2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > November
November 2008
Watched any holiday movies yet? Which?
With one major holiday past us, I was wondering: What holiday movie do you tend to watch first, when the season starts?
Since there aren’t many Thanksgiving movies, I spent Thansksgiving morning watching Miracle on 34th Street (the original, of course) - a Christmas movie to be sure, but the film does start out with the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, so that seems like the best one to pop in first.
What about you? What holiday movie kicks off the season for you? If there is no traditional starter, how about this: What holiday movie do you see more than once in a single season? That answer for me is probably A Christmas Story, just because that filmed-in-Ohio staple, which turns 25 this year, has become as ubiquitous as It’s a Wonderful Life once was.
Here again is the TV holiday movie schedule and my roundup of current movies in theaters and on DVD. Tell me what, if anything, you’ve seen so far.
PS: Since the blog picture shows Charlie Brown and Linus, and since I aim to be all-inclusive, go ahead and name some TV shows if you feel so inclined. For this lifelong Peanuts fan, A Charlie Brown Christmas is essential viewing.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Two stars barely redeem ‘Four Christmases’
Four isn’t the magic number when it comes to Four Christmases - it’s two - as in its two leads.
Some movies are called star vehicles because A-list actors drive them, but there’s a certain kind of vehicle where the stars’ charisma overrides every other factor - so much so that their appeal is the only thing the movie has going for it. Everything else - screenplay, direction, the rest of the cast - is minor if not negligible.
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days was like that. So was The Bucket List. Now Four Christmases joins the group. There are only two reasons to see this movie: Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon.
At first glance, they might seem to be an odd pair - and I’m not referring to the fact that Vaughn is about a foot taller than Witherspoon. I’m talking about how Vaughn’s snappy smart-aleck humor might not have meshed well with Witherspoon’s romantic comedy persona.
That said, people forget that Witherspoon has a steely, acerbic side too, which she displayed in one of her best performances, as Tracy Flick in Election. In the opening scenes with Vaughn, Witherspoon keeps up well with Vaughn’s rapid-fire banter, getting the movie off to a promising start.
Witherspoon and Vaughn play Brad and Kate, a couple who get along great but don’t particularly care to get married and have kids. “We love each other … we don’t want to have to work at it,” Brad says.
Inevitably, work comes into play when bad weather scotches their plans to fly to Fiji for Christmas. Their families see them on the news stuck at the airport, forcing Brad and Kate to spend the holiday with their four dysfunctional (of course) families.
It’s a promising idea almost immediately undermined by sophomoric writing and flatly timed slapstick, particularly with Brad’s father (Robert Duvall) and moronic brothers (Jon Favreau and Tim McGraw). Even the joke that the brothers are named after where they’re conceived isn’t original - Ron Howard does that in real life (e.g. Bryce Dallas Howard). Going from directing Iron Man to playing to one of the hilljack brothers is quite a comedown for Favreau.
Fortunately, the movie begins to pick up steam when the couple visits Kate’s holy roller mother (Mary Steenburgen) and Brad’s earth mother type, played by Sissy Spacek. When the movie tones down the crass comedy and lame physical humor, it gives Witherspoon and Vaughn the chance to come through as a couple worth rooting for. A scene where they’re unexpectedly called upon to play Joseph and Mary in a Christmas play is the highlight of the film.
So even when Four Christmases cops out and tacks on an ending that completely undoes everything that came before it, the movie passes the litmus test of any romantic comedy: Do we care about the couple? Do we want to see them together? In the case of Brad and Kate, I did, just barely - but in the case of Vaughn and Witherspoon, I’d like to see them pick a project that’s actually worth their talents.
GRADE: B-
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Need to see a good movie over the holiday?
I present some of your options for holiday viewing in the next few days.
In theaters:
Australia
I didn’t get to see it yet. I’ll let you know when I do.
Bolt
Disney’s latest animated movie turns out to be one of its best in years, with this cross between The Truman Show and Toy Story. A TV star dog (John Travolta) doesn’t realize he’s not actually a superhero when he sets out to rescue his owner co-star Penny (Miley Cyrus). Filled with many great sight gags and endearing characters, this movie shows Disney is on its way back to greatness.
GRADE: A-
Changeling
Clint Eastwood powerfully directs this tale of a woman (Angelina Jolie) whose son disappears during the 1920s, at the height of Los Angeles police corruption. When an imposter appears claiming to be her son, that’s not even half the story. The dramatics occasionally feel overheated, but the story stokes so many emotions and covers so much ground, it’s fascinating and gripping.
GRADE: B+
Four Christmases
Full review here.
High School Musical: Senior Year
No, it’s not exactly blazingly original, and I didn’t come out humming the tunes, but I enjoyed the big-screen version of Disney’s insanely popular franchise more than I expected to. Young girls may spend much of their time squealing at Zac Efron, but the adoration is justified. The actor is genuine talent and the only member of the cast to play anything resembling palpable emotion. The story is standard-issue hokum, but it goes down easily.
GRADE: B-
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
The sequel with the wayward zoo animals fails to improve on its predecessor. The movie deserves some credit for at least trying to have some heart by telling the story of how Alex the lion (Ben Stiller) was separated from his parents, but there’s still too much emphasis on pop culture gags. Even the penguins, the saving grace of the first movie, aren’t very funny this time.
GRADE: C
Quantum of Solace
James Bond returns but disappoints in this muddled follow-up to Casino Royale. The gritty low-key story is a nice change of pace, both new Bond girls are appealing and Daniel Craig remains excellent as 007. Unfortunately, the action scenes are incoherent, making it impossible to tell who is doing what to whom. When the action scenes don’t work, you don’t have a Bond film. It’s that simple.
