentary tracks, some fascinating stories are passing you by. For instance, did you know that those evocative opening shots of the jungle catching fire in Apocalypse Now were almost thrown away? Coppola gets so intimate and confessional, that even commentary tracks to lesser films of his like The Godfather Part III and the turgid Finian’s Rainbow are fascinating.
So do you ever indulge in DVD extras, and if so, which? Deleted scenes? Documentaries? Commentaries? What have you gleaned from them?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Green movies for St. Patrick’s Day
I don’t have much in the way of green clothes, so I can’t get very dolled up for St. Patrick’s Day, but I can turn a TV screen green, in a manner of speaking.
Around the net you’ll find any number of lists of Irish-themed movies, but I already did that way back in 2006. (Yes, I’ve had the blog that long.) Therefore, I’d like to try something different: GREEN movies. And by that, I do not mean environmentally friendly movies. I mean LITERALLY green.
Any of the Muppet movies: Hey, as long as you’ve got Kermit, there you go, though it’s probably best to avoid the disappointing Muppets from Space. Too bad none of the films feature the song “Bein’ Green’” but “Rainbow Connection” from The Muppet Movie will do in a pinch. After all, a rainbow does have green in it.
Behind the Green Door: Hey, I’m only knocking, you guys can open the door and write your own jokes. (If you don’t get the joke, just enter the name on Wikipedia and you’ll see the light right away.)
The Hulk: I still say I like the Ang Lee version beats the tar out of last year’s less than incredible movie, and no one can change my mind.
Magnolia: More frogs. Lots and lots of frogs.
The Wizard of Oz: Hey, it’s not called the Emerald City for nothin’ ya know.
As you can see, this list was neither compiled nor written with any degree of seriousness. Feel free to join in the fun and contribute your own green movies.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Lists
Today’s DVDs - Twilight/Punisher (insert joke here)
Today’s DVD roster is blessedly simple to cover.
Punisher 2: War Zone: In reviewing this sequel no one asked for, Roger Ebert wrote: “The Punisher: War Zone” is one of the best-made bad movies I’ve seen. It looks great, it hurtles through its paces and is well-acted. The soundtrack is like elevator music if the elevator were in a death plunge. The special effects are state of the art. Its only flaw is that it’s disgusting.”
Granted, some may not consider that a flaw.
Twilight: Some movie about vampires that I actually thought wasn’t great but was better than some people were willing to admit. Full review. GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
25+ Films: My most memorable viewing experiences
There are all myth and manner of “25” lists floating around Facebook - 25 things, 25 books, 25 pieces of construction equipment - well, OK, I haven’t seen that last one, but the jackhammer’s bound to drop sooner or later.
What I’m wondering is, why no 25 of my favorite thing, namely movies? So I started such a list on Facebook, and now I’m bringing it to a wider audience.
Bear in mind, these are not the 25 best films, although several of my top 10 (which I really should list in this space someday) are represented here. What these two dozen-plus two have in common, though, is that they were all viewing milestones of one sort or another. In very little particular order:
1. Yellow Submarine - The movie that introduced me to my two great passions in life: Films and the Beatles. I guess you could say it’s the film that started it all.
2. Pinocchio - First animated film I saw to pack a real emotional wallop. (Checks to see if nose is still the same size)
3. Jaws - Still the one and only movie that ever made me scream out loud. And I didn’t even see it in a theater at first.
4. Raiders of the Lost Ark - The first movie that made me truly aware of how films can stretch and bend time. Two hours seemed to zoom by in only 20 minutes.
5. Citizen Kane - Contains one of my all time favorite speeches: “A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn’t think he’d remember. You take me. One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn’t see me at all, but I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since that I haven’t thought of that girl.”
6. Vertigo - The most powerful example of film as a fever dream - or nightmare. And the one I would call my all time favorite if you put a gun to my head - or anywhere else on me.
7. Fearless - This film about Jeff Bridges surviving a plane crash was so engrossing that when my best friend tapped me on the shoulder, I jumped about 30 feet high.
