Dave's Movie Corner

Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

2009-08-29T23:08:00.002-04:00

In the genre of exploitation films, there are numerous sub-genres. The blaxploitation film, rape-revenge, splatter, sleaze...the different types seem almost endless. But one that hasn't been explored yet is the World War II exploitation film*.

That has changed. In Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds we have been given our first exploitation film covering WW2. And it kicks ass.

The multi-pronged story should be familiar to most of you by now. A unit of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are air-dropped into Occupied France to terrorize the Germans. They take scalps and bash in heads, the bashing courtesy of "The Bear Jew", Sergeant Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) and his bat. They even have a German soldier who murdered Gestapo officers (Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) in their band. At the same time, a cinema owner in Paris who happens to be a Jew using a false identity is forced to host a German film premiere attended by the Nazi heirarchy, which is targeted by an Allied OSS operation. And tying all these different stories together is SS Colonel Hans Landa, "The Jew Hunter", played by Christoph Waltz.

The title may say "Inglourious Basterds", but the story is Landa's. He ties it all together. Nothing in the story would happen (except for one scene) without his involvement. And Waltz plays him to perfection. He is smooth, polite, intelligent and deadly. The opening scene where a Jewish family hiding under the floorboards in a French farmhouse are discovered and killed by Landa's unit is some of the best film-making you will ever see. Landa is exceedingly polite to the French farmer, but you know from the first how dangerous Landa is. From beginning to end, no other character grabs your attention on the screen like Landa. Waltz is all but assured a Best Supporting Actor nod and in a perfect world, he'll take that Oscar. Actually, in a perfect world (as noted by CHUD reviewer Devin Faraci), Waltz would get a Best Actor nod. That is how good Waltz is in Inglourious Basterds.

The sole survivor of the Jewish family massacred in the opening scene is Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who becomes the aforementioned cinema owner. She is the second most important character to this film. Dreyfus puts the climactic scene into action, an act of Jewish revenge upon the Nazi elite that is stunning and beautifully shot. But it begins to make you wonder why Tarantino named this film Inglourious Basterds when they are, in many ways, tangential at best to the unfolding story.

This isn't to degrade their performances. Pitt chews a bit of scenery as Raine but is a very enjoyable character, one that reminded more than a little of Lee Marvin's Major Reisman in The Dirty Dozen. Roth is obviously enjoying his role as Donowitz, even as he mangles a Boston accent**. And Schweiger's Stiglitz is memorable in the short time we get to know him. But by and large, the Basterds are mostly ciphers who appear only a few times before the film's conclusion.

And while Tarantino plays it straight for the most part, there are moments that sort of stick out. The British OSS scene is pretty camp, with the British officers (Michael Fassbender and Mike Myers) really playing the effete, snobbish stereotype to the hilt***. While the two scenes with a narrator (Samuel L. Jackson) are okay and are very much in Tarantino's style, they don't exactly fit in with the film he has created here.

But those are very small points against what is a great film. The dialogue is sharp and enjoyable, a contrast to the overly-wordy Death Proof. The memorable scenes are numerous (the two that stand out for me are the opening scene in the farmhouse and the climax in the theatre). And there are the moments of violence that every war film needs. And they aren't there simply to be there; every act of violence has a reason for coming into existence. This film is one of Tarantino's best, and one of the best so far in 2009.

Personally, I enjoyed all the nods to German cinema in this period. The mention of Leni Riefenstahl and the Pitz Palu. The appearance of Emil Jannings, one of the great actors of the 20s and 30s (and Nazi sympathizer to his lasting damnation). And the "film within the film" Nation's Pride (directed by Roth) looks like the kind of film Goebbels was funding at that time****.

There is some criticism that must be addressed. Some people are slagging Inglourious Basterds for ignoring the Holocaust, or for turning Jews into Nazis. All you can say in response is that...you missed the point. This is an exploitation revenge flick, not a serious look back at World War Two. Tarantino isn't making the next Downfall or Defiance here. Who in their right mind thinks that Tarantino is going to make a meaningful film about World War Two? Are these critics familiar with his work?

Inglourious Basterds gets a 9.7 out of 10 from me. Just a fantastic film all the way around. It's just over 2.5 hours and hardly drags at all. And Christoph Waltz is just amazing as Hans Landa. For that performance alone you should see this film as soon as you can.

--------------------

* This is different as opposed to Nazi exploitation flicks. No one would call Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS or One by One a WW2 exploitation flick. Or if they did, they'd be wrong.

** Which is amazing considering Roth grew up in Newton, MA. Still, it's better than those "Pahk the cah" jokes that are nothing like a real Boston accent.

*** That said, the scene with Fassbender in the tavern basement is off-the-charts great, in part because of the very "Britishness" of his character.

**** As a complete aside, there is a quick scene in the film that show Goebbels having sex with his female French translator. This is actually a very accurate depiction of Goebbels. The man was a serial adulterer and earned a rep for trying to get actresses on the casting couch, so to speak.

100 Films That Should Be Watched At Least Once

2009-08-18T09:56:00.003-04:00

This is actually an idea a friend of mine had (thanks, Kevin). The idea is that these films are NOT the blockbusters or the ones that everyone knows (or should know) you should watch. These are the films you should see at least once because they are damn good films. They could be damn good for a variety of reasons, but they are all top notch. Oh, and they are in no particular order. So, off we go!

1. The Incredibles

2. The Iron Giant

3. The Limey

4. Tae Guk Gi

5. Der Untergang (Downfall)

6. Ivan's Childhood

7. On the Beach

8. Time Bandits

9. Shawn of the Dead

10. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia

11. Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid

12. Mister Roberts

13. The Untouchables

14. Dark City

15. Delicatessen

16. Witness for the Prosecution

17. M

18. The Last Command

19. The Blue Angel

20. Morocco

21. Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no haka)

22. The Burmese Harp (Biruma no tategoto)

23. Kagemusha

24. Kelly's Heroes

25. Unforgiven

26. L.A. Story

27. Army of Darkness

28. Evil Dead 2

29. Duck, You Sucker

30. So I Married an Axe Murderer

31. Blackboard Jungle

32. Fail-Safe

33. Amelie

34. Betty Blue

35. Harper

36. The Shootist

37. Monument Ave.

38. Key Largo

39. 28 Days Later

40. Children of Men

41. Bird

42. The Dawn Patrol

43. Breaker Morant

44. The Thing (1982)

45. Kronos

46. Kung Fu Hustle

47. Hero

48. The Warrior (Musa)

49. The Fifth Element

50. Galaxy Quest

51. Midnight Run

52. Mean Streets

53. Seven Days in May

54. So Ends Our Night

55. The Best Years of Our Lives

56. Gallipoli

57. The Asphalt Jungle

58. Jeremiah Johnson

59. Lost in Translation

60. The Lion in Winter

61. Dirty Rotten Scoundrels

62. The Man Who Would Be King

63. Waterloo

64. Assault on Precinct 13

65. Suspiria

66. Soldier of Orange

67. Excalibur

68. Manhunter

69. To Live and Die in L.A.

70. The Color of Money

71. Eight Men Out

72. Coming to America

73. Sleuth

74. Ed Wood

75. Thank You For Smoking

76. Michael Collins

77. Howl's Moving Castle

78. Miller's Crossing

79. High Fidelity

80. The Full Monty

81. The Player

82. The Boxer

83. The Onion Field

84. Salvador

85. The Killing Fields

86. The Conversation

87. Under Fire

88. Thief

89. Rollerball

90. The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming

91. Gattaca

92. The Naked Spur

93. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

94. Captain Blood

95. Ivanhoe

96. Yankee Doodle Dandy

97. Duel

98. Parenthood

99. Cry Freedom

100. A Fish Called Wanda

It's All About The Timing

2009-06-18T12:30:00.000-04:00

Michael Bay feels that he has done as much with Giant, Exploding Robots!!! as one man can do with Giant, Exploding Robots!!! It's the end of an era.

Michael Bay has made his last Transformers movie - the director is set to quit the action franchise because he has "had enough" of making big budget blockbusters.

...

Bay, who is known for his explosive action sequences, is sick of receiving negative reviews from critics who dislike his movie-making style and is determined to move away from the genre.

One film too late, Michael...one film too late.

