2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > August
August 2009
September’s Movies: Meatballs and demon Megan Fox
Now that I’m back from vacation, and now that there’s a definite chill in the air, I’d say it’s tine to start previewing fall movies. I’ll cover one month a day through Thursday. As usual, I will give each movie a prospect grade:
A = My life depends upon seeing this.
B = Looks fun/interesting but not essential
C = I could take it or leave it.
D = I’d rather leave it
F = ONLY if Amy Adams or Zooey Deschanel can come with me
Standard disclaimer: Release dates are subject to change.
SEPTEMBER 4
The pitch: Sandra Bullock goes on one date with Bradley Cooper, decides he’s the one, and stalks him around the country.
The buzz:: If nothing else, the movie certainly has great timing, with Bullock and Cooper both coming off big summer hits: The Proposal and The Hangover, respectively. Whether the movie is any good remains to be seen, but based on the leads, I’m in.
The prospect: B
The pitch: The owner of a flower-extract plant (Jason Bateman), muddles through a plethora of problems including a possibly unfaithful wife (Kristien Wiig), and a tempting new temp (Mila Kunis).
The buzz: The fact that this movie is from Mike Judge, the writer-director of Office Space, will be enough for some people. I’ve never quite been a member of that cult, but Judge is always interesting, even when his movies don’t quite come out as well as they should, like Idiocracy.
The prospect: B
The pitch: A star player (Gerard Butler) of virtual reality-type games tries to take down one games mastermind.
The buzz :
I imagine this will be a hit, especially those into genre fare like the Crank movies by the same directors. This person who sucks at video games, however, will pass.
The prospect: C
SEPTEMBER 11
9 (opens Wednesday)
The pitch: No, this isn’t the upcoming musical Nine, nor does it have anything to do with District 9. This is an animated feature about a post-apocalyptic world without humans.
The buzz: The animation looks great, and with Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov (the director of Wanted) on hand as producers, I’m curious, if not ecstatic.
The prospect: B
The pitch: Sorority sisters accidentally kill one of their own, then are sliced and diced by someone who seems to know their secret.
The buzz: I don’t care if this is supposedly a cross between Mean Girls and Scream, the trailer evaporates my brain cells.
The prospect: D
Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself
The pitch: Perry’s Madea tries to take three youths who tried to rob her to their aunt (Traji P. Henson) , who wants nothing to do with them.
The buzz: Sounds a bit like Perry’s take on Gran Torino, no? Or at least it’s Madea in a somewhat more serious vein. Perry’s movies don’t speak to me, but they speak to plenty of others.
The prospect: C
The pitch: U.S. Marshal Kate Beckinsale needs to capture a killer before the sun sets for six months in Antarctica.
The buzz: I like Beckinsale, but the director is Dominic Sena, who made none-too-distinguished movies like the Gone in 60 Seconds remake and Swordfish. We’ll see.
The prospect: C
SEPTEMBER 18
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
The pitch: Food falls from the sky in this adaptation of the popular book by Judi and Ron Barrett.
The buzz: The trailers look fairly peppy, but I’m getting the sense this is a children’s movie rather than a family film. There is a difference. The former entertains only kids, the latter entertains everybody.
The prospect: C
The pitch: Matt Damon plays a whistle-blower at an agricultural giant suspected of price-fixing. Steven Soderbergh directs.
The buzz: That pedigree alone is enough to make this movie the pick of the month by a country mile. Then there’s the bonus for us Ohioans that the story is based on that of a local man, Mark Whitacre.
The prospect: A
The pitch: A cheerleader (Megan Fox) becomes possessed by a demon who targets anything with a Y chromosome.
The buzz: Normally, this would not interest me, but two names catch my eye: writer Diablo Cody, who won an Oscar for Juno, and director Karyn Kusama, who made Girlfight (and Aeon Flux, but I won’t hold that against her).
The prospect: B
The pitch: Jennifer Aniston and Aaron Eckhart fall for each other, even though Eckhart, playing a self-help guru, hasn’t gotten over the death of his wife.
The buzz: I like the two leads, but the trailer practically screams BEEN THERE, DONE THAT many times over.
The prospect: C
SEPTEMBER 25
The pitch: It’s definitely going to live forever with this remake of the musical about a talent school.
The buzz: MGM is pushing this one heavily, and I hope it deserves it, but I can’t shake the feeling this one will be filed under Remakes, Unnecessary.
The prospect: C
The pitch: Crew members aboard a spaceship wake up with no knowledge of their mission or their identities.
The buzz: The cast includes Dennis Quaid and the trailer looks intriguing, but I can’t get a read on this one.
The prospect: C
The pitch: Bruce Willis is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of surrogate robots.
The buzz: Intriguing premise, good cast (which also includes Radha Mitchell and Ving Rhames), and an underrated director in Jonathan Mostow, who made Breakdown and Terminator 3, which, whatever you think of it, got the job done a lot better than Terminator Salvation.
The prospect: B
As far as I can see, it’s a fairly mild September, with only one must-see film. What do you think of this crop?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Sir Critic is Out
I am on vacation and taking a break from blogging until Monday, Aug. 31, when I will kick off my week-long preview of fall movies.
In the meantime, click here to see what’s coming out on DVD Tuesday …
… and click here to see what’s in theaters Friday. In my opinion, I picked a dandy week to go on vacation!
See you in a week …
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Tarantino’s war film not ‘Glourious’ but still delivers
Inglourious Basterds is no Saving Private Ryan - which to director Quentin Tarantino would be the ultimate compliment.
The difference is, with Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg made one of his best films. Inglourious Basterds is not one of Tarantino’s best films, but it is still a highly enjoyable romp that is unmistakably his, for better and for worse.