8. Rear Window - Grace Kelly’s entrance: The embodiment of screen beauty.
9. Blue Velvet - The fist movie that made me say “WTF was that??” Well, except for John Landis’ “Schlock” but I was 4, and that’s another story.
10. City Lights - The ending never fails to slay me. Exquisite.
11. A Star is Born (1954) - Judy Garland singing “The Man that Got Away” literally took my breath away - and made my hair stand on end.
12. Hercules - Same effect as #11, different singer. ;)
13. The Wizard of Oz - Is it just me, or do you feel there should still be a commercial after the Cowardly Lion dives out the window, even when you watch it on DVD?
14. Schindler’s List - I will never forget the utter silence after seeing this film - from a packed house.
15. After Hours - Not Marty Scorsese’s best known film, but it’s the best example of his restless visual style - and it’s really the movie that turned me on to him.
16. Psycho - I got to see the master print of this - the one used to strike other copies - with Janet Leigh in attendance. See Facebook photos.
17.Bad Boys II - Hey, who said the list had to be all GOOD movies? The most vile, contemptible pile of filmic feces I have ever stepped in. I felt like I was blasted with raw sewage from high-pressure water hoses. So Michael Bay is on my S—- list forever.
18. Seven/Showgirls - I saw these two movies back-to-back, in the theater, and in that order. If I ever pull a double this bizarre again, put my head in a box.
19. Some Like It Hot - This exchange never fails to CRACK ME UP:
Marilyn Monroe: If there’s ever anything you need, just name it!
Jack Lemmon (in drag): Oh, I could think of a MILLION things!
(Marilyn climbs into bed with him)
Jack: That’s one of them!
20. Singin’ in the Rain - Title song scene = pure, unadulterated bliss.
21. How the West Was Won - Not a great film per se, but a BLAST in three-projector Cinerama!
22. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg - My favorite foreign language film, and one of my favorite romances.
23. Goldfinger - I have to include an entry from my favorite film series, and this is still THE quintessential Bond film.
24. The Red Shoes - Only the most gorgeous color film ever shot. Ever.
25. The Fisher King - The film that gave rise to my “Sir Critic” alias.
Your serve! What movies were your seminal viewing experiences? I know the question is broad, but that’s the idea - so comments can be all encompassing. Who knows, this post might well inspire sequels, just like on Facebook!
Go!
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Lists
‘Race’ makes for caffeinated ‘Witch Mountain’
Naming Disney’s do-over of its super-powered kids franchise Race to Witch Mountain feels entirely appropriate. This zippy new movie plays like the 70s movies hopped up on a case of Red Bull. If this movie is a hare, 1975’s Escape to Witch Mountain and 1978’s Return from Witch Mountain are tortoises by comparison.
Put another way, this isn’t your father’s (read: my generation’s) Witch Mountain.
The new movieis essentially a reimagining of the 1975 film, with a few key changes. Whereas the alien kids in the original Witch Mountain films were Tony and Tia, here, they’re the similarly alliterative Seth (Alexander Ludwig) and Sara (AnnaSophia Robb). He can change his body density so that he’s either a ghost or a concrete wall; she’s a telekinetic and a mind rider. They hitch a ride with an ex-con cab driver (Dwayne Johnson), insisting he take them to safety, lest the Earth suffer an alien invasion.
Whereas the original movies were sci-fi comedies, Race to Witch Mountain is more of a sci-fi action flick, for better and worse. On the plus side, most of the action scenes are exciting and suspenseful, with slick effects. and director Andy Fickman (The Game Plan) paces the movie well. It rarely lets up.
On the negative side, sometimes the action is a little too intense. Most movie violence doesn’t face me, but here, it feels a little jarring for what is ostensibly a family film, throwing off the tone. Even if a movie stars Dwayne “What Rock? Johnson as the lead, does he really have to bust as many heads as he does?
Maybe that question answers itself, but Race to Witch Mountain, while entertaining, isn’t quite as good as I hoped it would be, and part of that reason is the emphasis on Johnson. The fault lies not with the actor - by now he’s proved himself an engaging leading man. Instead, the fault is that the kids get somewhat lost amid all the fights and chases.
