.jpg)
Glamour's Women of the Year
UD vs. Northern Kentucky
Magic visits with area students
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2007 > March
March 2007
Pixar meets Disney in ‘Meet the Robinsons’
When Disney purchased Pixar last year, the uninformed cried, “Oh no! Disney’s going to ruin Pixar!” In fact, the opposite/inverse is happening.
As the fun and touching Meet the Robinsons proves, Pixar guru John Lasseter is on his way to helping Disney restore its glory.
What many people did not understand about the Disney/Pixar merger is that Lasseter, Pixar’s creative chief and the director of the Toy Story movies, was charged with reviving Disney’s animation unit, which had been on a cold streak.
Meet the Robinsons is the first fruit of his labor, and although Lasseter did not direct the film, he left his imprint on it, giving Robinsons a resonant emotional core that has been lacking in Disney’s most recent efforts.
That core, based on the book by William Joyce, has to do with a brainy little inventor named Lewis who laments the fact that he’s still an orphan after more than 100 interviews with would-be parents.
After his latest science experiment goes awry, a dejected Lewis meets an older boy named Wilbur who turns out to be from the future. Lewis agrees to help Wilbur defeat the villain known as Bowler Hat Guy if Wilbur will take Lewis back in time to meet his real mom.
When Lasseter came in, Robinsons was mostly complete, but Lasseter asked director Stephen J. Anderson to overhaul it. Lasseter knew that Anderson himself had been adopted, so he gave Anderson a simple edict: “Tell your story.”
One of Lasseter’s strengths is his way with pathos - the parts of the movie that make you cry or go “aawww.” Witness “When She Loved Me,” the broken-hearted cowgirl’s song in Toy Story 2. Robinsons doesn’t boast anything that strong, but in Lewis it has a winning little hero whose longings are quite affecting.
Lasseter couldn’t completely salvage the movie, though. At times Robinsons is so frenetic it feels like it’s trying to be four movies at the same time. It’s part cute family drama, part zany slapstick comedy, part colorful comic strip, and part zippy sci-fi adventure.
The inconsistent approach bears all the hallmarks of too many cooks in the kitchen. The fact that there are seven credited writers bears this out. Robinsons is a real Frankenstein monster of a movie sometimes.
Thankfully, Robinsons gets two body parts right: the eyes and the heart. The movie looks terrific, especially in the future sections, which are like Robots crossed with Candy Land, but with sharper wit. If you can see the movie in one of the theaters showing it in 3D, do not pass it up. The effects are much more imaginative than in Chicken Little, where the 3D felt like an afterthought.
For all of its wild changes in direction, this movie reminded me the most of a lovable, hyperactive child. It may make a mess sometimes, but I can’t help but find it endearing, maybe because I identify strongly with lonely geeks who don’t fit in like Lewis.
That doesn’t make Meet the Robinsons a great movie, but in keeping with the film’s motto, “Keep moving forward” - shared by one Walt Disney - the movie makes a step in the right direction for the company that was all started by a mouse.
GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Reviews
Let ‘Song of the South’ sing again
You know the words: “Zip-a-dee doo-da, zip-a-dee-ay, My, oh. my what a wonderful day,” but do you know the movie they’re from?
That would be Song of the South, and a news story this week stated that Disney just might release the 1946 movie, which has been a sore spot among some people in the the African-American community for decades because of its supposed racial stereotypes that depict blacks as “happy slaves,” if you will.
I say “supposed” because I haven’t seen the movie. It’s been out of circulation since 1986, the last time it played theaters. Since then, Disney has kept it under wraps in this ultra-PC age when most big corporations are terrified of offending activist groups. Should Disney finally put it on shelves?
I say yes, absolutely - not only because the movie’s reputation is actually very good, despite its characterizations, but because this is a chance to meet history head on.
Neither Disney nor anyone else should stash history in the attic and “forget” that it exists. How exactly is that enlightening? What do we learn from purposefully hiding the past? Nothing positive, I say.
Warner Home Video plans to release a DVD box set of Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals, two of which have cringe-inducing blackface numbers. Should Warners snip those out of the prints and pretend they never happened? Of course not.
Warners will almost certainly do what they’ve done with their Looney Tunes collections that have racist caricatures: include a statement or disclaimer to give the proper historical perspective. That’s what Disney should do with Song of the South, only on a larger scale.
I say put it out as a special edition DVD on either the Treasures or Legacy line with documentaries and/or commentaries that speak to both sides of the debate. Let its supporters praise it as in important animated movie, and let its detractors decry it for its racial insensitivity.
Besides, is Song of the South really that much more “offensive” than Gone with the Wind, which includes some pretty broad black characters no one ever seems to complain about? Or how about another Disney film, Dumbo, in which the crows are very obviously black caricatures, albeit positive ones? That movie has been issued and reissued again and again, and no one seems to have a problem with it.
The bottom line is this: I don’t want Disney, the NAACP or anyone else declaring what I should or should not see. I would like to see it for myself and decide if it’s offensive or not. Even if it is (and I have my doubts), I think I will have learned something from it. This is a movie where “plenty of sunshine” would do a lot of good - in more ways than one.