By now, Tarantino has become fixated on being the world’s most singular genre director, putting his unique stamp on the trashy fare he loves and giving it a professional sheen, as he did with the two Kill Bill movies and Grindhouse. So it goes with Inglourious Basterds.
Many have called the film “Tarantino’s World War II movie,” but that only scratches the surface. It would be more descriptive to call it “Tarantino’s zany revenge fantasy by way of historical fiction.”
Like many of Tarantino’s films, the movie follows several plot threads that intertwine. One involves a Jewish woman and movie theater owner (Melanie Laurent), who concocts a fantastic plot against the Nazis after they murder her family. Another involves a bloodthirsty band of troops led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) who call themselves the Basterds. They delight in literally scalping Nazis and branding the survivors with a swastika. A third involves an espionage scheme involving a German actress/turncoat. (Diane Kruger).
When he burst on the scene with the terrific one-two-three punch of Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, Tarantino established himself as one of the most unique of all film directors. Even back then, he dealt with revenge fantasies, obscure film genres and multiple storylines but did so in a way that was refreshing.
With the Kill Bills and the Death Proof segment of “Grindhouse” Tarantino’s vision became insular. As fun as those movies often were, they felt increasingly like extremely well-made private jokes that would appeal only to geeks.
There’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but Tarantino’s increasingly narrow world view began to hamper his storytelling. He wasted much of the first half of Death Proof on pointless dialogue between a group of girls who didn’t interest me.
With Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino rebounds somewhat, even if he doesn’t reach the heights of his greatest work. The best parts of this movie are as good as anything he has ever shot. However, those are undermined by distracting, frustrating flaws.
The cast is outstanding, with the best performances coming from the unknowns, Laurent ought to become a star based on her outstanding work as the vengeful theater owner, and Christoph Waltz, playing a Nazi commander, makes a frighteningly diabolical villain. Much of the tension of the terrific opening scene of the movie comes from Waltz’s steely glare and calm demeanor.
Brad Pitt, understandably, is lead billed, but he’s really a key supporting player. Much as he did in Burn After Reading, he fearlessly goofs on his part, chewing the scenery and drawling every line with a hick accent (he pronounces “Nazis” like “gnat-zees.”)
Even with strong characters like these, what’s missing from Basterds is a strong thread that links all the stories, like John Travolta did in Pulp Fiction. While individual scenes were powerful, I felt the movie didn’t let me invest in any one character long enough to give me an emotional connection from beginning to end.
The other flaw, strangely enough, is the music, at which Tarantino usually excels. The soundtrack is an eclectic grab bag of sounds and genres, but this time, the anachronisms kept taking me out of the story. The sound is too similar to that of Kill Bill, even to the point that Tarantino re-uses a song from that soundtrack. That kind of laziness is disappointing
What redeems “Basterds,” besides the cast, is Tarantino’s strong visual sense. The movie, shot by Robert Richardson, who lensed “Kill Bill,” looks fantastic, and the pacing is exemplary, with many a suspenseful scene. The fiery ending gives the lie to that old Klingon proverb that “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
Ultimately, Tarantino has become a better director than he is a writer. He may not be as original as he once was, but Basterds proves he hasn’t lost his knack for delirious showmanship.
GRADE: B+
My capsule reviews of Tarantino’s other films can be found here.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
My short takes on the films of Quentin Tarantino
Without a doubt, Quentin Tarantino has carved himself a niche as one of our most distinctive film directors. My review of his filmography, however, suggests that niche may be becoming a bit too narrow.
Note: This filmography includes only the films Tarantino directed, not the movies he wrote but did not direct, e.g. True Romance.
Reservoir Dogs
Genre buffs may claim that Tarantino stole many of his ideas from other movies, but those detractors miss the point. His debut film about a jewel heist gone very, very wrong may riff on other movies, but the end result is a movie that only Tarantino could have made. It’s perhaps a bit self-consciously showy, but the show is never dull. GRADE: A
Pulp Fiction
No sophomore jinx here. Tarantino’s second film was such a landmark, that even a speech deleted from the film (Elvis people vs. Beatles people) is widely quoted. It drags just a little during some of the Bruce Willis story, but even that lull can’t keep the movie from being a masterpiece. GRADE: A+
Jackie Brown
This is the great underrated film in Tarantino’s canon. It doesn’t boast the iconic moments of Pulp Fiction, but his adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punchrevealed a maturity in the director’s filmmaking he hasn’t displayed before — or since. If anything, it gets better with age. GRADE: A
Kill Bill Vol. 1
This crazy quilt of Tarantino’s favorite genres, ranging from kung fu films to Brian De Palma suspense thrillers, has energy and imagination to spare, and its his best-looking movie, thanks to the great cinematographer Robert Richardson. Uma Thurman makes for a terrific leading lady. However, hindsight reveals that it was here that a lack of discipline began to overtake the director. GRADE: A-
Kill Bill Vol. 2
On the one hand, the film is remarkable in that its very different in tone and style than its predecessor. There are many great moments, especially the fight between Thurman and Daryl Hannah, and Thurman’s escape from the grave. On the other hand, the movie has not held up so well over the years, with one scene after another seeming superfluous; Tarantino might have been better off with one movie instead of two. GRADE: B+
Death Proof
Tarantino’s half of Grindhouse; only runs 90 minutes and even then is still too long. His gift for dialogue desserts him during an interminable first half, although the second half comes roaring back with one of the wildest car chases ever shot. GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Torpedo the ‘Yellow Submarine’ remake!
I was going to capsule review Quentin Tarantino’s movies as a prelude to Inglourious Basterds, which comes out Friday, but righteous indignation has forced me to change my plans.