The original Witch Mountain films featured established stars like Eddie Albert, Ray Milland, Christopher Lee and Bette Davis, but Tony and Tia were always front and center. That’s not so much the case with Seth and Sara, who are much more alien and less human in their behavior than Tony and Tia. (For instance, they call everyone by both their first and last names). I regret that change, especially because it doesn’t allow the gifted Robb, who was wonderful in Disney’s Bridge to Terabithia, to show her range fully.
Despite my misgivings, I still enjoyed the ride, even with all the whiplash. The adults are well cast. Carla Gugino brings a lot of energy to her role as an alien-obsessed scientist, Ciaran Hinds is nicely menacing as the Big, Bad Government Official, and Garry Marshall has fun with his part as an alien conspiracy theorist. Setting the movie amid a Las Vegas sci-fi convention was an inspired idea that leads to some good gags.
Best of all for Disney aficionados, Race to Witch Mountain contains several knowing winks to the 1975 film, including appearances by the original stars, Ike Eisenmann and my childhood crush, Kim Richards.
As far as Disney remakes go, this is not quite as good as Freaky Friday, but it’s about on par with, say, Herbie: Fully Loaded. Maybe Race to Witch Mountain could have been better, but hey - the door is open for another sequel.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Who was your first movie crush?
Regular readers of this blog know well my fondness for Amy Adams, who is perhaps best known for her role as Giselle in Disney’s Enchanted, one of my favorite films of 2007.
Thing is, she’s hardly the first Disney girl I’ve had my eye on. I’ve been crushing on Disney girls for years. No, decades.
That’s why I was so looking forward to Race to Witch Mountain, which I shall review Friday. You see, my very first movie crush - my first inkling of any sort that girls were cute, really - was Kim Richards, who played Tia in Disney’s Witch Mountain movies. It was her appearance in the second movie, 1978’s Return from Witch Mountain, that caught the eye of this then-7-year-old.
I’m not sure what it was. Maybe that red outfit had something to do with it. All I can remember is I thought she was kinda cool. And I wished I could move objects with my mind too.
And wouldn’t you know it, she’s still pretty cute now! She has a cameo in the new movie.
So that’s mine, folks.Who’s yours? Who was the first celebrity guy/gal to catch your eye? This being a movie blog, movie stars are preferred, but in the interest of widening our net, I’ll take TV and music stars too.
Confess!
Permalink | Comments (26) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Pinocchio is out - What’s your favorite animated film?
It’s taken Disney so long to release a decent DVD of Pinocchio (only a bare-bones disc was available up to now) that when the Platinum Edition was announced, I half expected Disney execs’ noses to start growing.
But it finally arrives today, and I say it’s about flippin’ time. After all, it’s only my pick for the very best animated movie ever made.
Why this one? Any number of reasons. It could be that it was the first Disney animated movie I can remember seeing in a theater. It could be that it’s a male-oriented story when so many of the Disney movies have female protagonists, though I love the princess movies too. And heck, not for nothing is “When You Wish Upon a Star” the overall theme song for Disney.
More than anything else, though, I think this is the film that most potently demonstrates the emotional power of animation. So many moments remain astonishing, even amid today’s technological wonders. Check out the scene when Stromoboli locks Pinocchio in the cage and starts to move the coach. Notice that not only is the cage rocking, but Pinocchio is moving independently of the cage. Think of what it took to DRAW that. It was impressive then, and it’s still impressive now.
But I don’t mean to focus on the animation’s technical skill. Pinocchio has so many moments that are nothing less than primal, ranging from the initial appearance of the Blue Fairy to Lampwick’s transformation into a donkey. And it’s all the more terrifying because it’s seen mostly in silhouette. Where else do you suppose Spielberg learned his shadow play tricks?