What do you think?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Coming Attractions
What movies should a child see first?
Since Disney’s Meet the Robinsons comes out on Friday, it occurred to me that for many people, a Disney movie is often the very first movie they see, in the theater or otherwise.
This brings to mind a few questions, and I’d like to know your answers.
1. What was the first movie you ever saw?
As I’ve stated before, my first was Yellow Submarine, getting my two obsessions, the Beatles and movies, off to a great start.
2. What was the first movie you took your kid(s) to?
And finally, if you don’t have kids, or even if you do….
3. What movies should a child see first, ideally? With what do you introduce them to the movies?
This question was partly inspired by the book The Best Old Movies for Families, by Boston Globe critic Ty Burr. And that leads to one of my choices.
The Wizard of Oz: Roger Ebert phrased it very well when he wrote, “If small children could only begin their film experiences with this film, instead of first having their imaginations deadened by countless hours of low-grade Saturday morning animated TV violence, that would be a nice little gift for their spirits.” I also chose this movie because it will help kids embrace the classics.
Too many kids today think any movie that predates their parents is “stupid” or “boring” just because it’s “old.” This perception must be corrected. You might be surprised to see how well kids take to the classics like Singin’ in the Rain if only they get to see them.
For something more modern, I pick Pixar’s masterpiece, Toy Story 2. You don’t need to see the first to understand the second, and with Jessie in the movie, it appeals to girls as well as boys. Most importantly of all, it has the kind of great story that Pixar tells better than anyone else.
Your thoughts?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Moviegoing
Home (Re)Viewing: Happy Feet, unhappy ‘Children’
I love serendipity. This week’s home video releases cooperated with my animation/children’s movies theme this week and gave us Happy Feet as one of the big releases. (And there are several other good, or at least interesting titles as well.)
Happy Feet: The Oscar winner for Best Animated Feature about tap-dancing and musical penguins gets a little heavy handed when it lays on its environmental message rather thickly , but the overall good cheer and especially the gorgeous animation make it well worth watching. Believe it or not, this was directed by George Miller of Mad Max fame, and his camera is often just as wild here as it is in those films. GRADE: B+
Children of Men: Alfonso Cuaron’s engrossing look at a bleak near-future makes Blade Runner look like Sesame Street. Rarely will you find a bleaker landscape than the one in which women can no longer reproduce. So when a pregnant woman is discovered, a band of rebels, including Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, must lead her to safety. The film is thoroughly gripping from start to finish, thanks largely to the ingenious photography of Emmanuel Lubezki, who should have won the Oscar. GRADE: A+
Curse of the Golden Flower: If there was ever a quality movie that benefitted from a mute and fast-forward button, this would be it. This martial arts film looks absolutely gorgeous, with several eye-filling fight scenes, but the story is soapy, confusing, and worst of all, dull. This is a major step down from similar films by Zhang Yimou, Hero and House of Flying Daggers. GRADE: C+
The Pursuit of Happyness: Here’s another Oscar-nominated film, this time for Will Smith’s excellent performance as a man who goes to extraordinary lengths to support his son (well-played by Smith’s own son, Jaden) and pull himself up by his bootstraps when he ends up homeless. The film treads into maudlin territory occasionally, but the Smiths hold the emotional core together. GRADE: B+
Also out today:
National Lampoon’s Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj: Or National Lampoon’s Distancing Ourselves from Any Semblance of Quality We Displayed with Animal House or Vacation.
Turistas: What in the world happened to director John Stockwell? He used to make GOOD teen-centered movies like crazy/beautiful and Blue Crush. Now, between this and into the blue, he’s more a past master at the “young babes in peril” genre.
Permalink | | Categories: On Video/DVD
Now THIS is the summer movie I want to see. Rats!
OK, never mind those silly Pirates. Here’s the movie I most want to see this summer: Pixar’s Ratatouille (that’s rat-a-too-ee for the French impaired). Here’s the new trailer, which just came out. This is different from the teaser you saw before Cars.
Just in case the trailer’s acting funky, here’s a link and here’s the deal: A rat named Remy dreams of becoming a great chef in Paris, where he lives beneath a restaurant made famous by his hero, Auguste Gusteau. Remy forms an unlikely partnership with Linguini, the garbage boy, who acts as Remy’s “front.”
The voice cast includes Patton Oswalt, Brian Dennehy, Brad Garrett, Janeane Garofalo, Ian Holm, Peter O’Toole, and, as always for Pixar, John Ratzenberger.
Both trailers have been hilarious, and the fact that the movie’s director is Brad Bird, who made The Incredibles and The Iron Giant, only makes this movie smell all the sweeter.
In the end, it’s a matter of simple math: Animation + Pixar = genius. To me, that studio can do no wrong. Many consider last year’s Cars something of a step down, and it was, but that meant that the movie was only really good instead of great. If that’s the worst pothole you can hit, you’re running pretty smoothly.
Ratatouille cooks on June 29, which can’t come soon enough for me.
PS You’ll notice more than a few animation-related postings this week, with the release of Disney’s Meet the Robinsons, which I am seeing tonight and will review Friday.