I must play the Blue Meanie and vehemently protest Robert Zemeckis’ proposed remake of Yellow Submarine, using the same motion-capture technology he used on The Polar Express, Beowulf, and the forthcoming A Christmas Carol.
To quote the various slogans the Meanies placed around Pepperland: No. No, no, no, no, No, No, NO!!!!
This is a horrendous idea on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps I should just begin with the simple statement that, um … there’s nothing WRONG with Yellow Submarine. In its own way, it’s a perfect little movie that no amount of cutting-edge technology will “improve.” Sure, some of the animation was a little crude, but that’s part of its charm.
Along those same lines, Yellow Submarine was very much a product of its time. To add a modern sheen to it, I feel, would diminish the story’s appeal. Moreover, I am very much against taking hand-drawn animated characters and rendering them in CG. That fundamentally alters their appearance in a way that does a disservice to the original animators.
What’s more, I’m getting rather exasperated by Zemeckis and his motion capture crusade. In fairness, I quite enjoyed The Polar Express and Beowulf, as well as Monster House, which Zemeckis produced, but did not direct. And the Christmas Carol footage I’ve seen does look impressive.
That said, I think the Yellow Submarine announcement shows Zemeckis is getting carried away. He was one of my favorite directors. His directorial debut was the very entertaining I Wanna Hold Your Hand, about a bunch of Beatlemaniacs desperate to see the Fab Four at their first Ed Sullivan show. Even his weakest movie, Back to the Future Part II, had moments of ingenuity. I wish he would get back to the live action filmmaking at which he excelled. Zemeckis seems to fancy himself some sort of visionary, but even looking forward, you can still have tunnel vision, and I think Zemeckis has succumbed to it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this proposed remake hurts me on a very personal level. Anyone who gets to know me for even one minute knows I have two great interests in life: The Beatles and movies. Those two things formed the very core of my identity when I saw Yellow Submarine at the Victory Theatre in Dayton in 1975. It is the first movie I can clearly remember seeing in a theater, and it is the movie I have seen more times than any other. It saddens me to no end that a new generation of kids would be introduced to the Beatles, or to movies, via this misguided, foolhardy, completely unnecessary remake.
There’s a lyric running through my head right now, but it’s certainly not the title tune. It’s another song on the soundtrack, and I direct it toward Zemeckis and Disney.
He’s a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What’s opening Friday, August 21?
Quentin Tarantino’s fifth film (or maybe sixth and-a half, depending on how you count Kill Bill and Death Proof) is the big ticket this week; the other tickets look mostly small.
Inglourious Basterds: Review posts Friday. Short review’s of QT’s other films post later today.
Post Grad: Gilmore Girl Alexis Bledel seems to be one of those appealing actresses who has trouble finding a good vehicle; this one, in which she plays a graduate forced to move back home, apparently continues her unfortunate trouble.
Shorts: Tarantino’s Grindhouse buddy Robert Rodriguez returns with a film that’s a little more … family friendly than his partner’s offering. Word is split on whether this is more akin to Spy Kids or to The Adventures of Shark Boy and Lava Girl.
X-Games 3D: The Movie: Sir Critic: I’ve been interested in most 3D movies that have come out. This is not one of them.
At the arthouses
Neon hangs on to 500 Days of Summer and Food Inc. and adds Summer Hours, a Juliette Binoche-led film about two brothers and a sister who have to relinquish family belongings to ensure their deceased mother’s succession.
Little Art opens 500 Days of Summer.
At Victoria Theatre’s Cool Films Series
American Graffiti: A long time ago, George Lucas traveled to a galaxy not so far away with this excellent movie that sparked the 50s nostalgia craze in the 70s. Marvel at a very young Ron Howard, Cindy Williams, Richard Dreyfuss, Harrison Ford and Suzanne Sommers, and at a stellar soundtrack.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
My summer 2009 movie favorites (and least favorites)
With kids going back to school this week, it’s all but official: Summer’s over. So I thought it was time to take stock of the highlights (and lowlights) of 2009’s summer movies.
Best Movie: Up
Best Performance: Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia.
Worst Movie: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. So a movie CAN make $400 million and still suck.
Best Scene: The marriage montage in Up. Close second: The “You Make My Dreams Come True” number in 500 Days of Summer.
Best Visual Effects: I most liked the ones that were probably the cheapest: District 9.
Worst Visual Effects: The hot air balloon scene at the end of The Ugly Truth. Those process shots were about as fake as the movie as a whole.
Most Pleasant Surprise: The Hangover. And I’ve never even had a real one.
Most undeserved box office misfire: Funny People. I can understand why a lot of people turned away from this not quite a comedy/not quite a drama. It IS too long. But at its best, its quite affecting and funny, and I don’t think Adam Sandler’s ever given a better performance.
Most undeserved success: See Worst movie:
Failure I most relished: Land of the Lost. Will Ferrell, lick your wounds for as long as you like. Please. Really, take your time.
Best performance in a bad movie: Amy Adams in Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.
Worst performance in a good movie: Christian Bale in Public Enemies
Best Line: SQUIRREL! (from Up)
Accessory I most want: Dug (also from Up)
So what did you like most - or least - this summer? Feel free to add your own categories.
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment |
DVDs: Mike Tyson and Hannah Montana, together at last!
I do seem to be fond of those “together at last” headlines, don’t I? Well, this week’s weird mix of DVDs certainly calls for it.
Hannah Montana: The Movie: In the normal course of events I would dismiss this piece of cinema out of hand, except I must note with a raised eyebrow that the director is Peter Chelsom, who made some movies I really like: Hear My Song, The Mighty and Serendipity. View at your own will - or peril, perhaps.