But the most interesting part is the last line, a quote from Bay: "I need to do something totally divergent, something without any explosions."

When has Michael Bay ever done anything that didn't involve an explosion? Bay has directed eight movies between 1995 and 2009, all of which were explosion-laden. Even The Island gets its explosion freak on. The thing is, I hope he is serious. I hope he goes in a totally different direction, because I really think Bay could do some fun, non-explosion stuff.

Two of the funniest commercials I have seen involved Bay in some fashion. The obvious one was his Verizon ad where he calls everything "awesome" and pokes fun at himself while blowing crap up. The other one he directed; the "got milk?" ad where the history nut wants to call in and answer the trivia question with "Aaron Burr" but can't because he ate a cookie and has no milk. That is some funny stuff and Bay is responsible for it.

So here's a director, a talented director (and he is) who wants to get away from the mega-explosions and do something different. A Michael Bay comedy, perhaps? I have only one word to say to that.

Awesome.

Farewell, Grasshopper

2009-06-04T14:04:00.005-04:00

Sad news today as David Carradine was found dead of an apparent suicide in Bangkok, Thailand at the age of 72.

If you are a youngster who came of age in the 90s, then you likely knew Carradine through the "Kill Bill" films where he, of course, played Bill. If you are my age and grew up in the 70s and 80s, though, Carradine will always be Kwai Chang Caine first in your heart. His role as Caine in Kung Fu will always be the image of Carradine that I see first in my mind.

Carradine had an extensive career with over 200 roles played between television and films. His most notable role was playing Arlo Guthrie in Bound for Glory but he also was excellent in Walter Hill's The Long Riders as Cole Younger and as Shepard in Q. But he would star in most anything. Some of my cult favorites with Carradine are The Misfit Brigade, Kill Zone and the awfully-awesome Future Force. John Tucker f-ing rules!

There wasn't another actor quite like Carradine, on or off the screen. One of the last times I saw him mentioned in print was thanks to an absolutely insane screening of Bound for Glory in Los Angeles that had Carradine as part of the panel. To say it got bizarre, insane and completely nuts is an understatement. Read about it for yourself, but here's a taste:

Then the subject of unions arises... and everything goes gonzo, never to return. Carradine says that these are different times from the 1930s and unions no longer serve the purpose they once did, or words to that effect. Almost immediately, as if coiled and ready to spring, a woman in the back starts shrieking that nothing about unions' importance has changed. Carradine reiterates his position. Cox, who has barely said a word up until now, starts shaking his head and mutters, "That doesn't sound like Woody Guthrie to me!" The woman I'll call Union Lady starts marching down the aisle, and now Carradine is shouting back, which might be okay if he wasn't yelling right into the microphone, which does not sound pretty. For about two minutes both of them are going at it at once, and she's the more obnoxious one. But because Carradine's mike makes him five times as loud, he's coming off as the bully. Some audience members are telling Union Lady to shut up; some angrily holler "Let her speak!" Two guys in my vicinity start shouting "Let's hear from Haskell Wexler!" About a dozen people get up and walk out in the midst of this -- one of them, almost unnoticed, being Ronny Cox, who manages to effect the smoothest getaway of all time.

Trust me, the whole read is worth it.

We'll miss you, Carradine. Your death is a hole in the fabric of the country that will never be filled.

Well...This Sucks

2009-05-28T10:49:00.005-04:00

Have you ever had one of those days where it starts off by life kicking you square in the balls*? Well, reading something like this to start the day is like getting a sledgehammer shot. Take it away, Devin...

Sometimes I think Tom Rothman is just fucking with us. Like he's just the world's biggest griefer, successfully trolling millions of nerds. I mean, how else can you explain the fact that 20th Century Fox is looking to remake Alien?

That's if Bloody Disgusting's source is correct. According to their source Fox is moving ahead with a remake of one of the most classic horror films of all time, and Ridley Scott is on board as a producer. I have some sources I can check with about this in the morning - not because I want to debunk BD but because I just don't want this to be true.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck FUCK! Or, as Devin says later, "Fucking Fox."

How can they even consider something like this? Alien is in the National Film Registry. It is the pinnacle of horror/sci-fi. The only movie that equals it in that sub-genre is The Thing and, oh yeah, Universal is fucking around with that as well.

There is no way that a remake would ever equal the original. And what exactly would a remake bring to the table? Better ship effects? The Nostromo was a fucking space tow truck! There is nothing glitzy about it! It's supposed to be a dark, dirty film. And dark and dirty in 1979 is the same as dark and dirty today. And there is no one, no one who can hold a candle to Weaver as Ripley.

A pox on anyone who would star in this. And a double pox on Tom Rothman, who should be dangled by his ankles into a vat of steaming dog excrement at the earliest opportunity.

--------------

* Ladies, substitute your worst non-pregnancy pain here.

Review: Terminator Salvation (2009)

2009-05-22T12:57:00.008-04:00

Note: I have tried to make this as spoiler-free as possible. But a couple of minor ones may crop up here and there. If you want a truly pristine viewing experience...you've been warned.

I saw the original Terminator when I was 13. I was too young to see in in the theater in 1984 when it was released (thanks, Mom...) but I begged my dad into letting me rent it on VHS the next year. It totally mesmerized me and is still one of my favorite movies of all time. T2 was a worthy successor, if a little more reliant on action than plot or writing. T3...the ending was really good. Other than that, I could have done without ever seeing it. And I would wager many people have had the same experience, which is why so much buzz has surrounded this movie.

What amazes me is the wide range of reviews for Terminator Salvation (TS), the fourth in the series and a reboot of sorts at the same time. Some people have loved it, some have hated it with a passion (see Harry Knowles' borderline hysterical rant at AICN). So I went into the theater last night not knowing exactly what to expect. Would it be a worth addition to the canon, or would I feel it crapped all over my childhood like The Phantom Menace?

Now, with some time to reflect, I think that TS is not a bad movie. In some ways, it's pretty damn good. But it also could have been a lot better and really missed the boat for how to go forward in the series.

Let's start with the good stuff. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is a great character. I don't think that his background and secret in this movie are exactly a secret anymore. Worthington plays the reveal about Wright's past (and what has happened to him) really well. He's a character you grow to like over the course of the film and root for. He has one moment when he is trying to enter Skynet Central that breaks his heart and all this emotion plays just across his eyes. It's a great beat that can easily be missed.

Then there is Anton Yelchin, who plays the young Kyle Reese. This was the performance of the film for me. If you think back to the original film and Michael Beihn's Reese, the similarities between the two is rather remarkable. Reese is the tragic figure throughout the entire series; he grows up in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, gets sent back in time to protect John Connor, gets laid once and creates John Connor, and then is killed by a Terminator. That, my friends, is the definition of a brutal life.

But Yelchin's Reese has only a bit of that grimness. He's had a tough life but still has a case of hero-worship for John Connor. He wants that jacket that proves he's part of the Resistance. He wants to earn his stripes. The scenes with Reese and Wright attempting to evade the various robotic hunters (more on that in a second) are great. If there was one giant drawback to his role, it's that McG put him (literally) in a box for the final third of the movie. Which is indicative of a larger problem I will address in a moment.

Moon Bloodgood does a nice job with the limited time she has on screen. As Blair Williams, an A-10 pilot who gets shot down and hooks up with Marcus as they travel back to the Resistance base, she plays a pivotal role in how she reacts to Wright when his secret is discovered. It may be a "duh!" moment for a lot of people, but it's an important moment thematically. And she also has an important role because it gives us a brief glimpse of the extra hell it must be to be a woman in this post-apocalypse world. Of course, she's also a woman who can knock a rapist the hell out. But she also gets short shrift over the final third of the film.

That's about it as far as the good performances go, and yes, I left Bale out on purpose.

Bale's John Connor is a one-note, one emotion character. It's all about finding Kyle Reese and the emotion is pained/angry. That is how Bale plays Connor across the whole film. Now, that isn't necessarily bad if you show something else about him. Hell, if I knew Reese was my future (past?) father I'd be breaking my back trying to find him as well. And I sure wouldn't be happy about killer robots destroying the world. But McG and Bale don't add any more depth to Connor. And so while you appreciate the necessity of Connor in this movie, you aren't exactly revved up when he makes an appearance.