Permalink | | Categories: Coming Attractions
Wahlberg makes ‘Shooter’ a higher caliber movie
If you scan across reviews of Shooter today, you’ll read all sorts of lines about whether the movie hits the target, misfires, scores a bullseye and all sorts of other pistol-packin’ puns.
I liked Shooter, but not enough to say that it hits the bullseye, or even that it hits its target all that squarely. I’d say the movie’s more like one of those nifty sharpshooters who twirls his gun around in a real fancy way after he fires. It’s not a great act, but it has a few neat tricks to play.
It helps greatly that the main draw (I can’t help myself) is Mark Wahlberg. Between this movie, Four Brothers and The Italian Job, the actor is carving out a nice little niche as an action hero.
Wahlberg plays Bob Lee Swagger, a marksman who can shoot the fleas off a dog’s back at 200 yards. After his partner is killed in a military operation, Swagger takes to playing Grizzly Adams in the woods, until a bunch of men in suits offer him the proverbial One Last Job.
That Last Job is to help the feds catch a would-be presidential assassin. However, the men in suits turn the tables on Swagger and frame him for the shooting. Swagger flees with bullet wounds in him, vowing to find out who set him up and why.
I didn’t hold out much hope for Shooter because the director is Antoine Fuqua, who has a very uneven track record that includes nondescript films like The Replacement Killers and Bait or interesting near-misses like Tears of the Sun and King Arthur. Even his greatest success,Training Day, owes more to its performances than to Fuqua’s camera.
This time, Fuqua paces his movie well, moving the action along briskly and confidently if rather predictably. It’s never too hard to guess which way Shooter is aiming story-wise, yet the main reason the movie works is the cast, which provides refreshing little twists and turns.
While Walhberg is a pretty buff guy, I like how his determination and his smarts rather than his muscles carry the day, and how his emotion is palpable but never overbearing or silly. Michael Pena is fun to watch playing an FBI agent disgraced by Wahlberg who eventually makes Pena an ally. Between his sold turns in Crash and World Trade Center, Pena is becoming an actor I’m always glad to see. The lovely Kate Mara (who played one of Heath Ledger’s daughters as a teen in Brokeback Mountain) lightens the film playing the widow of Wahlberg’s late partner who is simultaneously attracted to and scared of Wahlberg.
These actors hold Shooter together, even when the movie goes over the top with about two or three endings too many. It may be a cross between The Parallax View, In the Line of Fire and The Fugitive, but at least it steals from good sources.
GRADE: B-
PS There’s been a lot of back-and forth-lately in the media about whether critics really matter, given the success of such “critic-proof” movies as Wild Hogs and Norbit. Shooter poses an interesting question. Does it succeed because it blows stuff up real good, or because it’s based on the novel Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter, the Pultizer Prize-winning film critic for The Washington Post? Just wondering. :)
Permalink | | Categories: Reviews
Why I’m dreading ‘Transformers’
Now that I’ve previewed the movie that many moviegoers are most looking forward to this summer, I’d like to take on the summer movie that I am most dreading.
That would be Transformers, due out July 4.
Now I know that fanboys/geeks/80s nostalgia addicts are wetting themselves over this movie, because many people up to about my age (36) or so have owned a Transformer at some point in their lives. Heck, I didn’t follow trends much as a kid and even I had a couple of ‘em. I thought the ones disguised as cassettes (remember those?) were kinda cool. (Would they be disguised as iPods now?)
So I get the excitement over the Transformers the action heroes. But I just can’t share the excitement about the movie.
Why not? Four words:
“Directed by Michael Bay.”
You know the guy - he’s the director who can’t keep his camera still for more than four seconds, and who doesn’t believe in making any less than 15 edits per 30 seconds of his movies. Variety critic Todd McCarthy was describing Armageddon when he said it was “like watching a machine gun being stuck in the firing position,” but that applies to Bay’s entire filmography.
Now I don’t deny that Bay has a unique style. I did like one of his movies - The Rock - and he has a way of blowing up stuff really good and making it look really pretty. That takes some kind of talent.
Problem is, Bay can’t direct an action scene coherently. As any action director worth his salt will tell you, when assembling an action scene, it’s important to establish a sense of place, so you can tell who is doing what to whom.
But in most of Bay’s action scenes, he’s so busy hurling crap at the camera and editing his footage into oblivion that I can never tell what the hell is going in most of them. I’m completely lost.
Beyond that, Bay is lousy at building tension. He doesn’t even build tension, really. It’s all full throttle, all the time. Just thinking about one of his movies gives me a headache THIS BIG. And it’s got Excedrin written allllll over it!
And I will never, never completely forgive Bay for expectorating Bad Boys 2, which is quite possibly the most putrid, painfully offensive action movie of all time. The geek crowd always rails on Brett Ratner, but I’ll take X-Men: The Last Stand over any one of Bay’s ADD-fests.
I’ll review Transformers this summer, but I’m not chomping at the bit to see it. Unless you consider biting your tongue chomping at the bit.
How about you?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Coming Attractions
So how about that Pirates 3 trailer?
The trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End made its online debut last night, and I thought ….