Last House on the Left: Last forgettable horror remake not in sight.
Tyson: In one way or another, this seems to be Mike Tyson’s year at the movies, between this well-received documentary, not to mention his genuinely funny appearance in The Hangover. I’ve never had much love for the man, but I do intend to check out what he has to say in the documentary.
What Are You Watching?
Interiors: This was the first of Woody Allen’s “serious” films, coming out the year after Annie Hall won the Best Picture Oscar. And it may yet be the best of his strictly serious films. It’s a mark of the movie’s strength that I read the screenplay for it years ago - and was still riveted when I saw the movie. GRADE: A
Ponyo: Disney gave this Japanese animated film a wide release last weekend, wanting to introduce Japanese animation master Hayao Miyzaki to a bigger audience. His work in general , and this film, certainly deserve to be seen by a great many people. It’s not quite up to his masterpiece, Spirited Away, which won the Best Animated Feature Oscar, but this tale of a sea creature who wants to be human has a lovely, lilting quality that will especially appeal to young children. And it’s filled with the sort of breathtaking imagery only Miyazaki could create. Who else could create an ocean where the waves themselves are fish? GRADE: A
So what have you been watching, whatever the size of the screen or the age of the film?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
‘Avatar’ preview tix/most awaited fall films?
Yes, you read that right. In a first for the movie industry, 20th Century Fox will be giving away tickets to a 16-minute IMAX 3D preview of James Cameron’s highly anticipated Avatar. It’s an ingenious, if perhaps too secretive bit of promotional chutzpah.
The preview will play at 6 and 6:30 p.m. this Friday, August 21. The tickets will be given away, first come first serve, at the Avatar Web site, starting at 3 p.m. TODAY. (Noon Pacific time). The LA times has more details here.
Now, this all may be a moot point for us in Southwest Ohio, as I have not been able to find out if IMAX theaters nearest us, in Springdale or Columbus, will be playing the Avatar preview. Still, as they say, ya never know, so I’m preparing you with the information regardless. Better too much than not enough, I always say.
Alas, whether the Ohio theaters are on the list or not, travel plans preclude me from attending the preview on Friday, and that pains me. Avatar is probably the second most anticipated film of the fall for me, after Shutter Island, which must take the top position, since my favorite director, Martin Scorsese is at the helm.
To give us something to talk about while we’re waiting (and just in case the preview isn’t going to be shown here), what are the films of the rest of this year you are most anticipating? My top 5 are:
Avatar: December 18
The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson’s latest - December 11
The Princess and the Frog - Disney’s too long-awaited return to hand-drawn animation. - also December 11
Shutter Island - October 2
Where the Wild Things Are - Will it be as good as the book? Oh, heck no. But being directed by Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) it’s bound to be its own very unique animal. October 16
And you?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
‘District 9’ a blast of imagination and inspiration
As the relentlessly enjoyable District 9 held me in thrall, I thought, “Wow - this is unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.”
On reflection, I feel that’s not quite right. I did see a lot of other movies in District 9. It’s a little bit like Aliens, and I can see some of the TV miniseries V in it. It’s also reminiscent of Cloverfield and Alien Nation, plus David Cronenberg’s The Fly.
Whether District 9 was actually influenced by these movies or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that in mixing so many styles, District 9 serves up a richly satisfying sci-fi brew.
Filmed as if it were a documentary, District 9 is set in the unlikeliest of places: Johannesburg, South Africa. About 20 years ago, a massive spaceship hovered over the city, parking itself there. When authorities cut into the giant spacecraft, they find that the alien leaders have died.
The many remaining aliens, called “prawns” because of their crustacean-like appearance, are interred in a slum known as District 9, where they are hated and feared. (The allusion to apartheid is unmistakable, although the movie never becomes a preachy tract.). Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley), a government agent in charge of resettling the aliens, becomes … no, it’s really best if I stop there.
There’s one other influence I haven’t mentioned, but this one is certainly deliberate and pervasive: producer Peter Jackson. He did not direct this film - his protege Neill Blomkamp did - but District 9 reminded me of Jackson’s earlier work, like Dead Alive and Heavenly Creatures. All these movies had low budgets applied with high imagination, with their creators skillfully stretching their limited resources.
District 9 almost has a home-movie feel at times, but Blomkamp, who also co-wrote the screenplay, directs with such vim and vigor, he swept me along, totally absorbing me in the story. He’s an excellent action director who masterfully builds and dissipates tension, but his characters and the story never get lost amid all the technology. Just as Paul Greengrass did a few years ago with Bloody Sunday before he moved on to the Bourne franchise, Blomkamp establishes himself as a talent to watch.
So, too, does actor Sharlto Copley. It’s difficult to describe his work without revealing too much detail, but it’s fair to say that Copley undergoes an impressive transformation, changing from a nebbish pencil pusher to an unlikely action hero. I’ll be very curious to see where Blomkamp and Copley proceed from this auspicious start.
District 9 came about after Jackson and Blomkamp were going to make a movie based on the video game Halo before nervous suits pulled the plug, prompting Blomkamp to expand his short Alive in Joburg, with Jackson’s blessing. Never have I been happier a movie didn’t get made. When we get something as inventive and exciting as District 9 instead, I say the cards fell the right way.
GRADE: A
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s opening Friday, August 14?
Last week I said the slate of movies came on the “last true weekend of the Hollywood summer.” That’s still true; Hollywood’s summer usually ends around the first weekend of August. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t interesting movies coming out.
Maybe there aren’t very MANY, but there is there are at least two prime attractions this week.