Then you have Bryce Dallas Howard, Common and Jadagrace, who play Kate Connor, Barnes and Star. Three useless characters who add nothing to the film. Especially Star, who is such a blatant ripoff of the Newt character in Aliens (she's mute too!) that you want to punch McG in the throat. These three are given little if anything to do, and what they do is superfluous to the story or could have been done by anyone else.

Now to the special effects and the scenery and the set-pieces...wow. This is where TS knocks the ball out of the damn park. The battle scenes are jaw-dropping. From the first one (a raid on a Skynet facility that goes horribly wrong) you believe in this irradiated hell of a world. There's a set-piece where Reese, Star and Wright are hunted down by this multi-story Terminator that looks like it runs on coal or steam but has a pulse cannon on its shoulder. Oh, and it shoots motorcycle Terminators out of its shins. All these outdoor battles are shot with a washed-out, almost black-and-white look that really emphasizes how damaged the world has become. The various terminators are all unique and look real. Even the final battle at Skynet Central is kickass visually. The scenes are varied and creative (tow trucks can get the job done in 2018). There really isn't anything involving how the film looks that you can object about.

The plot and writing...

Look, for as much as I love Terminator and the whole concept/world...this has never been an "intelligent" sci-fi franchise. They've been violating the laws of time travel since the first film and then violating their own rules they made up for it. There are so many paradoxes and loops that this whole world would've collapsed upon itself by the time a metal Terminator came back in T2.

So for these films to succeed, they have to transcend their own limitations in logic and tell a damn good story and use an emotional hook. The original (which I reviewed for my 100 Best Sci-Fi Movies section) was a fantastic three-person story that was about the salvation of the human race. The second had the old "machine becomes human" hook which buttressed great visuals. The third film largely failed until the end when the inevitability of the world's destruction was realized and the weight of survival fell on a young John Connor's shoulders.

This film should have been about what it means to be human. It touches on it with Marcus Wright. But Kyle Reese could speak to the wellspring of human resilience as he lives a fated life that tries to beat him down and can't. Blair Williams' scenes with Wright speak directly to the idea that humanity transcends simple blood and tissue, and her ability to realize that gives the Resistance a chance to defeat Skynet. This film should have also set up Kyle Reese to be the centerpiece of the new trilogy. He carries more weight than anyone, including Connor. It's because of him that any of this is possible. And for the first 2/3 of the film, McG seems to have been doing just that.

Then it all falls apart at the end. Reese gets shut in a box, Williams disappears and Wright gets a couple of moments (one being nullified thanks to some heavy-handed exposition by Skynet). What we get mostly is John Connor hunting for Reese and fighting a T-800 that looks like Arnie (admittedly a very cool moment) and the most ridiculous revival/wounding/surgery ending ever seen. I'll just say this; it strains every bit of credulity for me to believe that Kate Connor can successfully perform a heart transplant in an open-air field hospital in the middle of nowhere. I don't care if its 2018 or 2318, that's just ridiculous.

Connor cannot be the centerpiece of this trilogy. And yet that is where McG seems intent on taking us. Connor needed to play a role in the first film, to put events in motion and to drive the plot that sets up this new world. But he is useless as the main character in any other film. There is no growth to his character, no depth beyond where he is right now. With the focus on Connor, the other films are pre-ordained to become little more than Michael Bay-esque wankery where all that matters is how big something blows up. The biggest mistake McG ever made was letting Bale play Connor instead of Marcus*. His star power and salary costs will force the focus to be on Connor when it should be on Reese.

The writing is the weakest part of the film, and it speaks to the actors that they rise above it to a large degree. Not only is some of the dialogue wooden (how Bloodgood got her "beating heart" line out without laughing at it speaks volumes to her dedication to acting), but characters are left by the wayside at random and logic holes are common and huge. I'm not even talking about time travel here, since that hasn't occurred yet (for them, anyway).

John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris wrote Skynet to be as intelligent as my old Commodore 64. This all-powerful computer has John Connor in its sights. And rather than just flood a floor of its building with super-heated steam, poison gas or even just blow up part of itself to kill Connor, it goes through an elaborate charade to unleash an Arnie terminator on him. It's like Skynet is a Bond villain, and not even a good one like Bloefeld. And then there is Skynet's occasional knowledge of Reese, which is baffling because Skynet should have no idea about who Reese is to Connor or why a T-800 would un-nerve Connor. And sometimes the script realizes that. And then sometimes it doesn't, such as when the robots use Reese as bait to lure Connor into Skynet Central. At this point, only two people know who Reese will become; John and Kate Connor. No one else, including Skynet, should have that knowledge. Hell, in the original they use the time-travel tech to go back and kill Sarah Connor, which tells me that Skynet should never have a damn clue as to who Kyle Reese really is. And yet you have Terminator after Terminator scanning him and using him as bait. It makes no freaking sense at all.

And there is too much exposition. They have a clever idea in the script that seems like a boon for the Resistance but results in the destruction of the Resistance command. And just as Skynet's plan (as brilliant as their pursuit of Connor is idiotic) comes to fruition, we are treated to a 15-second piece where one of the commanders explains for us what we are already watching happen. You'd have to be a dumb as a post to not know what was unfolding, yet Brancato and Ferris felt the need to tell us anyway. And then there is Skynet's lengthy history recitation with Marcus when, once again, we already know what happened. Exposition is bad enough when something isn't shown. It's 100-times worse when something is shown to us and yet the writers insist on telling us about it anyway. It shows a level of contempt for the viewer. To which I reply, "Hey, I'm not the idiot who wrote Catwoman, am I?"

Take all of the above together and what you have in Terminator Salvation is a damn good stand-alone action flick. The problem is that it is the first part of a trilogy, and McG has basically cut his own legs out from under him going forward. The last third of the film made clear that John Connor will be the focus of the trilogy and he simply isn't a deep enough character to pull that off. His story has no arc at this point. And neither will the franchise. That said, I enjoyed this movie for the most part. The world is believable, the visuals are stunning, the battles are intense and the Terminators are varied and creative. Throw in a trio of good actors making a weak script almost believable and you want to forgive McG for his baffling choices over the last third of the film. You don't, but you want to.

I'm giving Terminator Salvation a 7.9 out of 10. What I fear most is that this is the highest score any film of the trilogy will receive. It is so hard to make a strong second film even when you have great material because it's a bridge between inception and conclusion. For every Empire Strikes Back you get a dozen M:I-2s. I don't see McG making the former.

-----------------------

* Bale as Marcus would have established him as the main character in this movie, which would have been an infinitely better choice. The original ending could have resolved this problem as well going forward. McG should have had the balls and foresight to stick to the plan. Imagine if Cameron had given in back in 1984 and let Arnie play Reese...

Verbinski Upgrades

2009-04-08T11:10:00.003-04:00

This is a much better choice for his next film.

It's no longer a pirate's life for Gore Verbinski.

After spending the better part of the last six years directing the "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy, which grossed $2.6 billion worldwide, Verbinski has informed Disney and producer Jerry Bruckheimer that he will not helm a fourth installment that's expected to set sail in 2010 with Johnny Depp back as Captain Jack Sparrow.

Sequel is in development but not yet greenlit. It's unknown how Verbinski's ankling will affect the pic's schedule.

Verbinski will instead focus on other projects that include "Bioshock," a Universal Pictures adaptation of the bestselling vidgame that has a John Logan script and is likely to be Verbinski's next film as a director.

If you are not familiar with the game, Bioshock is, in many ways, a work of art in first-shooter form. It has a deep storyline that delves into Ayn Rand's pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism among other things. It's a fantastic game and begs to become a feature film. Verbinski and Logan would have to work at screwing up this film to not have it work.

And Pirates...after At World's End, didn't everyone feel the string was played out on this series? Where's the justification for a fourth film beyond greed? Films made for that reason tend to not work out too well. Nevertheless, although the quality will suck I am sure enough people will turn out to make it all worthwhile for Depp to revisit the role of Jack Sparrow one more time.

Is This Impressive? Or Sad?

2009-04-01T11:09:00.001-04:00

I liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Quite a bit, actually. I loved the books as a child and still read them now and again today. Tolkien set the gold standard for creating a living, breathing fantasy world. And Peter Jackson did an amazing job bringing that to the big screen.