And yet, over the years, Pinocchio seems to have fallen a little out of favor in the popular imagination, overshadowed by all those princesses. Someone I know is “friends with” Gideon, the cat that’s a sidekick to the slick Honest John, down at Disney World. I’ve heard tell that character gets lonely in the park becase few seem to know who he is anymore. I find that a shame.
Give Pinocchio a shot on this new DVD. I think many will find they’ve been missing something special.
The rest of today’s DVD roster is after the jump, but now it’s your turn to post. Tell me what your favorite animated film is and why.
Also out today
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas - This young adult Holocaust drama sparked some diverse reactions. Some loved it, Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weely picked it as one of the worst films of the year.
Cadillac Records: Under-the-radar musical bopic about Chess Records earned some solid notices for performances by Beyonce Knowles as Etta James and Jeffrey Wright as Muddy Waters.
Happy-Go-Lucky: One of the best films of last year, about a woman who gives new meaning to accentuating the positive. Sally Hawkins should have should have been Oscar-nominated. GRADE: A
Let the Right One In: Very much looking forward to seeing this acclaimed Swedish vampire movie.
Milk: Sean Penn deserved his Best Actor Oscar. If only the the film as a whole were really as good as people thought it was. Full review GRADE: B
Rachel Getting Married: Another of last year’s best movies. I’d rather Anne Hathaway would have won Best Actress. GRADE: A
Role Models: Proved surprisingly successful at the box office. Might check this one out to see if it was really warranted.
Synecdoche, New York: As is the case with all of Charlie Kaufman’s films, contains some absolutely mind-blowing set pieces. But as is the case with too many Charlie Kaufman films (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind excepted), it’s too emotionally cold to be a great movie. GRADE: B
Transporter 3: Beam me up. No intelligent life here.
Permalink | Comments (18) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
So ‘Watchmen’ made $55 million. Umm …
As predicted, Watchmen was number one at the box office this weekend, but the opening still came in somewhat soft, at about $55.7 million.
Now granted, that’s not bad for a nearly three-hour movie with no A-listers based on a property that has a cult following, albeit a devoted one. Still, that’s less than the $70 million that director Zack Snyder’s last movie, 300, made in its opening weekend.
As Warner’s distribution head Dan Fellman rather huffily points out in the AP box office story, “This is a movie that runs two hours and 45 minutes. That really only leaves the exhibitor with one showing a night. If you have an 8 o’clock show, the next show is at midnight. So with essentially one show a night, I think this is outstanding.”
OK, Alan, but as any box office watcher will tell you, the first weekend is never about the movie, it’s about the sale - and WB certainly sold the hell out of this picture. They probably did the best they could, given that they had fairly uncommercial material at hand.
But therein lies the double-edged sword. WB spent so much money selling the picture, to say nothing of how much it took to make it, that the movie is likely going to lose money in its theatrical run. It’s not going to make $200 million. Oh sure, they’ll make their money back eventually via DVD, but this movie’s box office will sink like General Motors’ stock portfolio. As Entertainment Weekly points out, the movie got a Cinemascore audience poll grade of B - not terribly generous for such a hotly anticipated movie. Watchmen is going to be branded a disappointment on some level.
Why does it matter? I think it speaks to the point I made in my review about being overly devoted the the source material, whatever adjective or adverb you want to assign to the word “faithful.” Maybe Snyder and company won over the Watchmen devotees, but what about the rest of us? Trying so hard to appeal to such a small portion of the audience is simply bad business - and it’s often bad filmmaking too.
But hey, if they really want to try again, I’ll still see the movie about Rorschach. Any more thoughts on Watchmen?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Watchmen: 2009’s first big movie - and big letdown
I did not care for Watchmen.
Yes, this is how my review begins - not with a bang, but with a whimper. Still, that really was the thought running through my head as Watchmen’s endless credits scrolled. Even though I admired some of the movie, I kept going back to the most important question one must ask of any film: Did I care about the story and the characters?
I had to admit that for the most part, my answer was a dispirited “no.”