GRADE: C+
Twilight
Vampire chick-lit isn’t exactly my vial of blood, but this adaptation of the intensely loved romance series by Stephenie Meyer delivers, thanks to director Catherine Hardwicke’s gifts for working with young actors. The movie has many lines worth of an eye roll, but leads Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart sell them convincingly enough.
GRADE: B
Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Don’t let the P-word frighten you - this is actually a touching romantic comedy with a coat of raunchy humor, not unlike Knocked Up. It’s Kevin Smith’s best film since Chasing Amy. Seth Rogen and especially Elizabeth Banks are ideal as platonic friends who turn to porn to make ends meet. Many of Smith’s jokes are gleefully crude, but most of them are hilarious.
GRADE A-
For a look at what’s on the small screen, hit the jump:
On TV:
Far too many to list in this space. Click here for the holiday movie schedule.
On DVD
Fred Claus: This sour, cynical concoction, with Vince Vaughn as Santa’s sibling, tries to have it both ways by deflating the holiday most of the way through and then embracing it at the end. I didn’t buy it. It goes on the naughty list. GRADE: D+
Get Smart: This TV-to-movie upgrade has its share of obvious jokes, and the action scenes are a blurry mess, but the stars, including Steve Carell and Anne Hathway, make the movie solidly entertainng. GRADE: B
Hancock: It’s a great idea executed not too sharply, especially when the movie falls apart in the last act. Still, Will Smith sells the concept of a superhero who couldn’t care. GRADE: B
Hellboy II: The Golden Army: Infinitely superior to the first, with director Guilliermo del Toro really letting his imagination run wild. GRADE: A-
Kung Fu Panda: One of DreamWorks’ very best animated efforts, if not their best. Great fun. GRADE: A-
Tropic Thunder: Ben Stiller’s comedy about a movie shoot gone horribly wrong is inconsistent, but when it hits, it’s hilarious. Robert Downey Jr. earned much-deserved praise as the actor who gets a little too into his character, but Tom Cruise was just as funny playing a megalomaniac producer. GRADE: B+
Vicky Cristina Barcelona: One of Woody Allen’s better efforts in awhile is a romantic quadrangle with Javier Barden, Penelope Cruz, Scarlett Johansson and Rebecca Hall. Their very strong performances help make up for the sometimes distracting narration. GRADE: B+
WALL-E: The best movie of the year, hand down. Essential viewing. GRADE: A+
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters, Movies on TV, Reviews
Give a dog a boost - see Bolt, Disney’s best in years
Amid all the excitement about Twilight this past weekend, Disney’s new movie Bolt got a bit lost in the shuffle, and that’s …
Well, I was going to say it was a shame, but I won’t because I fully believe this marvelous movie will catch on. Not only is it lots of fun, It’s the best animated movie Disney has made in many years.
(I will, however, scold audiences for giving more money to Beverly Hills Chihuahua in its first weekend. Shame on you, American moviegoing public! SHAME ON YOU!)
All righteous indignation aside, however, I can kind of understand why Bolt didn’t have so much voltage. Disney’s animated movies stopped being events sometime around the millennium change. People lost faith in the brand.
From the late 80s through the late 90s, Disney cranked out one great movie after another almost every year. Then, the Mouse House got caught in a trap. Hampered by poor management decisions and a loss of storytelling savvy, Disney’s movies became less and less magical. I could find good things to say about every movie Disney has made in the past decade, but I wanted to find great things to say. Since 1999, only Lilo & Stitch and the grossly underrated Treasure Planet counted as near-great films.
Now, however, Pixar genius John Lasseter is nursing Disney back to health by focusing attention back to where it belongs: the story and characters. And Bolt gets high marks for both.
The story is basically a cross between The Truman Show and Toy Story. Bolt (John Travolta) is a pooch who stars in a hit TV series about a dog with super powers. The only thing is, Bolt thinks it’s all real.
So when Bolt accidentally gets shipped to New York, he’s convinced his owner and co-star Penny (Miley Cyrus) is in mortal danger - but he can’t figure out why his powers have deserted him. To help him, he recruits a smart-aleck cat, Mittens (Susie Essman) and an excitable hamster named Rhino (Mark Walton), who spends most of his time in a plastic ball.
The premise doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if you think about it too hard, and I could have done without Penny’s smarmy and unfunny agent, who sucks the life out of the film whenever he’s around.
However, those are my only significant misgivings about Bolt. Everything else works and works very well indeed. The picture sports an abundance of riotous sight gags, especially in the vibrant action scenes, viewed to best effect in 3D. And even better, the characters tug at the heartstrings and pull up the corners of the mouth.
The voice talent (yes, including Ms. Cyrus) is top-notch. Especially winning is Walton, a story artist who did such a great job with the voice in test runs that Disney decided to keep him - a trick Pixar has used on more than one occasion (e.g. the late Joe Ranft voicing Heimlich in a bug’s life, or director Andrew Stanton voicing Crush in Finding Nemo, which gets name-checked in Bolt). Rhino is a terrific sidekick who steals scenes left and right. Brace yourselves, pet stores: Hamster sales will shoot through the roof after this movie.
Even more importantly, I cared a lot about these characters and was genuinely moved in a way I haven’t been at a Disney movie in far too long. Under Lasseter’s guidance, the Mouse House is making strides in the right direction again. They’re not quite up to where they were in the early 90s, but Bolt fully convinced me Disney could be great again. And that bodes very well for their return to hand-drawn animation, The Princess and the Frog, due a year from now.
Maybe Disney’s not back at happily ever after yet, but with Bolt, I think it’s at a very happy to be continued …
GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
In a good ‘Twilight’ zone
Watching Twilight reminded me of seeing High School Musical 3: Senior Year about a month ago. And that’s not a bad thing.