Bandslam: No, that’s not it. Can’t muster much enthusiasm for a musical in which Vanessa Hudgens is the lead. To be fair, early reviews are decent.
District 9: THIS, however, IS one of the prime attractions. This sci-fi thriller produced by Peter Jackson looks truly intriguing, and the buzz is only getting louder. I screen it tonight and review it tomorrow.
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard: Thanks, but Robert Zemeckis already made a car salesman comedy called Used Cars that’s pretty hard to top.
Ponyo: Revered as he is, Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki has never had a mainstream hit here in America. Disney aims to change that by releasing his latest movie on 800 screens. Will it take? Time will tell. Sight unseen, I have to say I’m rather astonished at the AP’s negative review of it - the only one so far.
The Time Traveler’s Wife: At first, the prospect of Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams starring in an adaptation of a best-seller seemed tantalizing, but two things bother me: the trailer seems to give the whole story away, and the director is Robert Schwentke, whose only other notable credit is Flightplan, the rare Jodie Foster vehicle I did not enjoy.
At the arthouses
The Neon and Little Art both open Food, Inc., about our unsavory food processing practices. From everything I’ve read about the film, you may not want to eat for a long time after seeing it.
At the Cool Films Series
Funny Girl: I’ve never been a big Barbra Streisand fan, but I have to admit this is probably the best filmed showcase of her talent.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
What sequels/remakes top the originals?
In my What Are You Watching post Tuesday, commenter “Channel Nine” mentioned watching The Bride of Frankenstein and was struck that it was the rare sequel that was better than the original.
So that, dear readers, is today’s question, with just a slight spin: What sequels - or remakes - are better than the original films?
People very commonly cite The Godfather Part II and The Empire Strikes Back as the prime examples of improved sequels. Funnily enough, I disagree with with both choices.
I concede that Empire is a better made movie than the original Star Wars - it’s certainly better written. However, if I’m going to sit down and watch one Star Wars movie just for the heck of it, it’s always going to be the original. Simply put, nothing can replicate the thrill of discovery that only comes with the 1977 film. Plus, I’m still smarting that I found out the big twist about Darth Vader before I actually saw Empire.
The Godfather situation is similar. Part II is certainly more ambitious and darker than the original film, but more ambitious and darker do NOT equal better. Think of it this way - if you’re going to watch one Godfather film, which one will it be? I’m willing to bet a sizable chunk of my DVD collection most people would say the first. It’s also worth noting that most of the heavily quoted lines and iconic scenes come from the first film, not the second. (For the record, Part III, while not nearly as good as the others, is also not as bad as many people make it out to be.)
Some other examples:
Toy Story 2: I’m never surprised that the original Toy Story makes lists of the greatest animated films of all time, but I am surprised the sequel never makes the same lists. It’s clearly better than the first - funnier, more imaginative, and more poignant. No scene in an animated movie tears me up faster than when Jessie is abandoned during “When She Loved Me.”
Superman II: I remember a lot of people at the time saying the Man of Steel’s second movie was better than the first. Revisionist history will tell you the 1978 film is the great one, and the sequel is compromised because director Richard Donner, who started the film, was fired, and had much of his work reshot by Richard Lester. Sorry, I don’t buy it. The 1978 Superman is lots of fun, but is a touch bloated and it takes way too long to get going. The sequel is leaner, punchier, and more moving. (And yes, I’ve seen the “Richard Donner cut” and I like it even less than the 1978 film. No amount of editing can fix a film that wasn’t finished.)
Spider-Man 2: Better villain, better action scenes, better effects, more fun. Simple.
Aliens: It’s almost unfair to compare James Cameron’s sequel to Ridley Scott’s original, because they’re such different movies. Scott made a sci-fi haunted house movie, Cameron made a sci-fi combat film. While no one scene in Aliens is as iconic as the the original chest-bursting scene, I prefer Cameron’s relentless adrenaline to Scott’s slow burn.
The Maltese Falcon: People complain that Hollywood is overly hung up on remakes. It is - but classic Hollywood did it too. Thing is, when they did it, they often did it right, remaking what wasn’t very good in the first place. The Dashiel Hammet novel was made into three feature films: First, in 1931 (not bad, but not great), again in 1936 as the little-remembered comedy (!) Satan Met a Lady, starring Bette Davis, no less, then finally as an inidsputable classic with Bogie in 1941.
So what sequels or remakes top the originals for you? Need to jog your memory? Here’s a list from Times Online, and one from GreenCine.
Regarding these lists: The Dark Knight better than Batman Begins? Sure! The Road Warrior better than Mad Max? Sure! Back to the Future Part II better than the original? HORSE MANURE!
Your serve!
Permalink | Comments (16) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
I Love What Are You Watching, Man - and DVDs too!
This week’s DVDs bring us an acclaimed foreign film, an acclaimed bromance, and a movie that got a lot of squealing acclaim from Zac Efron fans
The Class: Many people, myself included, expected this French film about a teacher dealing with tough students to win the Foreign Language Film Oscar. Instead, Japan’s Departures won. I will watch this soon to see how just that decision was.
I Love You, Man: One of the better so-called “bromances” gets most of its laughs from great chemistry by Paul Rudd and Jason Segel. Rudd is about to get married and realizes he has no close male friend to be his best man, so he recruits Segel to do so. The movie doesn’t OD on crude gags, focusing instead on the friendship and its pitfalls. Although Rudd and Segel are both veterans of Judd Apatow movies, Apatow had nothing to do with this film - the co-writer/director is John Hamburg, rebounding nicely from the lame Along Came Polly. GRADE: B+
17 Again: I didn’t expect much from this latest entry in the worn-out magical body switching genre, but it was better than I expected thanks to winning turns from Zac Efron, playing the teen version of a man who wished a little too hard to relive his high school years. Leslie Mann, as ever, is engaging as the spurned wife. However, those good performances aren’t quite enough to redeem the predictable screenplay. Full review. GRADE: C+
What Are You Watching
Here’s what I’ve seen outside of the megaplexes lately.