I had been looking forward to Watchmen - and not because I’m the fanboy type. I’ve never read the acclaimed Alan Moore graphic novel on which the movie is based, nor have I read anything else by the author. I was curious about Watchmen mainly because of its director, Zack Snyder, who had shown real promise with his Dawn of the Dead remake, and then seemed to fulfill much of that promise with the brash but visually resplendent 300.
This time, however, Snyder bit off more than he could chew. While the director has a flair for vivid imagery, he has not yet developed into a strong storyteller, and Moore’s dense, convoluted plot has proven to be too unwieldy for Snyder’s underdeveloped narrative skills. There’s plenty to see here, but precious little to remember.
In this very unusual story, the heroes are better described as anti-heroes. The key figures are Dr, Manhattan, (Billy Crudup), a man turned into a godlike figure via a science accident, Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), an ultraviolet sociopath who makes Alex of A Clockwork Orange look like a newborn kitten, the iconoclast the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), the sexpot Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman) and the geeky gadget man, Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson).
Once lauded for their work, the Watchmen, a band of costumed crusaders, now find themselves outcasts on the fringes of society in an alternate 1985, when Richard Nixon is still president, and American and Russia are at the brink of nuclear annihilation. The Watchmen could certainly save the world - but do they want to save a world that has rejected them?
I’m not sure I agree with the contention that Moore’s novel is “unfilmable.” I think a better director, like Terry Gilliam (Brazil), Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler) or Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum), all of whom flirted with the project, would have made a better film than what Snyder has overwrought.
Snyder and his writers, David Hayter and Alex Tse, were reportedly slavishly faithful in their adaptation, but even without reading the novel, I can tell that was a mistake. Gilliam, Aronofsky and Greengrass would have had the discipline to shape the story so that it would live and breathe on its own as a movie. Instead, by trying to cram so much material into 161 minutes, the movie feels too long and not long enough at the same time. Watchmen chokes itself with long, draggy stretches punctuated by gut-busting fights and leering sex scenes.
That’s not to say there isn’t good material here. Snyder remains gifted at staging action scenes, and crafting eye-filling visuals. The movie looks great. Best of all, Jackie Earle Haley, continuing the career renaissance that began with his Oscar-nominated performance in Little Children, sears the screen as Rorschach, even though most of the time we can’t see his face. Haley’s performance is so compelling, I wanted to see a movie just about his character.
For a while, Crudup’s tortured Dr. Manhattan is fascinating too, as the actor gets a lot of mileage out of pondering a character that can bend the universe to his will. He also deserves some kind of citation for bravery in letting all of him hang out, so to speak, since the good doctor frequently appears in the buff.
Still, Dr, Manhattan is a prime example of how the movie keeps shooting itself in the foot. Eventually, he is reduced to the kind of windy, give-me-a-break philosophizing that makes the Matrix movies feel like Socrates by comparison. The endings, in particular, are a gaseous mess.
I began to sense Watchmen wasn’t clicking when it kept reminding me of other, better movies. Pound-for-pound, the less ambitious but more proficient Taken is a better action movie. If you’re looking for a good move based on Moore’s work, V for Vendetta is a better choice. And even the idea of superheroes as outcasts has been done before, and done better, not only by Pixar’s The Incredibles, but by Hancock with Will Smith.
Perhaps Moore devotees will get more out of Watchmen than I did. All I saw was not only the first big-ticket movie of 2009, but also the first big disappointment.
GRADE: C
For another take, check out Zack McGhee’s review on our Movies & TV blog.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Are you seeing more movies because the economy sucks?
Many a story, like this one from the New York Times, has been written about how theatrical movies have done remarkably well this year. And it’s true that we’ve had two $100 million+ hits in Taken and Paul Blart: Mall Cop, and then two other $100 million+ hits in Gran Torino and Slumdog Millionaire, which are technically carryovers from last year.
It is indeed rare that we have four big grossers when March has just barely started. But are these movies really hits because people are broke and looking to the cinema for cheap entertainment, as the news stories suggest?
Color me suspicious of that theory. David Poland of Movie City News, writing on the Hot Blog, has called BS on that hypothesis, and I think he has a point.