That said...I don't like it so much that I would recreate Minas Tirith in matchstick form.

Look, I appreciate the hard work that must have gone into this. But think of all the other things Acton could be doing with his life right now. Like kissing a girl or seeing the sun. As opposed to buying out all the Diamond toothpicks in a 30 mile radius to recreate a mythical city.

The Legion Movies Are...Legion.

2009-03-31T11:41:00.001-04:00

It's a somewhat well-established fact that Hollywood loves to crank out multiple films of the same type/idea at the same time. Whether it is Armageddon and Deep Impact, those two Capote films, or the three-fer of Leviathan, Deepstar Six and The Abyss back in 1989, Hollywood loves to copy itself.

The latest subject to get multiple takes at the same time is the story of the Roman 9th Legion. The Legio IX Hispania is one of the better known Roman legions. In 43 AD they were sent to Britian as part of the Roman invasion of the isles. They stayed there through their "disappearance" in 117 AD.

That, of course, is the crux of the two films coming out on the subject. Neil Marshall, who directed the enjoyable, pulpy Doomsday is already working on Centurion, which I am guessing will be more of the same action except everyone will have swords this time and there won't be an Aston Martin. The new film on the block is Eagle of the Ninth with Kevin Macdonald directing. This will be more of a mystery/thriller where the characters try to deduce why the Ninth Legion disappeared into the Highlands of Scotland*.

I'm up for both of these. You can't have too many sword-and-sandal movies, be they action-oriented or more cerebral.

Oh, for the record...the Ninth didn't "disappear" in Scotland. There are records showing activity from the Ninth in Germany and the eastern provinces well after 117 AD. Hope that doesn't ruin the films for you.

--------------------

* I didn't see it mentioned in the Variety piece, but there is a book about the Ninth and their disappearance titled The Eagle of the Ninth. It was written by Rosemary Sutcliff in 1954. Is Macdonald's film being based on this book? Sutcliff supposed that the Ninth was destroyed by an army of Picts. We'll see what Macdonald does.

Hulu Challenger?

2009-03-28T13:33:00.003-04:00

Sony's Crackle.com could be the next big thing. It has some good television shows both new (Rescue Me, Breaking Bad) and old (News Radio, Larry Sanders Show), even if it is limited right now in its overall selection.

It also has a decent film selection, especially if you love Godzilla flicks. There are even some really good films like El Mariachi and Ghostbusters.

As far as presentation goes, Hulu is still well-ahead of Sony's new effort. But if they can clean Crackle up, offer more HD options and expand their catalog, they could compete with Hulu.

Get Your Lovecraft On

2009-03-26T11:40:00.001-04:00

I'm always thrilled when I hear a story about HP Lovecraft and/or his work coming to the big screen. Usually it is followed by disappointment as nothing happens (Del Toro...where the Hell is At the Mountains of Madness??). But this sounds like it has more legs.

Universal and Imagine Entertainment are gearing up for "The Strange Adventures of H.P. Lovecraft."

The studio has bought the film rights to Image Comics’ graphic novel, with the project a potential directing vehicle for Ron Howard. The book bows April 8.

U sparked to "Lovecraft" because its take on classic horror fits in well with the studio’s library of monster fare featuring Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy and the Wolf Man, the last of which is being brought back to the big screen later this year.

Created by Mac Carter and Jeff Blitz, book borrows elements from Lovecraft’s life, such as his family’s struggle with mental illness and his own bouts with writer’s block, and transforms the young writer’s darkest nightmares into reality when he comes across a book that puts a curse on him and lets the evils he conjures up loose on the world.

Sounds pretty good to me. And if Howard is actually involved, it would stand a great chance of actually being made.

As good as this is...why can't someone use Lovecraft's actual work in a major production? A straight translation from page to screen wouldn't work because Lovecraft's prose was rather excessive and, for all the dread he conjured, rather bereft of action. But the structure and ideas of these tales could be used to create something special on the screen.

As always, the biggest impediment to this new project, or any project related to Lovecraft, is the portrayal of the mind-destroying horrors that exist just beyond the edges of our sight. That existential dread Lovecraft portrayed in his books is almost impossible to show on screen. It's supposed to destroy your mind. And when it doesn't in the movie*, that robs the visuals of some of their impact. I think the best job ever done was when Guillermo Del Toro, in the first Hellboy, portrayed the Ogdru Jahad (the Lovecraft-inspired Gods of the Hellboy series) as these tentacled things encased in crystal. And when freed, you saw their tentacles writhing with those blood-red clouds. But you never saw them clearly. It was well done by Del Toro. He allowed the viewer's mind to fill in the blanks and that is the only way this kind of thing works.

All that said, I am definitely looking forward to this project making it to the theaters.

----------------------

* I'm not saying that, when we see the Gods at the end of a film like In the Mouth of Madness and we don't turn into raving lunatics, then the director screwed up. But the horror in Lovecraft's stories is experienced visually and felt mentally. And film is, obviously, a visual medium. So the two are intertwined. And even though we know it's a story we see on screen, we have also been told (through the story) that seeing these abominations will drive a man mad. It's a problem that every director involved in a Lovecraftian film will face.

These Are Conservative Films? - #19

2009-03-24T11:39:00.000-04:00

Continuing the countdown of NRO's "25 Best Conservative Films"...and why they are wrong most of the time.

#19 - We Were Soldiers (2002)

The commentator is Mackubin Thomas Owens , a Vietnam veteran and professor at the Naval War College in Newport, RI.

Most movies about the Vietnam War reflect the derangements of the antiwar Left. This film, based on the memoir by Lt. Col. Hal Moore (played by Mel Gibson), offers a lifelike alternative. It focuses on a fight between an outnumbered U.S. Army battalion and three North Vietnamese regiments in the battle of Ia Drang in 1965. Significantly, it treats soldiers not as wretched losers or pathological killers, but as regular citizens. They are men willing to sacrifice everything to do their duty—to their country, to their unit, and to their fellow soldiers. As the movie makes clear, they also had families. Indeed, their last thoughts were usually about their loved ones back home.

I'm of two minds about Owens' commentary. On the one hand, he's right about how this movie treats the American soldiers. They are citizen-soldiers with families fighting in a distant land.

On the other hand, his snide "derangements of the antiwar Left" comments smacks hollow. Owens talks about not showing the soldiers as "wretched losers or pathological killers", as if that never happened. As if the chaos and utter insanity of Vietnam never produced something like My Lai or left many in a generation of soldiers with mental damage. Owens knows he's essentially lying here, and he does so with a slight misrepresentation.

Ia Drang was the first major battle in Vietnam between the US Army and NVA. It occurred in 1965, well before the Tet Offensive. Well before the Phoenix Program. Well before Hamburger Hill or the Cambodian Incursion. To hold up We Were Soldiers and pretend it is indicative of how the US military was through the end of the USA's involvement in 1973 is like showing Washington at Valley Forge and saying that's how it was for the Continental Army the entire time.

Owens knows this; he's too smart not too. Just like knows that Vietnam was a clusterfuck from the get-go.

But even while he lies about what We Were Soldiers represents, it can be considered a conservative film. It honors the soldiers' service and does a great job of showing the sacrifices and suffering the families go through back at home.

Verdict: Right For The Wrong Reasons

To use this movie as an indictment of Platoon, Hamburger Hill or Full Metal Jacket is patently ridiculous. We Were Soldiers tells a different story about what was, in many ways, a different war than what was to come. But it does honor the soldiers and their families. And in that vein, NRO and Owens are correct about this being a conservative film.

Okay...This Is Awesome

2009-03-23T11:09:00.000-04:00

Warner Bros. has come up with an idea that is pretty brilliant: The Warner Archive Collection.

It's pretty simple. Now you can order a custom DVD of a Warner film that hasn't been released for retail. Read that again; if there is a film that you want, that Warner Bros made, and isn't yet available for sale, you can get one custom made. And if you don't want a DVD, Warner is planning to have a digital download option for a slightly lower price ($19.95 versus $15).

This will take some time; the entire film library for Warner is around 6,800 titles. And only 1200 of their films are available right now on DVD. The archive collection is only 150 films or so at the moment. But if you are a fan of, say, Darby's Rangers (the 1958 WW2 flick staring James Garner), now you can finally get your own DVD and watch it all night long.