Grey Gardens (1975/2000): The well-regarded documentary by the Maysles brothers about Jackie Kennedy’s relatives living in squalor was fascinating precisely because it didn’t spell out exactly how the women got that way - one could infer how from watching “Little Evie” interact with her mother, Big Evie. This year’s HBO dramatization of the same story is surprisingly effective, thanks to strong performances from Jessica Lange and Drew Barrymore, but it’s less compelling than the documentary because it “literalizes” the story. The documentary: A-/The TV movie: B+
I Know Where I’m Going!: This wartime romance by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, about a woman who falls for another man while a storm delays her journey to her wedding, isn’t among my favorite films of the duo - as wartime romances go, I prefer their A Matter of Life and Death. However, like all their movies, this is a unique, intriguing experience that rather reminded me of John Sayles’ film The Secret of Roan Inish. GRADE: A-
Jezebel/Dark Victory: I watched these Better Davis pictures back-to-back this past weekend, and was a bit surprised by both. Jezebel, which has been called Davis’ Gone With the Wind, has the better reputation and indeed boasts some very powerful moments, but it struck me as more than a little dated. I was more touched by the “woman’s weepie” Dark Victory, in which Davis struggles with a terminal illness. Then there are the side benefits of watching Humphrey Bogart attempt an Irish brogue, and of watching Davis and Ronald Reagan play a drunk scene together. Jezebel: B+/Dark Victory: A-
To Kill a Mockingbird: Twelve Angry Men may be the best film about the court system, but, having seen Mockingbird this past weekend at the Victoria Cool FIlms Series, I was reminded that this is the best film about dealing with injustice. And really, is there a cooler authority/father figure than Atticus Finch? GRADE: A+
Now it’s your turn to tell me what you’ve watched of late.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD, What Are You Watching?
John Hughes, GI Joe, NY Times - together at last!
I’ll be away from the blog while screening Inglourious Basterds today (opens next week), so for your reading pleasure, I offer a roundup of interesting links I’ve found around the web this morning.
A very amusing AMC blog comparing G.I. Joe to Team America: World Police - and declaring the puppets the winners.
A piece on the infantilization of movies, especially summer movies, from the New York Times AO Scott.
A counter-argument from the Hot Blog’s David Poland who says, essentially, that things really haven’t changed that much over the last 20 years.
And finally, the best tribute I’ve read to the late John Hughes - by a considerable distance.
Happy reading - feel free to discuss these or whatever else you like via the comments. It’s a free-for-all kinda day.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
‘Julie & Julia’ a delicious double order
Take half a cup of a Meryl Streep period biography, mix a half-cup of a contemporary romantic comedy with Amy Adams, liberally sprinkle dozens of recipes, add a healthy dollop of pathos and voila - you have Julie & Julia, a delectable end-of-summer treat.
The movie is writer-director Nora Ephron’s canny fusion of two books: My Life in France by the famed chef Julia Child (Streep) and Julie & Julia by Julia Powell (Adams) a New York-based writer who blogged about cooking all 524 recipes in Child’s cookbook over the course of one year. Powell found herself along the way, just as Child found herself in her quest to publish a French cookbook for American readers.
This risky endeavor has led some people to complain that Powell’s story doesn’t have nearly as much weight as Child’s. Of course it doesn’t. How could it? Child lived enough life to fill several movies, and this one barely even touches upon her TV career. Powell’s story, on the other hand, probably couldn’t support a whole movie by itself, so contrasting the two women is absolutely the right approach.
When she moved to France, Child struggled to fit in. Even when she finally found her niche in cooking, people kept looking down at her - figuratively, anyway. She was too American, too daffy, too tall. And yet she persisted with an indomitable spirit.
When we meet Powell, she and her husband squeeze into an apartment above a pizzeria in New York. Dragged down by the double whammy of turning 30 and a stressful job with a 9-11 relief agency, Powell struggles to cope until she lights upon the idea of not only cooking her way through Child’s recipes, but sharing it with an audience.
Streep and Adams worked very well together in Doubt, but in Julie & Julia, they never share any scenes. All the same, the movie allows the actresses to play off each other well in two different ways.
First, Ephron very deftly segues between the dual stories, never lingering in any one of them too long, and drawing parallels without beating the audience over the head with them. Julie & Julia is easily her best-work as a writer-director, trumping Sleepless in Seattle and marking a fine return to form after the disaster that was Bewitched.
Second, the movie allows Streep and Adams to play to their particular strengths. It’s an old joke to call Streep a mistress of the accents, but here, the role never feels like a mere impression. I wasn’t thinking “That’s Meryl Streep doing Julia Child.” I was thinking “That’s Julia Child.” She’s never been more fun to watch. Stanley Tucci is delightful too as Child’s faithful, often irreverent husband.
In a way, Adams has the harder task. She has to take a much less well known figure going through all kinds of angst, yet still make her appealing enough to be an entry into the story for the audience. Some of the writing in the Powell sections isn’t quite as sharp as the Child sections, with some moments that only occasionally smack of a stereotypical “chick flick.” Still, Adams overcomes these with her boundless charm, whether Julie feels flustered or triumphant.
Not only did Julie & Julia provide a great showcase for two great actresses, it made me interested to try more French food. Heck, I might even try cooking it sometime. Watch this space if I do.