So many of these “trend” stories my brethren write are based on overly simplistic logic that only scratches the surface. “Wow, it’s really unusual to have so many hit movies this early in the year! I’ll bet it’s the economy! Story!” cry the editor types.
Call me crazy, but I like to think a lot of people are seeing these movies because, um … they really like them and they’re telling their friends.
These news stories try to back up their theory by comparing this year’s box office to last year’s, which wasn’t nearly as good. Well, guess what? That’s because, by popular acclaim, there weren’t very many good movies at this time last year. We didn’t have a $100 million hit until Horton Hears a Who.
To be sure, the influence of the ailing economy is so pervasive, I’m sure it’s boosting the numbers to at least some degree. And certainly people need an escape when times are tough. Nevertheless, to suggest that we have all these $100 million hits because the economy is in the tank is absurd.
If I had a sizable chunk of money, I’d bet that if last year’s movies came out this year, they’d still fizzle at the box office, even with the bad economy. Jumper would still be a mediocre action flick. Conversely, if Paul Blart and Taken had come out in the same time period last year, before the economy went south, they’d still be hits.
And besides, are movies really “cheap” entertainment? Most of the time when I talk to people, they complain that they don’t go to the theater much anymore because it’s so expensive, once you figure in admission and concessions for the whole family. And people were telling me that even when the economy was good!
So really, do you sit there saying, “Gee, we’re broke. Hey, why don’t we go and see a movie, that’s relatively cheap?”
This is an obvious turn of phrase, but it’s also the correct one: A president once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” In this case, I think “It’s the movies, stupid.”
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
What does it take to make you buy a DVD?
Between being on vacation and blogging about the Oscars, I have been remiss lately in reviewing DVD titles, and for that, I apologize. I will do a catch-up post soon.
In the meantime, I did still want to discuss DVDs, though. This CNET news report notes how DVD sales have been dropping lately. Here’s the - wait for it - money graph, quoted from the New York Times.
“In last year’s fourth quarter, usually a big one for DVD sales…the studios’ revenue from sell-through of conventional DVDs and Blu-ray discs fell 23.4 percent, to $2.6 billion from $3.4 billion.”
The story goes on to say: “None of this is all that surprising, of course. First of all, the economy sucks, so people are trying to save more. Second, consumers are gradually transitioning from DVD to Blu-ray—or at least considering it—so there’s less incentive to continue building that DVD collection. Put it all together, and you have people doing the smart thing: renting, not buying.”
I know that’s definitely true for me (although I dispute the notion that many people are transitioning to Blu-Ray. Prices need to start dropping before that format can truly take hold, and that’s not happening anytime soon).
Gone are the days when I would buy a DVD for a movie I didn’t love, just to get a bunch of cool bonus features. I bought Fight Club’s DVD even though I thought the film was a bit overrated, and to this day, I STILL haven’t gone through the, what, 4 commentary tracks on the disc?
These days, for me to buy a DVD it has to be something I know I will watch repeatedly, like WALL-E or Powell/Pressburger’s A Matter of Life and Death. Maybe if I can find a title for $10 or less I might relax my standards, but my purchases have definitely slowed of late.
So what does it take for you to buy a DVD? Have you bought fewer than you used to? And how do you get them? Do you buy them right away or wait for them to pop up in used bins?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Uncle Al’s movie connection: Willy Wonka
I normally don’t deal with TV stories on this blog, but Movie City News has pointed out TVs Uncle Al, who died this past weekend, does have a movie connection of sorts.
According to this interview with Johnny Depp, Uncle Al was a model for his portrayal of Willy Wonka in Tim Burton’s 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
Depp said: “On this film with Willy Wonka there wasn’t specifically any one or two guys that were models, so to speak, for the character, but there were memories that I have of when I was a little kid of watching children’s shows and children show hosts. And I distinctly remember, even at that age, their speech pattern and their kind of musical quality of the way they’re speaking to the camera, to the children. I thought, even then, it was really strange. I thought it was super bizarre because it was all, “Hello, children. How are you??” You know, that kind of thing. Guys that I watched like Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers and Uncle Al became that main part of the ingredient.”