I also hope that a favorite film of mine gets into the archive soon. Right now, Turner Entertainment owns the rights to all of MGM's films made prior to 1986 but not the name or anything else because of a bizarre chain of events when Ted Turner bought MGM/UA and had to sell it 74 days later to Kirk Kerkorian. But Warner Bros. handles the distribution of those films. One of the films that falls under Turner's control is Dark of the Sun, aka The Mercenaries. This is a kick-ass merc film from 1968 with Rod Taylor and Jim Brown set in Africa in 1960. It's 100 kinds of awesome and, for some insane reason, isn't available on DVD.

Warner, I am humbly begging you, please make Dark of the Sun available on your archive. Trust me, I am not the only one itching to buy a copy.

Another Nail In the Theater/DVD Coffin

2009-03-20T13:00:00.000-04:00

That may be overdoing it slightly, but the announcement that iTunes will start selling and renting hi-def feature films is not good news for theaters or DVD retailers.

Starting immediately, customers of the service will be able to buy the films for $19.99. HD rentals will be priced at $4.99. Beginning Thursday, preorders were available for "Twilight" (set for a March 21 release) and "Quantum of Solace" (March 24).

Among the titles available immediately are "Transporter 3" and "Punisher: War Zone."

Those prices are very competitive. And now we have films being transmitted to a proven, portable digital information device. Which can be plugged into a laptop or a desktop computer. And I would guess televisions are not far off (if not already here).

Which means I can now carry my movies with me wherever I go. And they take up a few square inches on my shelf as opposed to the whole bookcase. And as soon as studios realize they can release straight to iTunes, NetFlix or some new site dedicated to new digital releases, the theaters will take a hit as well.

I still think DVDs will weather the storm better (for now) due to the sheer volume of movies on DVD, many of them smaller, foreign or obscure titles that companies will deem not economically viable to convert to a digital download.

But this is a big step into the future. Have no doubt about that.

Review: Indigènes (Days of Glory) (2006)

2009-03-16T23:00:00.001-04:00

"We're changing the destiny of France. Things must change for us, too!" - Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila)

Director: Rachid Bouchareb

Writers: Rachid Bouchareb, Olivier Lorelle

Producers: Muriel Merlin, Jean Bréhat

Studio: Multiple studios in France (production), IFC/Weinstein Co. (US release)

Major Stars: Sami Bouajila, Jamel Debbouze, Bernard Blancan, Roschdy Zem, Samy Naceri, Benoît Giros, Antoine Chappey, Aurélie Eltvedt

In the wake of France's utter defeat at the hand of the Nazis in May of 1940, the anti-German elements of the government were forced into exile. Following the Allies retaking of the French colonies along the North African coast in 1942, the Free French recruited soldiers amongst the "natives"; the indigenous inhabitants of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. These units were instrumental in French participation in battles in Italy as well as in Operation Dragoon, the Allied operation that attacked German forces in France from the southern coast in August of 1944. These soldiers fought, bled and died for a motherland that few of them had ever even seen, but believed in with a fervor. And France turned its back on them.

Indigènes follows four soldiers from Africa during this time. Each of them joins for a different reason. Saïd (Debbouze) joins to find security and a future in the Army. Messaoud (Zem) wants to live in Marseilles after the war. Yassir (Naceri) wants to earn enough money to marry off his younger brother. And Abdelkader (Bouajila) wants nothing less than France to live up to its promise of "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality."

None of them get what they want. And that forms the backbone of Indigènes, Rachid Bouchareb's impressive war film that is more a drama film with war elements. It looks at the institutional racism that the French military directed at it's African soldiers even as they died to liberate a country none of them had ever visited. Bouchareb looks mainly at the experiences of Algerian soldiers (Yassir is Moroccan), partially because of his background (he is French-Algerian) and partially because the Algerian veterans suffered a great injustice; having their pensions suspended in the late 1950s as Algeria was on the verge of independence from France.

The racism they suffered is expressed in various ways. Minor things like being denied tomatoes in the mess hall that the white soldiers get are almost more offensive to the African troops than the bigger examples, like getting inferior equipment and being denied boots in the dead of winter. Then there are the examples they never see. Messaoud meets a white French woman named Irene following the liberation of Marseilles. They fall in love and write to each other. But they never receive each others letters because the French military intercepts them.

At every turn the Africans are called upon to serve France and fed the lines of fighting for liberty and freedom. And every time they answer the call, the French spit in their eye. Because being African, as opposed to being a pied-noir (European born in Africa) is akin to being nothing in their eyes.

Bouchareb does a remarkable job of bringing this story to the screen in a compelling fashion that never comes off as preachy. It really doesn't even hammer the French; Bouchareb just lays the story out for us and we can draw our own conclusion. And that allows the film to be as good as it is.

The battle elements of Indigènes are solid. It's a very classic presentation of war, something you would see back in the days of Patton and A Bridge Too Far. But a little flair is added here and there. A lot of an early battle is shot from low on the ground so the sprays of dirt from explosions dominate the screen and cover the soldiers. The final battle, where the four African soldiers hold a French village against a German company until the rest of their unit reaches them, is very well done and shot in a style reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan*. Throughout the film, Patrick Blossier's cinematography is top-notch and compliments Bouchareb's direction.

I have no real negative things to say about Indigènes. Maybe the worst I can say is that it doesn't do anything great but it does everything well. But that makes it better than most films. And it addresses a serious topic that too few of us knew about. Plus, how many films compelled a government to change its policy?**

On the current list I would place Indigènes right behind Braveheart. Bouchareb's film is the more emotional and arresting film. But Gibson's epic re-telling of William Wallace's fight against the British is just that; epic. And while I have issues with his history-telling, his direction is fantastic.

Definitely go out and buy Indigènes if you want a well-directed war film that deals with more than just blood and guts. You can buy it for under $15 at Amazon. And it would be a film worth watching as the lead film in a double-header with The Battle For Algiers.

Review: Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo (Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War) (2004)

2009-03-10T21:38:00.000-04:00

I wish this was all just a dream. I want to wake up in my bed, and over breakfast, I'd tell you that I had a strange dream. Then I would go to school, and you and mom would go to work. - Lee Jin-Seok (Won Bin)

Director: Kang Je-Gyu

Writer: Kang Je-Gyu

Producer: Lee Seong-Hun

Studio: Showbox Ent. (South Korea), Columbia TriStar (USA DVD)

Major Stars: Jang Dong-Kun, Bon Win, Lee Eun-Ju, Kong Hyeong-jin

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War blew me away. It’s a remarkable film, a war film that holds it’s own with the best of its Western counterparts. It’s a testament to the talent and quality that can be found in Korean cinema.

The film follows the Lee brothers, Jin-Tae (Jang Dong-Kun) and Jin-Seok (Bon Win), who live in Seoul with their family as the Korean War erupts in early 1950. Jin-Tae works as a shoemaker to put his brother through school. When the North Koreans invade, and Jin-Seok is forcibly enlisted into the Republic of Korea Army (RoK), Jin-Tae joins him to watch over him and try to get him home.

The only way to get Jin-Seok out of the RoK is for Jin-Tae to win the Taeguk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit, the Korean equivalent of the Medal of Honor. He volunteers for dangerous missions. By succeeding he gains attention from the staff officers and the adulation of his fellow soldiers. And Jin-Tae volunteers for more exceedingly difficult missions. But Jin-Seok sees this as changing his brother, who becomes more violent. And so Jin_Seok grows more distant from his brother

That is what makes Tae Guk Gi so effective. It marries the dynamic of a deteriorating relationship between brothers to some remarkable war scenes. This is where war films go from good to great.

And the scenes are amazing. The first major battle sequence occurs in the early weeks of the Korean War when the North Koreans have all but taken the South. The Lee brothers and their unit are surrounded by the Nakdong River and are being starved to death. They decide to launch a desperation attack against the North Koreans to break out.

This battle is as visceral and jarring as any scene in Saving Private Ryan. More so in some ways, as this is a blood feud in every sense of the phrase. Soldiers are beaten to death with fists and rifle butts. The filming is done with the shaking camera style Spielberg used for Omaha Beach and it works. You are dragged along and feel the desperation of the RoK soldiers who are fighting for their lives.