Well, wait a minute. Before I get to my trailer review, first let me say wow, I have NEVER seen so much hoo-hah over the premiere of a trailer, complete with holding big preview events in movie theaters. Makes me sorta miss the days when people went to The Waterboy just to see the trailer for The Phantom Menace. Seems almost quaint now.
Now, with that out of the way ….
You can find the trailer here:
Or here are some other sites, just in case the “Pirate Player” is goofy:
Here’s the trailer in HD for all you hi-tech folks, and here’s a smaller version for the lower-tech folks.
I thought the trailer was a lot like the second Pirates movie: took a while to take off, but by the end? Um … wow.
At first I was unimpressed, especially when we got the scene with the cute lil’ monkey taking the mickey out of Jack. I thought, “Here’s yet another example of this series trying and failing to match the Indiana Jones movies. I wonder if that monkey is the grandson of the one in Raiders?”
But then once the action really got moving, I was sold, particularly with that shot of the ship traveling over the sand, and that 360 around Jack and Davy Jones swordfighting. VERY impressive! I almost said “I gotta see this,” then I caught myself and thought “Wait a minute. I’m a critic. I’m SUPPOSED to see this!”
Scratch that. Based on this trailer, I’m actually looking forward to At World’s End more than I was before. I just hope it’s better paced than its predecessors.
Now let me clarify that I like the POTC movies. I LIKE them. Honest, really, I do. I gave the first movie a B+ and the second a B.
The first movie was a lot of fun, if a little long, and Johnny Depp absolutely deserved his Oscar nomination. And I recommended the second film too, even though I thought that for the first hour or so it dragged like someone attached a ball and chain to it.
I simply don’t dearly love the movies like so many people do, and because I don’t, people accusing me of not liking them. That just ain’t so. Maybe I harp a little too hard on Jack and company, but I’ll still take any one of the Indiana Jones films over either of the Pirates movies any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Still, I’m primed for the week of May 25, when this comes out. What do you all think?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Coming Attractions
Home (Re)Viewing: This week’s Rocky ‘Diamond’
This week’s video releases are a bit of a mixed bag, but the diamond in the rough here is not the film that has the word “diamond” in the title, but the latest and supposedly last Rocky film.
Rocky Balboa: The Italian Stallion’s comeback was very much like James Bond’s comeback with Casino Royale, albeit on a smaller scale. Both films took a series that had turned cartoonish and restored its humanity. Sure, this film gets a bit silly and over the top at times, as Sylvester Stallone’s movies usually do, but not excessively so. The story of Rocky challenging a brash newcomer to fill the void in his life left by the passing of Adrian is actually quite touching. I hope Stallone keeps his word that this is really the last film of the series; it makes a very fitting capper. GRADE: B+
Blood Diamond: Like most of Ed Zwick’s films, this drama about the dangerous world of conflict diamonds looks handsome and features some very strong performances. Leonardo DiCaprio is very good as a mercenary who tries to help another man (Djimon Hounsou) find his son, even while Hounsou is hunted for hiding a very large diamond. Unfortunately, like some of Zwick’s films, such as The Last Samurai, this movie is overlong and way too enamored of its importance to be fully convincing. GRADE: C+
Also out today
Eragorn: This dragon tale was much more smoke than fire at the box office. Everything I heard about it said it more or less trashed its source material, a novel by Christopher Paolini.
The Nativity Story: For those who didn’t see it, this movie became known as the one that starred the teenager who got pregnant in real life. Many of those who did said it was a faithful but flat rendition of the first part of the greatest story ever told. Either way, it’s not much of a reputation, but I’m sure this film will find a healthier audience at home than in theaters.
Permalink | | Categories: On Video/DVD
What are the great rock n’ roll movies?
Fellow blogger Ron Rollins had some interesting rock n’ roll debates on his blog last week, and I’d like to join the fray today based on this NPR interview about rock n roll movies. One of the commentators is Murray Horwitz from Dayton.
Here’s a rundown of some of my favorites, in no particular order, except for the very top.
A Hard Day’s Night: Any rock list of mine HAS to start with this movie, which I rank right up there with Citizen Kane and Vertigo. You heard me.
Woodstock: Hand down, the best concert film of all time. It has so many great moments, but my favorite is Santana’s set, with all the split screen action.
The Commitments: This is the Singin’ in the Rain of rock movies in that this one can brighten even my darkest mood with great soul music and terrific speeches like “The Irish are the blacks of Europe. And Dubliners are the blacks of Ireland. And the Northside Dubliners are the blacks of Dublin. So say it once, say it loud: I’m black and I’m proud. (Insert stunned expressions here)”
That Thing You Do!: It comes across as sort of a Commitments-lite, but it’s almost as much fun with its look at a one-hit oneder band. And for better or worse, that title song will drill itself into your head for weeks.
The Girl Can’t Help It: My favorite of the 50s rock musicals, this is what the Beatles were watching when they came up with “Birthday” off of the White Album.
This is Spinal Tap: Certainly the funniest of all rock movies. Everyone quotes the “this goes to 11” line, but my favorite scene is Michael McKean’s apoplectic reaction to the miniature Stonehenge set.