No, these two mega-franchises don’t have a whole lot in common. There’s a lot less singing in Twilight, and Twilight spurts a lot more blood - or at least as much blood as a PG-13 rating will allow. And Twilight does have a broader fan base than HSM does.
However, the audiences of High School Musical and Twilight are both fueled largely by females swooning over the male leads, Zac Efron and Robert Pattinson, respectively. (God help my eardrums if the two of them ever make a movie together.) And, like High School Musical 3: Senior Year, Twilight is a well-crafted piece of entertainment I enjoyed even though I’m not exactly in the target audience.
Quick lowdown for all of us who are new to the phenomenon created by author Stephenie Meyer: Lonely teen Bella (Kristen Stewart) moves to the Pacific Northwest, much to her chagrin. Her hormones kick into overdrive when she meets the surly, sultry and steely-eyed Edward (Pattinson), who happens to be a vampire.
Edward is far from the only one. He has a family that, like him, does not feast on humans. The same cannot be said for a creepy-looking group of rogues who do like to drink human blood. The nastiest one of the lot, James (Cam Gigandet), develops a dangerous taste for Bella.
I cannot speak to how faithful the movie is to the book, not having read it yet. As was the case with the Harry Potter series, I wanted to see how much I liked the movie before reading the book. I don’t know that I’m any more eager to read Meyer’s novels, but the movie does exactly what it sets out to do - stoke the passions of its intended viewers. For that, director Catherine Hardwicke deserves much of the credit.
It wasn’t so much Hardwicke’s visuals that intrigued me, it was her knack for working well with young actors. Her previous films, including thirteen and Lords of Dogtown, both featured strong casts, and Twilight’s best feature is its youthful players.
Since I am of the wrong orientation to be persuaded by the earthly charms of Pattinson (best known as the ill-fated Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), I can only judge his acting skills. His is not a performance of any particular depth - he broods very well, and that’s about it. Still, there’s no denying he has charisma.
Stewart impressed me more. She underplays many of her early scenes, making Bella’s passion more palpable when it kicks in. She’s an actress of impressive range. It took me a while to reconcile her appearance in Twilight with her very different performance in Panic Room, as Jodie Foster’s daughter.
I wish Hardwicke were as good with a camera as she is with actors. Her visual style is too self-consciously flashy here, with an excess of swooping cameras, fast cuts and Dutch tilts, though her action scenes were more coherent than those in Quantum of Solace. Sometimes, though, the dialogue lays it on even thicker.
I know a story about vampires is bound to be overripe, but I had to stifle a laugh when Edward tells Bella, “You’re like my own personal brand of heroin!” I’ll have to tell a girl sometime that she’s my kind of line of cocaine and see how far that gets me.
In the end, any distaste I had for Twilight had less to do with any actual flaws than the fact that vampire chick-lit isn’t my particular vial of blood. I can’t say I’m dying to see the sequels, but I’m intrigued enough to want to know what happens next - on screen.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Enlighten me on ‘Twilight’
I have seen Twilight, and it’s …
Well, for that you’ll have to read my review. But first, let me explain where I am on this saga.
As was the case when the Harry Potter movies came out, I’m new to the latest literary rage. I haven’t read any of Stephenie Meyers’ novels, so I’m still trying to sort all this out. Since I’ve seen the movie, I’m familiar with the first story, but I have a few matters I’m curious about.
Most every article I read about the books or movies talks about teen girls being the target audience. Is it really that limited, or are we in the press just focusing on the most vocal contingent?
Is there much crossover with the Potter fanbase? Do Potter fans and Twilight fans hate each other, especially now that Twilight slipped into Harry’s old release date?
And finally, sum up what Meyer’s books mean to you. I’d like to hear some testimonials.
C’mon, bite.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Where does ‘Quantum’ fall in the Bond canon?
Well, well. Seems my regretful pan of Quantum of Solace has raised some hackles among commenters.
“Sam” said that the action was “REAL speed.” (Maybe it was, but it would have been nice if I could tell who was who.) A “Jason” tells me it was better than some movie I was supposed to have made, and a “Kevin” tells me I flat out suck. Oh well. Ce’st la vie.
Maybe I’m reflecting my feelings that the film was lacking, but I get the distinct sense Quantum has not gone over with audiences all that well. Sure, it made $67.5 million, but that had NOTHING to do with how much people liked Quantum and EVERYTHING to do with how much people liked the vastly superior Casino Royale.
With box office, the second week always tells the real story. And I believe Bond is going to get drop-kicked by both Bolt and Twilight this week, and the movie will be out of first-run theaters by the time it becomes 2009.
All around movie blogs I read, I’ve been seeing comments like “It’s as though they were having a contest to see how short a shot they could put on screen … To paraphrase one of my buddies who I saw it with, it’s one of the shortest Bonds but it felt like one of the longest. And not in a good way.”
Even more tellingly, it received a not-too-good grade of B- from Cinemascore, which polls opening night audiences, who are usually pretty generous.
Even the title sequence was disappointing - it looked like Bond was trekking through a series of Journey album covers. It was nowhere near the standard set by Daniel Kleinman, who’d done the titles from Goldeneye through Casino Royale - the last being especially brilliant.
Believe me, I take no pleasure, or solace even, in reporting this. James Bond is my favorite movie series of all time, and I had been anticipating Quantum of Solace more than any other film this year. It’s not a bad movie, but it left me severely wanting, especially after Casino Royale had been one of the best Bonds in ages.