There are urban combat scenes that look like they were ripped out of documentary reels. The moment when 600,000 Chinese counterattack across the border is a stunning visual to behold. The work of Hong Kyung-Pyo as cinematographer on this film is absolutely fantastic. Not only in the moments of war but in the moments of peace at the beginning of the film.

What also makes Tae Guk Gi a great film is that it doesn’t pull punches with atrocities committed on both sides. We see the crimes of the North Koreans, with villagers slaughtered and people forced to fight for them. We already know about these. What we see and may be unfamiliar with are the South Korean atrocities. North Korean POWs are forced to fight to the death for RoK soldiers. In Seoul the Anti-Communist Federation executes suspected Communists without evidence as the Chinese approach to take the city for the North once again. This latter atrocity affects the Lee brothers in a personal way and drives the climax of the film. Hats off to Kang Je-Gyu for not holding back in his depiction of the war.

If there is anything negative to say about the film, it would be problems that are common to these types of films. Secondary characters tend to be caricatures to some degree. The plot gets rushed at points as Kang tries to cover an extensive period of time. But that does not detract in a major way from the overall success of this film.

I really cannot say enough good things about Tae Guk Gi. And it earns a really high spot on the current list. I’m placing it a hair behind Letters From Iwo Jima. I think Eastwood’s film was better, but not by much. And yes, I am telling you this movie is better than Braveheart or The Dirty Dozen. It's the simple truth. And this should prove that a great war film doesn't need big names or big bucks. Tae Guk Gi was made for $12.8 million. It looks like it cost 10 times that much.

You must have this film in your collection. I promise you that you will not be disappointed. One word of advice; watch it in Korean with the English subtitles. The DVD has an English-dubbed option and it just looks wrong. Besides, films should be listened to in the language they were shot in...with the exception of kung-fu films from the 1970s and 80s.

Hiatus

2009-03-03T23:40:00.001-05:00

My four-year old daughter is currently in a hospital bed with a tube draining fluid out of her chest cavity. I don't know when she will be coming home, so I am taking a break from writing as we work to get her well and get her home.

This is just a break, not an ending. And for all I know, I may need to write from time to time just to give myself a mental break.

Keep us in your prayers.

Dave

Review: Bang Rajan (2000)

2009-03-02T08:45:00.001-05:00

Those of us left know it's a fight to the death. - Nai Thong-men (Bin Bunluerit)

Director: Tanit Jitnukul

Writers: Tanit Jitnukul, Kongkiat Khomsiri, Patikarn Phejmunee and Buinthin Thuaykaew

Producers: Adirek Wattaleela, Nonzee Nimibutr

Studio: Film Bangkok, Magnolia Pictures (US distribution)

Major Stars: Jaran Ngamdee, Winai Kraibutr, Theerayut Pratyabamrung, Bin Bunluerit, Bongkoj Khongmalai, Chumphorn Thepphithak, Suntharee Maila-or, Phisate Sangsuwan, Theeranit Damrongwinijchai

In 1767, the Kingdom of Burma invaded the Kingdom of Siam (now known as Thailand). The Burmese forces moved to capture the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya. North of the capital was the strategically placed village of Bang Rajan. For five months, the Burmese Army was held back by the villagers of Bang Rajan. It was the only notable resistance in Siam against the Burmese. The film Bang Rajan covers that period of resistance in a story that begins weakly with some scattershot plotting, but ends strong with an emotional and visceral final battle.

It’s understandable why the plotting is so weak early on. Tanit Jitnukul is not only trying to tell us the story of Bang Rajan but is also trying to supply backstory on all the main villagers. So we get a battle and then a flashback. We see a new character, then a flashback and then a battle. Three villagers are sent to the capital to ask for cannons to defend the village and we get a 10 minute backstory flashback. It kills the flow of the film.

Bang Rajan also suffers from some weak dialogue early on. But that may just be a function of the subtitles not getting the full meaning of the Thai dialogue. In more than one film I have seen, the subtitles do not accurately reflect the spoken dialogue. So I am willing to entertain that as a possibility.

But the last third of the film is great. The dialogue tightens up as the stakes in the film are raised. The plotting falls into line and doesn’t deviate. And there is an emotional impact as the inevitable occurs and the village falls to the Burmese forces.

That is thanks, in part, to some good characters. The couple of Nai In (Kraibutr) and E Sa (Khongmalai) are the emotional core of the film and well-acted. The drunken warrior Thong-men (Bunluerit) is a ball of drunken rage, willing to kill any Burmese he finds with a pair of handaxes. And then there is Nai Chan (Ngamdee), who is recruited to lead the village after their original leader is wounded in battle. Chan is a coldly efficient killer, driven by the memory of his dead wife and Ngamdee plays is just right. Mention should also be made of Krit Suwannapaph, who plays Commander Suki. Suki is the ruthless Burmese general who finally brings down Bang Rajan. And he is ruthless; women and children are not sacrosanct to him. There is nothing likable about Suki. Those aren't easy roles for some actors to play, so kudos to Suwannapaph for a good job

What also helps the film get stronger are some bloody, visceral battles. You see arrows piercing throats and the resulting arterial spray. The villagers fight with these wicked swords and you see plenty of their handiwork. No punches are pulled in the filming of battles fought with muskets, cannons and blades. The final battle is the best, a last-stand by the villagers where they know that they are doomed. And you care about their fate, which isn't something you'd have expected through the first half of the film. Their resignation to their destiny is matched by their desperation to avoid it.

I read up on the actual history of Bang Rajan to see how the film matched the reality. There are some deviations in the tilmeline; Thong-men died in a battle well before the final battle against the Burmese. Commander Suki (which may be a fictional name) beat the Siamese not through wanton destruction but by building forts along the road and refusing the fight the villagers from anywhere else. I can understand why the decision was made; watching the Burmese build forts and staying in them would be boring. And it doesn't really affect the film too much. It's not as if they show the villagers actually beating the Burmese or using machine-guns or something. We aren't talking Enemy at the Gates levels of historical inaccuracy here

So where does Bang Rajan rank on the current list? I am placing it between Khartoum and Enemy at the Gates, but it is closer to the former than the latter. Bang Rajan is simply superior to Enemy at the Gates in everything but special effects. But Khartoum is epic in scale and is stronger from beginning to end.

I would definitely recommend buying Bang Rajan just for the fact that you don't see a lot of Thai war films out there these days. It's well-filmed and while it begins slow, it picks up speed and really hits on all cylinders over the last 30-40 minutes. You can pick it up on Amazon for a little over $13.

These Are Conservative Films? - #20

2009-02-24T11:32:00.000-05:00

Continuing the countdown of NRO's "25 Best Conservative Films"...and why they are wrong most of the time.

#20 - Gattaca (1997)

The commentator is Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. You may recognize DI as the hidey-hole for intelligent design/creationist "scientists" who just can't handle that the Theory of Evolution is proven and well-established. I can't imagine how Smith feels about this movie...

In this science-fiction drama, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) can’t become an astronaut because he’s genetically unenhanced. So he purchases the identity of a disabled athlete (Jude Law), with calamitous results. The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world—the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.” Biotechnology is a force for good, but without adherence to the ideal of universal human equality, it opens the door to the soft tyranny of Gattaca and, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of Brave New World.

Has anyone on the Left been preaching the necessity to abort babies with Downs or that we need clones?? I must have missed that one.

What I like here is Smith talking about the "ideal of universal human equality." Because Gattaca isn't just about the flawed idea of using genetics to softly segregate society and promote the welfare and well-being of a selected class. It's about using anything as an excuse to segregate society. Like color, gender, sexual orientation or religion.

If Gattaca was reworked as a sci-fi tale with Muslims as the have-nots because they weren't Christians, would Smith be holding this up as a conservative film? Would NRO? If it was a tale of a gay man being forced to act straight to pursue his dream, NRO would be slagging this film non-stop as some kind of vehicle meant to corrupt American morals.

Verdict: Wrong

Gattaca doesn't celebrate conservative values. It celebrates humanity and the resilience of the human spirit. That isn't the exclusive ground for any party or mode of political thought. We all share it.

Running Diary - 2009 Oscars

2009-02-23T00:03:00.001-05:00

8:10 - Hey, it's time for the Gay Super Bowl! Why else would they be talking about Valentino twenty minutes before it starts?