Almost Famous: No one uses music in movies better than Cameron Crowe, but his best film is this one where the attraction is not so much the music itself but his terrific story of growing up around rock music. And with all due respect to Marcia Gay Harden, Kate Hudson should have won the Oscar for her turn as Penny Lane.
Yellow Submarine: Yes, it’s the Beatles again, but this has to go here because this is the first movie of any sort I can clearly remember seeing in a theater.
And a couple I consider overrated: I greet Elvis’ Jailhouse Rock not with a swivel of the hips but a shrug of the shoulders. Except for the musical numbers, the film is a fizzle. And many people fall all over themselves praising Sid and Nancy, just like Sid Vicious routinely fell over himself, but except for great performances by Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb, there’s no there there in the movie.
So what are some of your favorite rock movies?
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Lists
I predict the demise of ‘Premonition’
I had a funny feeling that Premonition would be a gimmicky thriller that wouldn’t amount to much.
What I didn’t foresee was just how unpleasant it would be.
The movie comes across like a “lite” version of The Sixth Sense and Memento. It crosses spiritual/supernatural themes with a time-juggling narrative. It’s “lite,” all right - it’s not half as good as either of those films.
The movie opens with a glimpse into the idyllic life of Linda and Jim (Sandra Bullock and Julian McMahon). Flash-forward to the present day, when Linda learns Jim has died in a horrific car accident. It feels like the end of the world.
But when Linda awakens the next day, it feels like a very strange world, because Jim is suddenly alive again. It seems like the nightmare is over …
… Until another night passes, and mourners have gathered at Linda’s house. The pattern repeats: One day Jim’s alive; the next day he’s dead again. She eventually figures out that time is out of synch, and she might have a chance to prevent her husband’s demise. But can she? Or should she?
It’s a clever premise, but even Bullock’s considerable charisma cannot alter the fact that the movie lets her down. If anything, McMahon brings even less charisma to his role than he brought to Dr. Doom in Fantastic Four, so I didn’t feel much of a loss when he died.
Meanwhile, Bullock’s character is so passive, she becomes a pathetic martyr instead of someone to root for. She spends the whole movie playing the victim, and the relentlessly dour mood does her no favors.
See Linda have to tell her kids their daddy isn’t coming home! Watch as she collapses into hysterics when the coffin is dropped at the funeral! Witness one of the kids having a too-close encounter with plate glass! See Linda writhe on a stretcher as she’s pumped full of meds!
That’s entertainment?
Certainly, very serious dramas can work. The Prestige, last year’s movie about dueling magicians, was intensely grim and had little humor, but its fascinating script and imaginative direction made it engrossing. Premoniton Director Mennan Yapo pulls off a few interesting shots that suggest the movie might have worked with a better story, but the screenplay has too much tragedy and not enough action.
I get the sense that the future may be brighter - for a couple of hours at least - if people pass on Premonition.
GRADE: C-
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Reviews
Do movie ratings (PG-13, R, etc) work for you?
For decades, the Motion Picture Association of America has come under fire for its often ineffective, confusing and inconsistent ratings system. The group declared this year they would try some reforms, but this latest report doesn’t sound so encouraging to me.
Basically, R-rated movies will now come with the disclaimer, “Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.”
Thank you, Professor Obvious!
Then again, it is clear that some people need the obvious stated to them. I remain astounded at the number of people who bring small children to R-rated movies because they’re too lazy/broke to get a babysitter. I saw someone bring kids who looked like they were 7 and 8 to The Departed last year. Hope they had a good time explaining what Jack Nicholson was doing with those two ladies in the scene with all that white powder. Or what that thing was he showed to Matt Damon in the movie theater. Or why that guy got thrown off the roof and turned into a bloody pulp. Or….
You get the picture.
Still, it seems to me that the problem with the R-rating is that it’s far too elastic. There are some movies like The Breakfast Club and Almost Famous that most young teens could watch with no problem, but then wildly violent movies like Sin City and Natural Born Killers get the same rating.
On the other hand, a lot of kids these days are pretty tough customers. and I think parents tend to underestimate just how much they can handle.
UPDATE: Entertainment Weekly’s blog has chimed in on this issue, more or less echoing my thoughts, plus they linked back to an earlier piece asking why people take kids to R-rated movies. A friend of mine told me: “My opinion isn’t that ratings do or do not work, it’s that the American public refuses to pay any attention to them, which isn’t the same thing.”
So I wonder, especially from those of you who have kids: Do you find the movie ratings sytem useful? What changes should be made? What movies have you been shocked to see children attending?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Goodbye, Annie: Betty Hutton, 1921-2007
The Web site Movie City news got it absolutely right when a headline called the late Betty Hutton, “one of the greats, forgotten by far too many.”
You won’t find her in very many lists of the greatest stars, but pound for pound, no actress had more energy, or more spunk than Hutton, who passed away on Monday.
If people do remember her, it’s most likely for her performance in the title role of the MGM film Annie Get Your Gun, playing a certain Darke County native. That her performance was so winning was impressive, considering the circumstances.