Here’s where I think it falls among other Bond films (listed chronologically within the categories):
Indisputable classics
From Russia with Love
Goldfinger
Great, if not ideal
Dr. No
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
The Spy Who Loved Me
For Your Eyes Only
The Living Daylights
Goldeneye
Casino Royale
Not great, but very entertaining
Thunderball
Diamonds Are Forever
Live and Let Die
Octopussy
Licence to Kill
Tomorrow Never Dies
The World is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Not bad, but lacking
Never Say Never Again
You Only Live Twice
Quantum of Solace
Mediocrity abounds
The Man with the Golden Gun
Moonraker
Ptooey
A View to a Kill
How do you think Quantum compares to other Bond flicks?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Happy 80th birthday, Mickey Mouse!
Today is Mickey Mouse’s 80th birthday, but you wouldn’t know it by looking at Disney’s main Web page.
Oh, sure, “the boss,” as Disney employees like to call him, is all over there, but no more than he would usually be. Understandably, Disney’s main objective this week is to sell its new movie Bolt, out in theaters Friday, and to sell the DVD of WALL-E, which arrives on shelves today. (Everybody buy it, it’s the best film of the year - animated or otherwise.)
Still, I find it a shame there’s not much hoopla over such a milestone, by Disney or by anyone else. The DDN has put together this package of stories, but scanning across Google News, the few news stories I see include a nice package in The Kansas City Star, because Kansas City lays claim to being Mickey’s birthplace.
Why isn’t there more of a to-do about this? I remember Disneyland made a big deal out of the mouse’s 50th birthday when I went there back in 1978, why not now? Heck, Mickey is only the most iconic cartoon character ever created, although Bugs Bunny or Snoopy could justifiably make the same claim. (Mickey came before either of them, though.) Outside of his status as a corporate symbol, however, Mickey seems more and more like a sideman in his own company these days.
And I think I know partly why. He wasn’t the funny one.
Oh, in his earliest days, Mickey was a real rascal - a masher even. Check him out in his first cartoon, Plane Crazy. Minnie would never give him a second chance these days. (For the record, it’s her birthday as well.)
Why, he even drinks BEER in his second short, “The Gallopin’ Gaucho!”
He was so insanely popular in those early years, that “What? No Mickey Mouse?” became a national catchphrase. Walt Disney won the first of his 22 (!) Oscars specifically for creating Mickey. But as his wilder, sillier friends Donald Duck and Goofy gained popularity, Mickey settled down and became the proverbial nice guy, the straight man to everyone else’s antics. A brilliant 3D movie at the Magic Kingdom in Florida is called Mickey’s Philharmagic, but Donald is really the star. Something that suits him just fine, I’m sure.
Yet maybe I’m wrong about Mickey’s appeal these days. I had gotten the impression that among today’s kids, princesses and Pooh were the stars. However, my friend Angela Allen, who works in the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique in the Magic Kingdom, assures me that while princesses rule among girls, Mickey is still the favorite of the boys, perhaps because of exposure to the Disney Channel’s Mickey Mouse Clubhouse - though many of the boys do say Jack Sparrow. And Mickey does still make everyone go nuts in the theme parks.
So maybe I’m underestimating the appeal of the little guy. Perhaps Disney is saving their big party for when he turns 100 in 2028. But I’ll say Happy Birthday to him today.
Why? Because I like him!
M-O-U-S-E
What are your feeling about Mickey Mouse? Is he your favorite? If not, who is? Who do your kids favor?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Celebrities
Little ‘Solace’ found as new Bond movie misfires
Ever since the new James Bond film was named Quantum of Solace, people groused endlessly about how lousy the title was. I thought the complaints were stupid then, and having seen the film, I still think the complaints are stupid because the real problem isn’t the title - it’s the movie.
I have been tremendously forgiving of the 007 series over the years. I even liked Die Another Day, which many fans think of as the James Bond film that would be playing in hell’s multiplex. It’s not - that’s A View to a Kill. But Quantum of Solace is the first movie since then that has missed the mark. And that’s a real letdown after the triumph of Casino Royale.
Quantum of Solace falls short in the most crucial way - it botches the action scenes. And if a Bond film can’t get those right, you don’t have a movie. It’s that simple.
Other reviewers have lamented that Quantum tries too hard to imitate the Bourne movies with their fast cutting and brutal action scenes, but I don’t think that’s the problem in and of itself. That style could have worked. Casino Royale had a bit of Bourne in it too. Indeed, both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace used personnel from the Bourne movies who helped make their action scenes so effective.
However, Casino Royale had one of the best action directors working today, Martin Campbell, who also made Goldeneye. The director of Quantum of Solace, Marc Forster (Stranger Than Fiction, The Kite Runner), does not have good action skills.
He drops the ball right at the very start. The film opens with a slam-bang car chase immediately, but there is no establishing shot to lay out the players. The scene is edited so rapidly and the camera is so close to the action, I kept losing track of what was where and who was who. That has never happened in a Bond film before.
A fight scene that followed shortly could have been great, but the shots were such a jumble, I couldn’t even tell Bond apart from the villain. When you keep asking yourself incomplete questions like “Who’s the … ? Where did … ? Why is …?”, the action isn’t delivering.
It’s especially a shame because the story, by the same team that wrote Casino Royale, had a lot of potential. I liked its gritty, low-key vibe. Unlike most Bond films, Quantum qualifies as a sequel because it continues where Royale left off. Bond (Daniel Craig) is trying to track down the people responsible for betraying Vesper, his love from the last film. The trail leads to a shadowy organization called Quantum and a sinister businessman named Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric).
Those who need Q, Moneypenny, witty puns and the other old standbys to have a good time, will be disappointed. Those staples haven’t reappeared. But whatever Quantum’s failings, they do not belong to Craig, who remains intensely compelling. He doesn’t get to play as wide a range of emotions as he did his first time out, but his intense charisma gives the movie its best moments. Both new Bond girls deserve a better film, particularly Olga Kurylenko, who plays an excellent slow burn as a woman who wants revenge just like Bond does. Gemma Arterton is fetching as Fields, a field operative who disappears too quickly.