Unlike a lot of people, I generally preferred that movie to the original Gene Wilder version. I didn’t quite form that childhood attachment to the movie so many of my peers did.
How fitting a tribute to Uncle Al this was I shall leave to commenters, but I will say this much: Though I’m a Dayton native, I used to catch his show (via a slightly snowy picture) when I was a child. I’m sorry to hear he’s no longer with us.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
What do you expect from ‘Watchmen’ - fan or not?
I’m ready to see Watchmen tonight, even though I haven’t read a page of the novel that inspired it.
And you know what? That’s just the way I like it.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got absolutely nothing against novels - graphic or otherwise. In fact, I have a feeling I’ll be reading more novels in the future, even though I usually read non-fiction books. However, when any kind of publication is being made into a movie, I prefer to avoid reading the source material first.
Why? Because even though I have the utmost respect for literature, I will always be a movie man first and foremost. For that reason, among others, I prefer to judge films on their own terms. Playing “compare and contrast” all throughout a movie bothers me. I’d really rather not sit there thinking to myself, “That’s not the way I pictured that scene,” or “The dialogue reads so much better the other way.” I prefer to keep my film experience as pure as I can.
That approach may not serve me so well with Watchmen. Early reviews, like this one from writer Anne Thompson, indicate that the less familiar you are with the novel, the less you will enjoy the movie. She writes that Watchmen “will play like gangbusters for fans of the legendary Alan Moore graphic novel, but will likely leave everyone else on the outside looking in.”
On top of all that, Moore has made it rather - ahem- clear that he hates Hollywood adaptations of his stories. He colorfully told an LA Tmes blogger: “I find film in its modern form to be quite bullying … It spoon-feeds us, which has the effect of watering down our collective cultural imagination. It is as if we are freshly hatched birds looking up with our mouths open waiting for Hollywood to feed us more regurgitated worms. The ‘Watchmen’ film sounds like more regurgitated worms. I for one am sick of worms. Can’t we get something else? Perhaps some takeout? Even Chinese worms would be a nice change.”
Well, I’ll tell you later this week just how “wormy” Watchmen is, but until then, I’d still prefer not to have my expectations tainted. So that leaves me wondering:
If you are have read Watchmen, what do you expect from the movie? Try to keep any comments spoiler-free please.
And even if you haven’t read Watchmen, what do you hope for from Zack Snyder’s movie? For that matter, when you hear a book is going to be adapted into a movie, what do you do? If you’ve read the book, do you want the movie altering the images in your mind’s eye? If you haven’t read the book, do you want to before seeing the movie? And why or why not?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
This week’s box office: a good standout and a bad one
Looking at this news story about the box office for this weekend, a couple of things struck me:
The number one film, again, was Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail, which held off the Jonas Bros.’ comin’ atcha 3D movie. But it was this quote from box office analyst Paul Dergarabedian that really got my goat:
We’ve been talking a lot lately about people going to the movies to escape,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box office tracker Media By Numbers. “Usually, people want to escape from jail, but people keep wanting to escape to jail with Madea.”
(Insert sound of Eric vomiting here)
I don’t know who’s more to blame: Dergarabedian for saying something so utterly ham-handed, or writer Derrik J. Lang, who saw fit to actually use it. Ptooey.
One other movie was conspicuous by its absence: Check out the top 10:
“Tyler Perry’s Madea Goes to Jail,” $16.5 million.
“Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience,” $12.7 million.
“Slumdog Millionaire,” $12.1 million.
“Taken,” $9.9 million.
“He’s Just Not That Into You,” $5.8 million.
“Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” $5.6 million.
“Coraline,” $5.2 million.
“Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li,” $4.6 million.
“Confessions of a Shopaholic,” $4.4 million.
“Fired Up,” 3.8 million.
Notice anything missing? I can’t help but cackle that the Friday the 13th remake is out of the top 10 after only three weekends.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