8:11 - Boyle and the Slumdog cast. Interesting thing I read: someone put out that Slumdog says that the protagonist's success says that his life in the slums was necessary for his eventual success. And that message is being sent to the upper classes in Mumbai and elsewhere and making them feel that much more okay with the crushing poverty that surrounds them. I don't know if I agree with that, but it's something to think about.

8:18 - What good is Nasonex if I get a nosebleed? Also, I am doing this diary with a bum knee that feels like A-Rod pummeled it with a bat for two hours. That's how much I love you guys.

8:20 - Really? They're marching the accountants down the red carpet? I can't wait to see what the janitor is wearing.

8:22 - Can you even imagine how awkward it would be for someone not named Heath Ledger to win Best Supporting Actor? How do you give an acceptance speech for that? You pretty much say "Sorry" and run off before the pitchfork and torch brigade storms the stage.

8:24 - Least surprising discovery ever: Tim Gunn likes seeing Marisa Tomei with her clothes on as opposed to off.

8:27 - A 100,000 crystal curtain...glad to see Hollywood is keeping the recession in mind with this broadcast.

8:30 - And here we go. Thanks, Diet Coke and Sprint!

8:31 - Okay, that is a pretty impressive curtain. The stage in general is pretty nice. Definitely an old-school vibe tonight, like something out of the 1950s or 60s.

8:32 - Mark it now; 5-10 years from now Australia will get a lot more love.

8:33 - Hugh Jackman dancing and singing?? Who saw that coming??

8:35 - As this is going on, you have to respect Jackman's talent. How many people can pull this off?

8:36 - And props to Hathaway. The girl has some serious chops. Oh, and for fun just imagine Frost and Nixon actually doing this. You're welcome.

8:38 - I have to admit, I thought the opening number would be lame. Make that the first wrong prediction of the night. Jackman knocked it out of the park.

8:40 - Streep and steroids. That explains everything...

8:43 - Ah, so this is how they are introducing the major awards. Having former winners introduce the nominees is very clever. Brings a lot of star power to the moment without extravagance. Whoever thought that up deserves a raise.

8:44 - So...Best Supporting Actress. I think it comes down to Viola Davis and Taraji Henson. If Tomei won it again that would be amazing. Could happen if David and Henson split the vote. But I am going Henson.

8:47 - And Penelope Cruz comes out of nowhere to win the award. This should make Bellini's acceptance look coherent.

8:50 - Um...can they do this for each one? The show will run about a day.

8:51 - We are Hyundai! Respect us! Please? We'll buy your car back...

8:52 - Diet Coke tastes like someone poured acid down your throat. Just saying.

8:53 - And do the screenwriters get the loving adoration of five former winners? Of course not. The people who create the kernel of every film are still getting screwed.

8:54 - That said, Martin and Fey are pretty damn funny. And was that just a major dig at Scientology?? Fine by me.

8:55 - Best original screenplay. If there is justice, it'd be In Bruges. Probably Frozen River.

8:56 - And I am 0-fer-2 so far. If Milk wins here, I am betting Rourke wins Best Actor.

8:59 - Adapted Screenplay. Strong nominees. I would guess it'll be Frost/Nixon. If Slumdog wins it'll be a complete rout tonight.

9:01 - And the rout is on. Unless they save Best Picture for a different film and I can't see that happening.

9:03 - Hey, isn't Brangelina sitting right in front of Anniston right now?

9:04 - A movie yearbook. Very nice idea. They really tried to redesign the show this year. So far it's been a success.

9:05 - Could do without the music choice though. It's like someone tried to Disney-up a Ministry album.

9:06 - Animated feature. Okay I know Wall-E is winning, but it should be Kung Fu Panda.

9:07 - Like I said, I knew Wall-E was winning. They should just call it "The Pixar Award" and be done with it.

9:08 - Animated short film. Let's say...Presto. Sounds good to me. And no, I haven't seen a single one.

9:09 - And the French one wins. Animated by a Japanese guy who barely speaks English. Still, I understood him better than I did Cruz.

9:15 - Art direction time. A rather under-appreciated job. So, does Dark Knight get a win here? I think it's The Duchess. The Academy eats that English stuff up with a spoon.

9:17 - And I guess this is where Benjamin Button gets it's Oscar. It is pretty impressive to cover decades of history around the world.

9:18 - Oh, and if you haven't guessed by now, I am almost always wrong on my picks. If you are online betting, do not listen to me. At all. Period.

9:19 - Costume design. Now it's The Duchess. The Academy eats that English stuff up with a spoon.

9:21 - Told ya! Even the blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. And why was Milk nominated. It's a bunch of 1970s suits. Not that hard to recreate. I bet half of you reading this have fathers with a suit like that in the closet.

9:23 - Makeup artist. So, do you go with Button or Dark Knight. Frankly, it should be Hellboy because that is just incredible work. But it'll be Button.

9:24 - Two in a row! I gotta log on right now and bet the mortgage on Best Picture.

9:25 - Does anything suck more than "The List" acceptance speech? So freaking dull.

9:26 - Patterson looks lame here, so I can only imagine how much Twilight sucked. I predict a Hayden Christensen career for the young lad.

9:28 - Another nice montage. The presentation this year is just phenominal.

9:32 - Oh Ben...you are so witty with the Joaquin Pheonix gag. Really. Just too much. I am dying over here. You're kiiling here. I mean, Portman got the best line. "Hasidic meth lab"...now THAT is funny.

9:34 - Cinematography. It's Millionaire, right?

9:35 - Right. I think the total haul for Millionaire is going to be impressive. It's taking every major award so far that it's been up for.

9:37 - Okay..why do all these people who find the dog in the Mastercard commercial keep letting him go? And there is no way that dog makes it across the Mojave. People die out there. You expect me to believe that dog made it?

9:39 - Biel representing for the sci-tech nerds. Nice. And they deserve more respect.

9:44 - Apatow's film...funny stuff. Do you think they really stapled that dollar bill to Rogen's face?

9:46 - Live action short. I have no clue. Let's say...Toyland.

9:47 - Hey, that's four in a row. Maybe I do know something about this stuff. But the truth is that anything dealing with Nazis always has a good shot at winning.

9:49 - You could have U2 sing for JC Penney and it wouldn't change the fact that their clothes just aren't that good.

9:52 - The musical is back...apparently. Oh well, 2009 had to go sour on its own at some point. But this sequence, as good as Jackman and Beyonce are, is just not fitting in to the evening. It's breaking down what was a solid, flowing show to this point. It wasn't a Rob Lowe disaster, but I didn't care for it.

9:58 - Betty White rules.

10:01 - It's Supporting Actor time! So who comes out? Chris Walken, that's who! Anything with Walken is a must-see moment. Oh, and Gooding is there as well. That's a more surprising win than Tomei's for My Cousin Vinnie, in my opinion. He looks old, too.

10:05 - Downey's role was impressive. But it's Ledger's award and we all know it.

10:07 - And the winner's name is read with about 0.01 seconds lag time between the opening of the envelope and its announcement. Well-deserved and utterly tragic all at the same time.

10:10 - Everyone in the crowd looks about a second away from busting into tears. And not just fake, Hollywood tears. I think he was genuinely well-liked by the entire industry.

10:12 - Documentary time. It's either Man on Wire or Encounter at the End of the World, though Trouble the Water could grab it.

10:13 - Nice suit, Mahr. Did you spray paint that thing on? Is it all leather??

10:15 - Man on Wire. Well deserved. And a nice short speech to go with it.

10:16 - And acrobatics to boot!! Who knew you could balance the Oscar?

10:17 Documentary short. Smile Pinki.

10:18 - Called it again. To be honest, I read a story on it Friday and it said that Smile Pinki was going to walk away with it.

10:20 - Inspiration Cafe...what a great idea. Takes a hell of a person to do something like that.

10:21 Shawn Johnson is NOT Emmitt Smith. Just in case you didn't know that.

10:22 Cruise kills Jimmy Kimmel. Nice.

10:23 Action Montage!!

10:25 - Hi Will Smith!

10:26 Special Effects. Could Button win again? Or does Dark Knight get another Oscar?

10:27 - They are going to give that damn film every minor award possible. Button sucked.