Also not used to his full potential is Amalric (excellent in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) who should have made a great villain, but who isn’t really allowed to pose much of a threat. As written, he’s not as dangerous as a Bond villain needs to be, and that undercuts the story.
Still, Quantum of Solace could have survived that flaw if its action scenes were well filmed, and they’re not. And I lay that blame at Forster’s feet. He’s a talented director, but he’s wrong for Bond, and he has set the series back.
As for that infamously weird title, here’s what Quantum of Solace means: It means a certain amount of peace or relief. It’s what I didn’t find enough of in this movie. Quantum of Solace isn’t the worst James Bond film, but it is the most disappointing.
GRADE: C+
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Who is the best James Bond?
Quantum of Solace is the only new wide release today (although it should be noted that the Neon in Dayton opens Mike Leigh’s acclaimed Happy Go Lucky, while The Little Art in Yellow Springs has The Duchess and Barry Levinson’s Hollywood insider comedy What Just Happened).
So since Bond is the big news this week, two things are in order. My review of the new film can be found by clicking here - and it’s also time to ponder who the best James Bond was. Here are mine, in order of preference:
Sean Connery: I suspect I’m not going to get much disagreement on this. One could argue Daniel Craig is the best actor to play Bond, but Connery was and is the legend, and he is the Bond everyone will forever be measured against.
Connery’s best: Godlfinger - Everything comes together perfectly.
Connery’s worst: You Only Live Twice - He’s all too obviously bored in the movie, which made this the first 007 film to misfire.
Daniel Craig: Simply put, what he managed to achieve after just one film was astounding.
Timothy Dalton: You read that right, I’m placing him third. So when EW writer Benjamin Svetky claims that Bond has “survived … even being played by Timothy Dalton,” he can take a flying leap, and so can everyone else who slams him. True, Dalton was a bit lacking in movie star charisma, but if you look at his two films - The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill - you’ll see Dalton played him rather close to Ian Fleming’s rough and ready spy - which is exactly what Craig is being praised for now. It’s time Dalton got his due.
Pierce Brosnan: In light of Craig’s success, fans seem to decry most of Brosnan’s films as some sort of horrid era that’s best forgotten. That’s not Brosnan’s fault. Maybe Brosnan didn’t get the best scripts or directors, but he did play 007 with a smooth mix of Connery’s bravado and Roger Moore’s suave glibness.
Brosnan’s best: Die Another Day - The movie made some questionable choices (digital 007 surfing!) but people seem to forget what a thrashing Bond took early in the movie - and Brosnan played off that very well.
Brosnan’s worst: Tomorrow Never Dies- Not bad at all, but not exactly great either. Compared to Brosnan’s other turns, this one was a little indistinct, kinda like the movie itself.
Roger Moore: Although he’s toward the bottom of the list, I like Moore a lot. He did some great work as Bond in some of his better films, but he simply hung around one movie too long.
Moore’s best: For Your Eyes Only, which proved that even Moore could be a bit tough and mean.
Moore’s worst: A View to a Kill - He made Bond look old and feeble here. Sad, really.
George Lazenby: He’s better than many people like to admit, and his movie, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, is one of the best. In fact, it might well have been THE best - if Connery had done it.
So who is your favorite Bond, and why?
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Are you looking forward to these future movies?
It’s not New Year’s yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s too early to look at 2009’s movies.
I received an email from Movietickets.com, and according to a poll of theirs, these are the most highly anticipated movies of 2009. And to my mind, some of these choices are highly suspect.
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” - Not gonna argue that one. (July 17, if they stick with that date)
“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” - Makes sense. Jackman was one of the best things about the franchise, but I dunno if I’d put it on the list. The choice of director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi, Rendition) is … interesting. (May 1)
“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” - Blah. First one was overrated. I’m not convinced Michael Bay’s skills have magically improved somehow. (June 26)
“Public Enemies” - Michael Mann directs Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. Sold. (July 1)
“Angels & Demons” Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh, I’m sorry, I was reminded of watching The Da Vinci Dud, one of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks’ worst movies. (May 15)
“Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian” - Didn’t care for the first Night, but two names have me interested in the sequel: Amy and Adams. She plays Amelia Earhart. (May 22)
“The Informant” - The U.S. government decides to go after an agri-business giant with a price-fixing accusation. Steven Soderbergh directs Matt Damon. Sounds a little Michael Clayton-ish, but I trust the star and director. (Sept. 18)
“Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs” - I’m not a great fan of these movies, but I must admit, the teaser trailer is funny. I’m still waiting for a movie with Scrat as the star. (July 1)
“The Day the Earth Stood Still”- I’m more willing to give this a chance than most movie geeks, but this doesn’t belong on the list. (Dec. 12)
“The Taking of Pelham 123” - The original is a nifty little thriller. With Denzel Washington starring and Tony Scott directing, this remake has a chance of being better than decent.