She told Turner Classic Movies host Robert Osborne that her co-stars ostracized her for not being Judy Garland, who had been cast in the role before her demons got the better of her and she was fired. The experience soured Hutton on the movies, which is a real shame. TCM will rerun that interview, along with a selection of her films, on Thursday.
Still, the movie for which I will remember Hutton based is Preston Sturges’ The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek, which, like its star, doesn’t get enough credit. Hutton plays Trudy Kockenlocker, (GREAT name), who has a hankering for soldiers and becomes pregnant, much to the chagrin of her beau, Norval Jones, played by Eddie Bracken.
Hutton is wonderful, and so is the movie, which for my money, is one of the funniest ever made and was quite daring for its time. Rent it and raise a glass to Betty. You’ll be glad you did.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Celebrities
Home (Re)Viewing: Bet on Bond
The highlight of today’s new video releases is beyond dispute: Bond truly is back.
Casino Royale: You’ve probably heard by now that this is the best James Bond movie in ages, and that Daniel Craig silenced his naysayers with his smashingly effective take on 007. And Eva Green silenced most men with her turn as one of the few Bond girls to truly pierce the secret agent’s heart. Traditionalists may be surprised to find this strays from the formula, but that was the whole point of the reboot. Pierce Brosnan served the series long and well, and his contribution should not be devalued - but Craig definitively proved he’s here to stay. GRADE: A
The Holiday: Sort of like a genteel Trading Places, this moive swaps Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet’s residences as each finds romance in unexpected places from Jude Law and Jack Black, respectively. As is the tendency of writer-director Nancy Meyers (Something’s Gotta Give), the movie goes on too long, and it indluges in the trappings of wealth a little too much for this poor journalist. However, the cast and the tribute to classic movie romances makes this what we journalists call an enjoyable puff piece. GRADE: B
Also out today:
Ghost: Special Collector’s Edition: One of the extras on this new DVD is called Ghost Stories: The Making of a Classic.” That’s going a bit too far if you ask me, but it was entertaningly far-fetched, sort of like The Holiday. GRADE: B
Harsh Times: This police procedural with Christian Bale directed by the writer of “Training Day” was barely released theatrically, but it has its suporters, and with Bale, it has to at least be worth a look.
Permalink | | Categories: On Video/DVD
So what did you think of 300? Or other movies?
So it’s official - 300 is the first bona-fide blockbuster of 2007, with a boffo opening of $70 million this weekend.
I quite liked the movie myself and was wondering what you thought of it.
I was amused/puzzled by a lot of my fellow critics who tried to find “meaning” or “significance” where none exists - nor do they need to, I would argue. And don’t even get me started on how 300 is supposedly a metaphor for the Iraq war, or my eyes just may roll out of my head.
I thought New York Times critic A.O. Scott was way too hard on the film, but I did like this line: “…it offers up a bombastic spectacle of honor and betrayal, rendered in images that might have been airbrushed onto a customized van sometime in the late 1970s.”
If you didn’t see 300, feel free to tell me about anything else you’ve seen in theaters or at home. Who knows, you might even turn me onto something.
Here’s a rundown of what I’ve seen lately:
300 B+
Bridge to Terabithia A-
Zodiac B+
Ghost Rider D+
Music and Lyrics B
Breach B+
Black Snake Moan A-
Fire away!
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Ask the Audience
Spartans + mutants = thrilling ‘300’
Time to test your knowledge, folks. What does the title of 300 refer to?
A) The size of the Spartan army that withstands beatings from much larger armies.
B) The average number of puncture wounds on any given member of said Spartan army.
C) The number of decibels emitted by one of the Spartan leader’s screams.
D) The number of times the fanboy/action movie crowd will see this often-thrilling movie over and over.
E) All of the above.
The answer is E, but the most important answer is actually D. As the year’s first big-ticket action movie, 300 delivers the goods, even if it’s not quite as effective as other movies of its ilk, like Sin City and the underappreciated Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
Like both those movies, 300 was made by using almost no physical sets. The filmmakers placed the cast against blue or green screens, and the visual effects artists added sets and various gory creatures for the Spartans to fight. And like Sin City, 300 is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller, who is well known for his deliriously grotesque imagery and acidic dialogue.
300, though billed in the credits is a work of fiction, is based on the historical Battle of Thermopylae, in which an army of 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), held fast against a Persian force that legend says numbered in the millions.
No one would mistake 300 for your usual historical sword and sandals epic. There are plenty of swords and sandals, to be sure, but not too many historical epics have villains that look like the unholy melding of Quasimodo and the Elephant Man, the Rancor from Return of the Jedi crossed with Jabba the Hutt, or like a cosmic version of Yul Brynner from The King and I.
Some say that the high-tech filmmaking makes 300 look and feel like a video game, and that’s true to a degree. The plot does rather feel like increasingly challenging levels, and usually goes like this:
- Gerard Butler yells.
- Big battle ensues.
- Spartans prevail against all odds.
- Enemy army reforms, this time with larger and uglier bad guy.
- Repeat.