GRADE: A-
PS In case anyone missed it, my tribute to the late John Hughes can be found here.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
John Hughes, of ‘Breakfast Club,’ Ferris Bueller fame dies
Word has broken that John Hughes, the writer-director of such seminal 80s films as Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off has suddenly died of a heart attack at age 59.
Time prohibits me from writing a fully considered tribute right now, but this news saddens me. I wasn’t quite as much into Hughes as many people in my generation were (I’m 38, for the record) - I was more into visual auteurs like Spielberg and Scorsese.
Still, there can be no doubt that Hughes’ work defined teens in the 1980s. He “got” them (us) in a way that few other filmmakers did. My personal favorites of his are The Breakfast Club and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off - and this Beatlemaniac will always be grateful to Hughes for turning the Fab Four’s version of “Twist and Shout” into a top 40 hit in 1986 on the strength of its great use in Bueller. For one brief, shining moment, people finally knew what I was talking about.
Then, he wrote Home Alone in 1990, and in a way, that was the best and worst thing that ever happened to him. The best in that it brought him his greatest commercial success, and the worst in that it boxed him into a corner of lame slapstick comedies like Baby’s Day Out, Dennis The Menace and the Flubber remake with Robin Williams that were beneath him.
After 1991’s Curly Sue, he quit directing and more or less retired from moviemaking. And yet, with a mere eight films under his belt as a writer-director (several more solely as a writer), his influence was considerable. Most recently, it could be felt in the criminally underseen Adventureland, probably the best Hughes film Hughes didn’t make. It’s due out on DVD Aug. 25. I only regret Hughes himself never came back to remind us of how great he could be.
Cue “Don’t you forget about me” …
What are your thoughts on Hughes? What are your favorite films/scenes of his?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Will you see G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra?
Much has been made of the fact that Paramount has decided not to screen G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra for critics. Indeed, it may be the highest-profile Hollywood movie ever not to be given such previews.
So what’s my reaction, as a critic? G.I. Could Care Less.
Long before the decision was made not to show the movie to us, I had little to no interest in seeing it. I knew the movie Julie & Julia was also coming out that same weekend, and I am far more invested in that, both as a movie and as a subject for you, my readers.
I’m not naive enough to believe that anything I write is going to affect most people’s anticipation of G.I. Joe. Or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Or The Dark Knight. Or Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Or whatever Harry Potter movie is out any given year.
However, I would point out that my reviews of those blockbusters are very often my most clicked-on and commented-upon posts. Just look at my reviews for Transformers: ROTF or Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Maybe I’ll never have much effect on the box office of these movies, but for whatever reasons, people are reading what I write and responding to what I write. That’s what’s most important to me, and I thank those of you who participate by reading and/or commenting.
Still, given the choice, I would much rather review a film I can turn people on to, that they might otherwise skip, like Julie & Julia or 500 Days of Summer. Hearing someone say “That movie was really good, thank you for letting me know about it” is the greatest compliment a critic can get. You can read my review of Julie & Julia Friday in this space.
As for G.I. Joe, even if it were screened for critics, I would not be looking forward to it. I’m neither here nor there on most people in the cast, but the director is Stephen Sommers, whose movies are wildly uneven. Sometimes they’re turn-your-brain-off fun, like the 1998 The Mummy. Sometimes they’re bloated mediocrities, like The Mummy Returns. And sometimes they’re absolutely god-awful, like Van Helsing. That monstrosity felt like going on a ride at Universal Studios for 573 times straight, without ever getting back in line.
So when word was going around that G.I. Joe was so bad that Sommers was fired from the project (a contention the studio denied), that only made the movie smell all the worse. In fairness to the film, its Rotten Tomatoes score is 75 percent positive (based on only 16 reviews, it must be noted), and the first “pro” review I’ve read, from Variety, is more resigned than scathing.
Regardless, I have no plans to see it, in theaters or on DVD. If anyone feels I made a mistake, they are more than free to tell me so.
But enough about me - what about you? Do you want to see G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra? Even if it is from the guy who made Van Helsing? Like Transformers, Joe is based on a franchise that was popular in the 80s, with its “Yo, Joe!” and “Co-braaaaah!” catchphrases. Even so, I don’t get the sense this has the same pull as Transformers - and I don’t think it will do nearly as well at the box office.
Or am I wrong? You tell me.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What’s opening Friday, August 7?
This weekend is probably the last true weekend of the Hollywood summer, but it serves up two very fine films, one sort of unknown entity and one that’s, well … bombastic, at least.
500 Days of Summer: One of the best films of the year opens in Dayton this weekend. My full take ran last week. I urge everyone to give this vividly original film a try.
GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra: AKA GI Don’t Think I’ll See This. But will you? More on that later today.
Julie & Julia: Adams & Streep = Food & Fun. Review posts Friday.
A Perfect Getaway: Steve Zahn and Milla Jovovich star in a thriller about a vacationing couple and find themselves embroiled in murder. David Twohy (Pitch Black) directs, There’s not really much buzz on this title one way or the other.
At the Cool Films series
To Kill a Mockingbird: The number one hero of all time (per the American Film Institute) Atticus Finch, comes to the Victoria on Friday. Fun facts: The director of the film, Robert Mulligan, had a long career, going on to direct Reese Witherspoon in her film debut, The Man on the Moon. The producer, Alan J. Pakula, was a fine director in his own right, with such credits as Klute, All the President’s Men and Sophie’s Choice.
At the arthouses
The Neon adds 500 Days of Summer to its lineup; The Little Art plays Seraphine, the story of a self-taught French painter Seraphine Louis.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Has a movie ever made you want to read the book?