There are a few solid choices in there, but these folks overlooked some of the movies I most want to see. These include:
In no particular order:
“Avatar” - You mean you’re NOT anticipating James Cameron’s return to directing features with some supposedly mind-blowing 3D technology? What the heck is wrong with you? (Dec. 18)
“Up” - Anything by Pixar automatically goes on the list. (May 29)
“Shutter Island” - Anything directed by Martin Scorsese automatically goes on the list. This omission stuns me, quite frankly. For shame! (Oct. 2)
“The Lovely Bones” - Peter Jackson directs and adapts the highly acclaimed novel. That’s all I need to know. (May 29)
“The Princess and the Frog” - Disney returns to hand-drawn animation. The Mouse House’s output lately hasn’t been the best, but how can any self-respecting animation fan not chomp at the bit for this? I can’t wait. Merry Christmas! (Dec. 25)
“Star Trek” - Like director JJ Abrams, I’m really more of a Star Wars guy than a Star Trek guy, but never discount Abrams ability to bring something fresh to the table. (May 8)
“Funny People” - I’m always in for a movie directed by Judd Apatow, even if it does star Adam Sandler. (July 31)
“Julie and Julia” Amy and Adams again, this time reteaming with Meryl and Streep. That trumps the same day’s GI Joe easily. (Aug. 7)
“Where the Wild Things Are” - The film has a troubled production history, but still - the idea of director Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adapation) taking on Maurice Sendak is irresistible. (Oct. 16)
“A Christmas Carol” - I kind of wish Robert Zemeckis would go back to making live action movies, but I still want to see what he does with his animated motion capture take on Dickens, with Jim Carrey in multiple roles. (Nov. 6)
“The Fantastic Mr. Fox” - Wes Anderson directs an animated version of a Roald Dahl story? Um - whoa. (Nov. 6)
Call me biased, but I like my list better. Did anybody miss anything?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Do you decide on a movie based on box office?
Many people have debated the wisdom of treating box office figures as news stories. They decry the notion that a movie’s quality should be based on how much money it makes. In a time when Meet the Spartans can be promoted as “The Number 1 Movie in America!,” they have a point.
But I wonder - why do people want to know the box office? I want to know largely because box office can and does very often affect what kinds of movies might show up down the line. I’m interested in that part of the Hollywood game, which is why I check out sites like Box Office Guru and Box Office Prophets.
But then, I’m a movie nut. What about the more casual fan? What good are box office figures to them?
I can think of only one time I saw a movie based on how much money it made, and I got burned. The ads and reviews for The Fast and the Furious hadn’t told me it was worth seeing, so I skipped it. Then I remember being surprised at how well it opened, and some of the reviews were very positive so I decided to see what the buzz was all about. I then realized the movie was neither Fast nor Furious.
So let me ask you: Did you ever decide to see a movie because it made a lot of money at the box office? And did your decision pay off?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
What’s your favorite/least favorite Bond movie?
The new James Bond movie Quantum of Solace comes out this weekend, and anticipation is so sky high, there are no other wide releases Friday. I love the idea of studios running from Bond just like they do for a mega series like Harry Potter. ‘Bout time.
So to capitalize on that anticipation, I have a really simple question for you: What are your most/least favorite Bond movies and why?
Here are my five favorites:
Goldfinger: Bond fans endlessly debate whether 007 functions better as a rough and gruff spy, or as a slick, easygoing operator. This film is the perfect synthesis of both sides, and it’s one of my 20 favorite movies of all time, even if Bond does crack on the Beatles.
From Russia With Love: The best example of the early, tougher Bond, with what is still the greatest hand-to-hand fight of all time: the brawl on the train.
Dr. No: Other Bond films may be technically better than this somewhat rough early effort, but when I factor in Connery’s “Bond -James Bond” and Ursula Andress’ unforgettable entrance, I can’t not put it near the top.
Casino Royale: Still the only Bond film to make my 10 best list. (I mean, of course, the most recent Bond film, not the stupid spoof from 1967.) See my original review here.
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service: I debated between this and either The Spy Who Loved Me or For Your Eyes Only to represent Roger Moore, but in the end, the action and the emotional pull of OHMSS give it the edge. Oh, and Diana Rigg too.
It may be a little tough to pick the best films, but it’s beyond easy to pick the absolute worst:
A View to a Kill: No. That is not James Bond that slips down ladders, trips over railroad tracks and surfs to a cheesy cover of “California Girls.” Bad. Wrong. Impostor.
Need to jog your memory on the films? Check out my recaps of the prior movies:
1962-67: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice
1969-1979: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker
1981-89: For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, Never Say Never Again, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill
1995-2006: Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is not Enough, Die Another Day, Casino Royale
Which among these is the best/worst?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Madagascar sequel doesn’t escape mediocrity
The zoo animals want to flee in Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, but I would rather escape this franchise.
The first Madagascar didn’t impress me much. It stood as Exhibit A of why most DreamWorks’ animated features don’t stand the test of time: the movie was less concerned about making the characters likable and more concerned with stitching together a string of pop culture gags, few of which were funny. Even the animation, which is normally a redeeming quality in a DreamWorks effort, was borderline crude.
So I was encouraged when Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa started off looking gorgeous. The movie opens showing how Alex the lion (Ben Stiller) grew up in Africa. The landscapes were beautifully designed, and the character animation had improved.
Even better than that, I was moved by the scenes showing how Alex was separated from his father, captured and sent to the Central Park Zoo. These moments had heart that was missing from the first movie. “Maybe they got it right this time,” I thought to myself.
Then the story switched back to the characters as adults, and the same problems returned: too many references (some of which are already dated) and not enough reason to care.
This time, Alex and his buddies Marty the zebra (Chris Rock), Melman the Giraffe (David Schwimmer) and Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith) are, as the title indicates, trying to escape Madagascar, but their plane, flown by the shifty penguins, crashes and they end up on the African mainland. There, Alex is reunited with his parents, who try to welcome him back into their pride, but that strikes the stuck-up Makunga (Alec Baldwin) as an unwelcome idea.
As long as this sequel sticks to this plotline, it’s not half bad, even though it bears more than a passing resemblance to The Lion King. Unfortunately, the movie keeps diverting to other less compelling stories. Marty tries to forge his own identity among hundreds of zebras, all voiced by Rock. This is amusing for awhile, but Marty’s story never gains momentum. Gloria and Melman fare even less well with their scenes, since they generate fewer laughs.