Silly as it may be at times, the story is almost beside the point. This is a case where the style is very much the substance. The movie is as awash in striking imagery as the Spartans are awash in blood. Director Zack Snyder fulfills the promise made in his remake of Dawn of the Dead that he was a talent to watch. He is an excellent visual stylist, even if he’s not yet as confident a storyteller as Miller and Robert Rodriguez were in Sin City.
Still, 300 works because unlike so many action movies, it’s not quite like anything else out there. It borrows heavily from other films, but 300 is its own foreboding, if sometimes very strange animal.
GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Reviews
So people really DO prefer movie theaters?
Most movie fans still prefer the theater over all other forms of viewing - so crows The Motion Picture Association of America in their latest survey.
This survey says that 63 percent of film viewers consider the theater “the ultimate movie-watching experience.” At first glance, I was pleasantly surprised by this story, considering that more and more people seem to prefer to kick back at home and watch movies on their increasingly large screens. My 27-inch TV is looking more and more puny by the day.
Moreover, the survey says, the people who have adopted the super-duper hi-tech theaters are actually more likely to go to theaters than lo-tech households. Hi tech fans see about 10 movies a year in theaters, lo-techs about 7. (Me? I see about 100. Usually more. And that was true even before I was reviewing.)
Not so fast, though: the story also notes that that 63 percent of theater-lovers is actually down from last year’s survey, in which 69 percent of people preferred the cinema to the living room.
On top of that, the number of actual ticket buyers is down from the most recent high of 2002.
And here’s one other interesting stat: The average movie ticket costs $6.65. In the Dayton and Cincinnati areas, most matinees are about $6.75. Hmmm.
So what I want to know is, what do you make of all this? Do you prefer the theater or your house? How often do you go to the theater? What would it take to get you to go to the theater more often?
Permalink | Comments (10) | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Making my mind reel, Episode I: Wild Hogs and more
Remember how Arsenio Hall and C+C Music Factory had those things that make you go “Hmmmmm”? A lot of movie news has made my mind reel lately. (rim shot)
1. The success of Wild Hogs: Look, I’m not gonna get on a rant here about how Joe and Jane Sixpack love their lowest common denominator movies. Other people have handled that Elsewhere. Nothing I say is going to change anything. I think I’ll leave Wild Hogs at the trough and stick with RV for my traveling shenanigans, thank you very much.
We’ll always have lowbrow movies. Some will be funny. Most won’t. And regardless of the bad lowbrow movies, we’ll still get great movies that do more than “just entertain” as long as we have Spielbergs and Scorseses.
However, there are two things about Wild Hogs that still bother me.
A) Its characters are from Cincinnati, furthering the Hollywood notion that our state is populated mostly by halfwits who remember that time they got a B on their report card.
B) It has been suggested Wild Hogs made $40 million last weekend because it appealed to families. Really. This blog entry from EW casts doubt on that theory, unless you consider visible streams of urine and “I’m not gay!” jokes family fare.
Now, onto other mind-reelers.
2. The sucess of Ghost Rider: What, is it the season for inexplicably successful biker movies? Musta missed that EW article.
3. Tin ears: This isn’t movie related, but I have to say it: Why in the name of William Shatner are Antonella and Sanjaya still on American Idol? Maybe people feel sorry for them, but I feel sorrier for my ears when those two are on. At least when Lee Marvin sang in Paint Your Wagon, I laughed.
4. E.T. turns 25 this year: Just think - back then the Speak n Spell was good enough for interstellar communications. Wonder if E.T. would be doing Verizon ads these days?
5. And speaking of Episode I: Jake Lloyd, who played the youngest Anakin Skywalker in that beloved film The Phantom Menace, turned 18 on Monday. Yippeeee!
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Home (Re)Viewing: Borat - I (don’t really) like!
Long before Superman made you believe a man could fly, Disney made you believe a boy could fly. That’s the highlight of this week’s new DVD releases, but first, onto the new release wall:
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan: Borat was one of those mini-phenomenons I admired but did not love. Yes, Sacha Baron Cohen is a very talented and particularly unhinged performer, and the idea for the movie (lovable rube unwittingly exposes America’s sins) is inspired, but this is one of the funniest comedies of all time? Hardly. Parts of it are hilarious, but the movie was like an above-average SNL skit. Once the basic joke was told, it got tired, just like all that endless quoting of “sexytime” and “romance explosion” by people who ended up looking as foolish as the movie’s victims. GRADE: C+
Fast Food Nation: Richard Linklater’s ambitious attempt to fictionalize Eric Schlosser’s best-seller into a Traffic-like narrative never takes off, because the film never stays with any of the stories long enough for any of them to register. Consequently, when the “shocking” slaughterhouse footage hits, it’s not all that shocking. This is definitely a case where the book trumps the movie. GRADE: C
From the Catalog
Peter Pan: This is the real reason to shell out DVD dollars this week. The movie hasn’t aged quite as well as some other Disney classics, due mostly to that dated “red man” song, but the rest of the film has pixie dust to spare. The new 2-disc set is filled with DIsney’s bountiful extras, although the world could do without that preview for the upcoming CGI Tinkerbell movie. DOWN with putting hand-drawn characters in CG! Arrrrrrrrr! GRADE for the movie: A
King Kung Fu: I know nothing about this film, but to quote estimable geek Harry Knowles, “A Chinese Gorilla that knows karate! This could be - the greatest film of all time.”