The trailer for Peter Jackson’s next movie, The Lovely Bones, has just come out, and it looks fantastic:
The movie is based on the 2002 novel by Alice Sebold, about a young girl who is murdered and watches from the beyond as her family tries to cope - and she watches her killer, too. Saoirse Ronan, who was Oscar-nominated for her work in Atonement, stars as the girl; Rachel Weisz, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci and Mark Wahlberg co-star. Jackson has made the film with much of the same team that brought The Lord of the Rings to the big screen. The movie comes out Dec. 11.
I’ve always thought it was inherently unfair (albeit inevitable) that movies are constantly compared to the books on which they are based. That’s why I typically do NOT read a novel I know is going to be made into a movie, especially shortly before the release. It would NOT do to sit there constantly thinking “This line was different,” “They changed that scene” or “That wasn’t in the book.” I don’t feel I could judge the film fairly with those distractions.
However, I think going in the opposite direction is potentially interesting. I’d really like to see how The Lovely Bones plays out on the page - but not until after I’ve seen the movie.
So let me ask you: Has a movie ever made you think “I’d like to read that book?” Or consider this: Has any movie ever made you think “That would make a good book?”
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment |
Martin Scorsese - popcorn filmmaker?
While screening Julie & Julia last night, I saw something that struck me as very odd:
The movie Shutter Island was being advertised on popcorn bags.
Wow. That might be a first for Martin Scorsese. Then again, I almost never get popcorn at the movies (I refuse to pay the exorbitant price on principle), so maybe I missed the Gangs of New York, The Aviator or The Departed popcorn bags. (At this point, I can only ruefully wonder what the Age of Innocence or Kundun popcorn bags would have looked like).
It makes me wonder how Paramount views the film. Do they see Shutter Island as “just” a thriller? Scorsese movies automatically raise the specter of Oscar, even though he finally won his, for The Departed. But then again, when The Departed was about to come out, the buzz was that it was “just” a police thriller …
Looking back on Scorsese’s work, I think the only film of his that can truly be called a popcorn picture is Cape Fear - and even that cuts a little deeper than most popcorn movies.
Odd. Very odd.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Today’s DVDs/What Are You Watching episode
The DVD roster today brings us two movies that are both solid, but could have been even better.
Race to Witch Mountain: Disney’s “reboot” of its franchise about telekinetic alien kids is decent family fare, with good performances and amusing nods and winks to the original films. Look for the inevitable cameos by the original kids. However, by focusing so heavily on Duane Johnson’s character, the movie shifts the focus away from the kids - and that’s a mistake, especially when one is the gifted actress AnnaSophia Robb (Bridge to Terabithia). Full review: GRADE: B
The Soloist: This was once promoted as a major candidate for the Oscars last year, and that’s a little hard to believe given the surprisingly juvenile humor and director Joe Wright’s overly flashy visuals, which kept pulling me out of the story. Even so, good performances by Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx as a journalist and a schizophrenic musical prodigy, make the movie worth a look. Full review. GRADE: B
What are You Watching
Funny People: It looks like Judd Apatow’s latest movie is going to go down as a disappointment in one way or another, and I find that unfortunate. This ambitious move that dares to mix comedy with issues of mortality (Adam Sandler’s character has a grave blood disease) doesn’t always work, but when it does, it’s quite affecting. At two and a half hours, it’s too long, and the first half meanders, but the movie finds its heart in the second half. Adam Sandler gives his career-best performance, and Leslie Mann is outstanding as the only girl he ever loved. Kudos also to Apatow for having the good taste to fill the soundtrack with solo songs by all four Beatles. GRADE: B+
The Hurt Locker: Kathryn Bigelow has always been underrated as an action director; in her best film to date, she more than proves her mettle with action scenes that put me in the thick of the tension of bomb squads in Iraq. The film gave me a “you are there” feel that was so palpable, I couldn’t help but be a shade disappointed with a distracting homefront sequence near the end. Still, the film left me riveted, not least because my brother is serving in Iraq. GRADE: A-
Your serve: Tell me what you’ve been watching, at home or in theaters.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment |
Who should star in Spielberg’s ‘Harvey’ remake?
Steven Spielberg once produced Who Framed Roger Rabbit - now he’ll be working with an invisible rabbit.
In something of a surprise, Spielberg has announced he will next direct a remake of Harvey, the 1950 film that starred Jimmy Stewart. Coincidentally, the film just played the Cool Films series in Dayton a week ago.
Unlike some people, I don’t think the idea of the remake itself is so horrible. Many people call Harvey a “classic,” but having seen it just recently, I don’t think it’s the movie as a whole that’s a classic - it’s not so unimpeachable it shouldn’t be touched, like, say, Vertigo.
It’s Jimmy Stewart’s performance that’s classic - the actor said that was his favorite role. So the real burning question is, who should play Elwood P. Dowd?
Tom Hanks has already been floated as a possibility, but I’d like to throw that out right now. Nothing against Mr. Hanks; I’m sure he could do it, but the choice is flat-out too obvious; the comparisons between him and Stewart have already been overplayed.
I have similar misgivings about Will Smith. I think he could do it too, but putting his name being out there strikes me as more “Let’s get the biggest star we can find” than “Who is truly right for the role?”
I’d like to think outside the box a bit here. It has to go to someone who can be good with physical comedy (essential for playing against an invisible rabbit), but who can also project a slightly loopy charm.
So why not Robert Downey Jr. who once played Charlie Chaplin so well it got him an Oscar nomination? Or how about Johnny Depp, who displayed excellent Chaplin-esque skills in Benny & Joon and knows a thing or two about loopy charm? And here’s an added bonus: both actors have good box office pull.
What do you think? Or who do you think?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