As much as the first Madagascar was lacking, I still slimly recommended it for one reason only: the smart-aleck, crafty penguins. They were hilarious, and I thought at the time I wouldn’t have minded if they had their own movie.
Now I’m not so sure. Not even the penguins are funny in the sequel. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m having a hard time imagining that even adults would find the notion of penguins negotiating union rights all that amusing.
And then there are those annoying references. When the penguins steal a vehicle, they find a tape deck in it playing Boston’s “More than a Feeling.” That’s not funny in and of itself. It’s no more effective than when the makers of Shrek the Third had frogs sing “Live and Let Die” at a funeral for no apparent reason, other than the studio getting the rights to the tune.
I don’t expect every animated film to rise to the level of Pixar, but DreamWorks can do better than this, as they have with Over the Hedge and Kung Fu Panda. The latter comes out Sunday (yes, Sunday) on DVD. That’s the much better choice.
GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
So they’re remaking Wizard of Oz … sorta
When I first saw “CG-animated Oz” in a movie headline I read today, my first instinct was to groan and say to myself something like “Hmf! I can cause accidents too!”
Then I read the story, and the prospect is actually sort of interesting. Yes, it’s a CG version of the Oz story, but it’s not based on the 1939 classic - this is a non-musical that supposedly sticks more closely to the book.
Even more interestingly, it’s being directed by John Boorman, who made such noteweorthy films as Deliverance, Excalibur, Hope and Glory and The Tailor of Panama.
So I don’t know … it COULD be interesting, but not even the Muppets could make a decent version out of Oz, so I’m dubious … what say you?
While we’re on the subject of Oz, I wrote a story for our GO section this weekend about my close encounter with the 1939 movie. Read that after the jump.
There’s little to write about the 1939 film “The Wizard of Oz” that hasn’t been written, but I had a close encounter with the movie that most people can’t claim.
And I almost missed it.
Back in 2001, I took a vacation to Hollywood, where I visited the Sony lot in Culver City. Before the mid-1980s, however, the lot belonged to MGM, once the crown jewel of movie studios. The studio liked to say it had “more stars than there are in heaven” and my eyes were filled with them as I walked around the movie factory.
I didn’t much care about the fact that the studio is now home to such movies as “Spider-Man” and the cinema of Adam Sandler. I was thinking about the legends that walked there, and I was following in their footsteps: Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, Jimmy Stewart — and a little lady named Judy Garland.
Sad to say, too little of that history is included in the tour. Sony owns the lot, so the tour naturally emphasizes their productions, but there is not as much mention of MGM as there ought to be.
Major case in point: My tour group was walking around one of the huge soundstages. We were looking at the set of “Family Law,” a legal drama starring Tony Danza that was on TV at the time. The tour guide was droning on and on about this show, and I thought to myself, “Yeah, yeah, so what?”
Almost as if she had read my mind, the tour guide chimed in as we were walking out of the building: “Oh, by the way: This is the stage where ‘If I Only had a Brain’ was shot.”
If I had been drinking water, I would have done a spit take right then and there. “By the way? By the way???? Umm … more about OZ, please,” I screamed to myself. I wanted to go back and just breathe the air for a little while longer . After all, “The Wizard of Oz” is only one of my 10 favorite movies of all time. It’s a classic movie that even people who don’t like old movies cherish. TV viewings of it are so ingrained in my mind, that even now, when I watch my DVD, I still expect a commercial break after the lion runs from the Wizard’s room and dives through the window.
“Oz,” along with MGM’s “Singin’ in the Rain” is a movie that can brighten my spirits even if I’ve had the most terrible day. From “Over the Rainbow” to the tornado to the lollipop guild to the Winkie guards, the movie may be the most transporting of all, if not the best.
This is my way of saying “You, and you and you, and you were there.”
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What’s opening Friday, Nov. 7?
It’s another relatively mild week for wide releases: There is one big-ticket animated attraction, and a couple of comedies of variable interest.
Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa: The first one made a lot of money, even though it wasn’t that good, so here comes the sequel. Review posts Friday.
Role Models: The makers of Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten return with a new comedy starring Paul Rudd and the blessedly ubiquitous Elizabeth Banks. In this one, a pair of energy drink reps are forced to enroll in a Big Brother program.
Soul Men: What might have been a below the radar comedy suddenly gains interest due to the fact it’s the final film of Bernie Mac and Issac Hayes, who died within a day of each other earlier this year. Actually, this is something of a Bernie Mac weekend, since he provided a voice for the Madagascar sequel as well.
At the arthouses
The Neon opens Roman de Gare, a French thriller directed by Claude Lelouch, about a novelist (Fanny Ardant) whose famous works might have been ghost-written by a serial killer. Neon hangs on to the acclaimed Rachel Getting Married and will also play David Lynch’s Wild at Heart.
The Little Art retains Reigulous and adds The Duchess, with corset queen Keira Knightley to its roster.
Hang tight, folks … next week, James Bond will return.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Michael Crichton, 1942-2008
I was sorry to read of the unexpected death of Michael Crichton, the best-selling author who had a great many of his books made into movies.
One of the reasons I’m sorry is that, unfortunately, not very many good movies were made out of Crichton’s work. His writing was so technical and detail-oriented, it was difficult to adapt it to the screen.
The past 15 years saw a spate of mediocre or worse movies made from Crichton titles: Rising Sun, DIsclosure, Sphere, Timeline, and the lamentable The 13th Warrior.
But there were some good pictures made from his work: Robert Wise’s The Andromeda Strain and Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park leap to mind. The Lost World was not quite as bad as people remember; it had its moments. Twister, which he co-wrote is dumb fun, and I also liked the first theatrical film he directed, the evil robot thriller Westworld.