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: On Video/DVD
Terabithia: Movie rings true, ads do not
You know that shock you get when you’re expecting one kind of drink, but you’ve forgotten you had something else? Like, say, when you thought you were drinking coffee but realized you had milk instead?
Watching Bridge to Terabithia was like that - but in a good way.
Anyone who saw the trailer for this movie - and who hasn’t read the acclaimed book on which it’s based — might reasonably think that Terabithia was a low-rent version of The Chronicles of Narnia.
It’s not - not at all.
In an understandable but still misleading attempt to get butts in seats, Disney traded off Narnia’s goodwill, while smoke-screening what Terabithia was really about. Without giving too much away, I will only say that the movie becomes very sad in the last half.
Some parents have criticized Terabithia, feeling that they were the victims of false advertising. I say don’t blame the movie, blame the marketing. Just because the movie wasn’t what the ads made it out to be doesn’t make it a bad movie.
Terabithia is quite the opposite - it’s one of the best live-action family films of the past few years, and it’s a much more accomplished movie than the somewhat overrated Narnia to boot.
Jesse (Josh Hutcherson of RV and Zathura) has a hard time getting along in school. At best he’s ignored, at worst, stuck-up creeps outright taunt him. Enter Leslie (AnnaSophia Robb of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Because of Winn-Dixie), a highly imaginative girl whom even Jesse finds slightly insane at first. Still, the two become close, especially after Leslie creates a fantasy kingdom called Terabithia to escape from the often ghastly real word.
Though the trailer heavily sells the fantasy scenes, they’re actually one of the less compelling features of the movie. What really sells it is the chemistry among the actors.
Hutcherson anchors the movie with his solid performance, and Robb absolutely shines, making Leslie extraordinarily endearing and lovable. The adult cast is strong, too, especially Zooey Deschanel as a music teacher Jesse has a crush on. Personally, I don’t blame the kid.
Kudos also go to first-time feature director Gabor Csupo, the creator of some show called Rugrats, who knows a thing or two about how kids see the world and has made a jewel of a movie.
Did you see Terabithia? Did you feel misled? Can you think of any other movies that turned out to be quite different from their ads?
GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Reviews
Zodiac: Enthralling but not moving
Some people will tell you that David Fincher’s Zodiac is a masterpiece.
I disagree.
Still others will tell you it’s a major disappointment and/or has a botch of an ending.
I take issue with them too.
Zodiac falls somewhere in between those two extremes. Visually, it’s a stunner, as one would expect from the director of Seven and Fight Club. Narratively, it has some significant drawbacks, but one of these is not a botched ending.
Indeed, some will say the movie doesn’t really end so much as sputter to a stop. However, that’s true to the case of the Zodiac killer, who terrorized Northern California in the late 60s and early 70s with his vicious slayings and his eerie taunting of the media and the authorities. I will not say how the movie ends, but it’s a matter of record the Zodiac case remains unsolved to this day. Those who expect another version of Seven are bound to be disappointed.
The movie’s tagline ominously states: “There’s more than one way to lose your life to a serial killer.” That sums it up extremely well. Zodiac is not so much about the slayings themselves as about the effect they had on people, including the San Francisco Chronicle’s crime reporter (Robert Downey Jr.), the lead police investigator (Mark Ruffalo) and most especially the Chronicle’s cartoonist (Jake Gyllenhaal) who became obsessed with the Zodiac’s puzzles. The Zodiac never hurts them physically, but he guts them of their souls as they become shells of their former selves, to one extent or another.
While that comes through quite clearly in the film, Zodiac’s problem is that I didn’t hook into the story emotionally. The first half of the movie is so detail-oriented about the killings that it doesn’t devote enough time to getting to know the characters as people. Fincher has said he had to trim the movie down from a three-hour running time and lost a lot of character beats. It feels like it.
So when the characters start to lose their way, I didn’t feel invested in them enough to feel much sympathy or empathy for them. And yet, I was fascinated by their story all the same because Fincher, as is his wont, places them in such a fascinating world of decay.
Many have noted that Zodiac is a departure for Fincher, in that the movie is lacking in (but not entirely devoid of) the flashy visual style that dominated his other films. What remains, however, is his mastery of tone and mood. The movie opens with the 1970s-style Paramount logo, and Zodiac looks for all the world like it was shot in that decade, not that it just takes place then. Comparisons to the work of Alan J. Pakula (All the President’s Men, The Parallax View) are not at all unwarranted.
Much of Zodiac takes place in the shadows, but even the brightly lit scenes have a muted look to them. Fincher’s stagings of the murders are terrifying, whether it’s the opening one that takes place in the dark of night, or a pair of killings that happen in broad daylight.
In the end, I felt hollowed out, but I think that’s Fincher’s intent. I’m not sure he intended for me to be vaguely dissatisfied with Zodiac, but as usual, he has made a movie I can’t get out of my head, even if it did not chill my heart as completely as it should have.
GRADE: B+
Let me know what you guys think, if/when you see it.