And then there was Congo, a movie that exists in some weird sort of limbo. It’s not a good movie, exactly, but it was made with such a goofball zeal that I can’t help but smile when I see it.
Crichton will be missed - and I hope Hollywood doesn’t miss an opportunity to make more good movies from his work.
What do you think of the films made from Crichton’s novels? Are there any yet unfilmed that would make good movies?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Anyone notice McCain/Obama’s movie music?
Did anyone notice the music that Obama and McCain played after their respective speeches last night? Both picked very telling movie music.
As film writer Erik Childress pointed out in his comments on Hollywood Elsewhere:
“Anyone else catch the music played when McCain took the stage for his concession speech and then when he left?
“Taking the stage - Days of Thunder
“Leaving it - Crimson Tide
“One an anthem for red state NASCAR fans and the other from a film about an old school maverick who is stripped of his command by a younger black guy.”
As for the other side:
“And Obama just ended his speech with music from Remember the Titans - the story of a team of white and black coming together and putting all their differences aside to win a championship.”
And here’s something Childress didn’t point out: All three of those movies were produced or co-produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.
I’ll let that sink in for a minute.
Yes, Jerry Bruckheimer, the man who backed everything from Top Gun to the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy to Kangaroo Jack. A man who has produced films as great as Black Hawk Down, and as odious as my favorite object of scorn, Bad Boys 2.
Wow. I bet even ol’ Jerry never saw himself as that kind of equalizer. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Addendum: This story has started to pop up around the net. This blog notes there’s some debate about the music Obama used. Some think he used John Williams’ score from The Patriot, but some think both The Patriot and Titan’s music were used. Any way you score it, interesting stuff.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
My favorite voting movies
Many people are going to trot out their lists of the great movie presidents today, but I already did that back in March during the primaries.
So on this Election Day I present instead a short list of my favorite movies about - what else? Voting!
Mind you, this doesn’t mean the movie has to be about presidents. These five movies I list involve either voting or campaigning in some significant way. And in my mind, they’re all great.
Election: Alexander Payne’s black comedy shows how high school elections can be just as twisted as national ones. One of my favorite moments: When the popular but dim jock (Chris Klein) makes his campaign speech in a monotone and in one long breath - without once looking up from his text. Nails high school culture to a T.
Twelve Angry Men: Well, juries vote when they deliberate, don’t they? And this remains easily the best film ever made about the American court system - and one of the best about voting.
Nixon: I just watched this again recently on HDNet Movies. While it has its fair share of Oliver Stone overstatement (TM) , it remains a fascinating and probing document/speculation about the demons that drove the 37th president. I actually consider it superior to Stone’s much better known JFK.
Citizen Kane: Charles Foster Kane Defeated: FRAUD AT POLLS.
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: Obvious? Maybe. Unimpeachable? Definitely.
Of course, a list as short as this can only begin to scratch the surface, so cast your vote via the comments below. What are some other great movies about voting and the political process?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Lists
Joaquin Phoenix, quitting? Yeah, right
My good colleagues at our Celebrity Worship blog have posted Joaquin Phoenix’s supposed confirmation that he’s really quitting acting to become a musician.
To which I say, “Whatever you say, man. Good luck. We’ll see you back on screen in a couple of years.”
In other words, I don’t believe him.
This bears all the hallmarks of an actor who really doesn’t know what he wants grasping at straws. The vibe I’m getting is that Phoenix is bored and wants to try something else - and when that something else doesn’t pan out, he’ll come back to movies again.
I mean, sure, the guy can carry a decent tune, as his Walk the Line performance attests, but I just don’t sense much conviction in this decision. I think film blogger Jeffrey Wells is right on when he says “I don’t care what he says — this is a Frank Sinatra/Daniel Day Lewis retirement. Two to three years and then back in.”
What struck me is that commenters on another blog about this story were hard pressed to tell who Phoenix was. One person even pegged him as Anakin Skywalker. Ummmm …
C’mon, folks: He was in Gladiator, Signs, The Village and Walk the Line and was Oscar-nominated for Gladiator and Walk the Line. He may not be Will Smith, but he’s not exactly unknown.
And one more thing, Joaquin … that “BYE GOOD” thing on your knuckles? Robert Mitchum you ain’t.
Do you believe Phoenix when he says he’s quitting? Will you miss him if he does?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Celebrities
Did the P-word hurt Zack and Miri?
I was a bit disappointed when I saw the box office numbers come in this weekend for Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Even with that title, I thought, perhaps naively, that the movie might end up being one of writer-director Kevin Smith’s most popular movies.
Alas, it’s not on track for that sort of success. The movie made about $10.7 million over the weekend, which is a little better than usual for Smith, but not by much. As things stand, it is on track to top out at around $30 million or so, which is about par for the course for the director of Clerks, Dogma and Jay Silent Bob Strike Back, among others.
Why do I care? Because I think it’s Smith’s best movie since Chasing Amy, and it deserves a better reception than it’s getting. Sure, some of the gags wallow in the gutter, but on balance, the movie isn’t that far removed from something like, say, Knocked Up, which was a much bigger hit.
So I wonder: Did Smith paint himself into a corner by putting “porno” in the title? I really have to wonder if people saw that word and said, “You know, I think I feel better watching that in the comfort of my own home.” Smith’s movies historically do much better on DVD than in theaters.
Would you have gone to see it if it were called something tamer like Zack and Miri Get Off, Zack and Miri Get It On, The Naughty Adventures of Zack and Miri, or When Zack and Miri Loved Each Other Very Much … ?
Even if you did see it, why do you think more people didn’t?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