10:29 - Sound Editing. I have no clue. But if Wanted wins I will kill someone

10:30 - The Dark Knight gets a little more love.

10:31 - Sounds Mixing. Okay...Button again? Dark Knight? I don't know anymore.

10:32 - Millionaire! Talk about a run on awards...

10:33 - And the Will Smith Experience continues...Film Editing Oscar time!

10:35 - Millionaire, right?

10:36 - Right.

10:38 - Who gets married in a cow field? Zyrtec or no, that simply isn't happening.

10:41 - Eddie Murphy? Really? Giving the award to Jerry Lewis. That is either inspired or insane.

10:44 - Acting aside, he has done more for charity than almost anyone else. You have to give him that. And he looks pretty good.

10:46 - He looks like this is exhausting him.

10:47 - Coming up...musical montage!

10:48 - JC Penney, your clothes suck. Just deal with it.

10:50 - And here comes the music. Enjoy...while I go to get a drink.

10:53 - Best score. I'm guessing Millionaire.

10:54 - Of course it was.

10:56 - Best Original Song. Millionaire gets two songs. Like they need it.

11:01 - Jai Ho from Millionaire wins. That's about 1000 award for the movie now.

11:03 - YOU SUCK, JC PENNEY!!!

11:05 - A two-hour "Brothers and Sisters"? No thanks.

11:07 - Bashir loses the Foreign Film award? Wow.

11:11 - And here comes the Death Montage...with Queen Latifa signing to the dead. Bizarre choice.

11:15 - Ends with Paul Newman. Perfect. But...where the fuck was George Carlin??

11:18 - Reese Witherspoon comes out with a lousy dress for Best Director.

11:19 - We all know it's Danny Boyle.

11:20 - It's Danny Boyle.

11:22 - Danny Boyle rules the Universe. He's going to have to add a wing to his house to hold all the statuettes.

11:24 - Best Actress coming up with the Council of Five getting ready to pass judgment.

11:26 - Sophia Loren is fucking amazing. Does she ever age? She's 150 years old and blows Halle Berry off the stage.

11:28 - Cotillard giving Winslet a pep talk is insane. Winslet has how many more top-flight films in her career?

11:30 - I think Hathaway should win it, but I am guessing it'll be Streep.

11:32 - Winslet breaks the jinx! Glad I was wrong.

11:35 - And the speech keeps going on...

11:36 - Best Actor time. C'mon Mickey!

11:37 - Another Council of Five comes to the stage. Major star power. Douglas. Kingsley. De Niro. And then there's Adrian Brody. Who, oh who, doesn't belong??

11:41 - Anthony Hopkins is the balls. Period.

11:43 - And Rourke gets robbed. Not that Penn wasn't good in his role. But fuck...Rourke owned that role.

11:48 - Last award of the night. Best Picture. Can't imagine who it will be...

11:52. It's the Slumdog. Jai ho, everyone! Thanks for playing...

Why Entertaiment Weekly Drives Me Nuts

2009-02-20T13:13:00.000-05:00

They put out a list of the 25 Greatest Active Film Directors. The guys over at Slashfilm did the work of listing it and then tore it apart. And rightly so.

Go take a look at the list. It's insane not only in its structure but it who it omits. Peter Sciretta mentions Woody Allen, Spike Lee and Wes Anderson as indefensible omissions*. Well, I have another one; Alfonso Cuarón.

How, how, can Cuarón not be on this list? Here's his filmography:

Love in the Time of Hysteria (1991)
A Little Princess (1995)
Great Expectations (1998)
Y tu mamá también (2001)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Children of Men (2006)

Jesus wept. That is a career's worth of excellent film-making and Cuarón is ony 47 years old! How can he not be on this list but Jon Farveau makes it at 25?

And then there is the order. Would anyone care to try and defend having Zack Snyder ahead of Clint Eastwood? Ridley Scott behind Chris Nolan? It's just insanity of the highest order.

-------------

* To be fair, EW did add a 26-50 that includes all the aforementioned directors. But even that is screwed up. J.J Abrams ahead of Cuarón?? What metric did they have to invent to come up with a BS result like that?

My Five Favorite Films From...1998

2009-02-20T12:11:00.000-05:00

1997 | 1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987 | 1986 | 1985 | 1984 | 1983 | 1982 | 1981 | 1980 | 1979 | 1978 | 1977 | 1976 | 1975 | 1974 | 1973 | 1972

Honorable Mention – Monument Ave.: If you ever questioned Denis Leary’s acting chops*, this movie will shut you up. Great little film about the Irish Mob and the “code of silence” that has plagued Charlestown for decades. Plus, any film with Colm Meany playing a cold-as-ice mob moss is tops in my book.

5. Out of Sight: One of Steve Soderbergh’s best films and the best Elmore Leonard novel adaptation ever.** Is that J-Lo giving a solid acting performance? Amazingly enough, it is. It’s a solid script with some funny lines and harrowing moments.

4. Rushmore: This was Wes Anderson’s follow-up to his debut, Bottle Rocket, which came out of nowhere. So I’d imagine the pressure was on him to repeat his success. And he did; Rushmore is a wonderful film. Max Fischer is one of my favorite film characters.

3. There’s Something About Mary: This is the first movie my wife and I ever saw together. When she nearly busted a gut as the dog flew out the window, I knew she was the one. One of the best and most quotable comedies in my lifetime. It was the peak of the Farrelly Brothers’ career.

2. The Big Lebowski: Not as universally liked as Mary, but even better in my book. The best comedy the Coen Brothers ever made. Quotable in a way that few films are. Shomer fucking shabbos, baby.

1. Saving Private Ryan: There is not a stronger, more visceral opening to a movie than the Omaha Beach scene. Period. End of discussion. It brought home the genuine horror that is war to the public and made it real in a way that they could get a glimpse at what kind of hell it is. The rest of the film is solid as well. But that opening puts it over the top and makes it one of the best movies ever made.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Ronin, American History X, The General, Enemy of the State, The Mask of Zorro, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, The Wedding Singer, The Thin Red Line, Apt Pupil, Pleasantville, The Man in the Iron Mask, Waking Ned Devine, Rounders, Pi, Insomnia, Blade, A Simple Plan, Can't Hardly Wait, Spanish Prisoner, Hands on a Hardbody***

Underappreciated (x2) – Black Dog and Dark City: Patrick Swayze in a good movie not called Ghost or Roadhouse? That's right. Black Dog came and went pretty fast, but if you missed it you missed a damn good little film. And Dark City is still criminally ignored when it comes to the best sci-fi films in recent memory. Proyas' film is a great sci-fi noir.

Guilty Pleasure – Rush Hour: God help me. I am not a fan of Brett Ratner's movies by any means, but for some reason I like this movie. Maybe it's because Chan and Tucker weren't familiar with each other yet.

Major Disappointment – Godzilla: Do you remember how pumped up everyone was for this movie? Everyone thought it was going to be the blockbuster to end all blockbusters. Instead, we got a lame-ass bipedal lizard that didn't even breathe fire/radioactive death! Who cares if that is unrealistic? That is what Godzilla does! Emmerich completely fucked it up and made what should have been a slam-dunk hit into a disaster.

Growing Disenchantment With… – The Truman Show: I thought this was a damn good film when it came out. But the more I watch it, the more it irks me. The main problem being that there is no way in hell a television producer would be allowed to take a child and completely warp its very existence for the amusement of television viewers. It simply wouldn't happen. And the more I watch it the more pointless the whole film seems. It's not bad, but I've just grown tired of it.

Totally F***ed-up Film ̵ Orgazmo: Super-hero porn film staring a Mormon missionary. Yes, it's that insane but you wouldn't expect any less from South Park creators Stone and Parker. This isn't f***ed up in a Cannibal Holocaust way but in a "stomping sacred elephants and good taste into the ground" kind of way. Which makes it pretty funny from time to time.

----------------------------

* And after The Job and Rescue Me, those questions should be put to rest.

** Hombre is a close second. All this said, I haven't seen Killshot yet and lots of people who have seen an advance screening seem to like it.

*** No, this isn't a porno film. It's a great documentary about 24 people competing to win a new Nissan hardbody truck. The rules were simple: you had to keep one hand on the truck at all times and the last person standing wins. Trust me on this and see it if you haven't done so yet.

Make A (Bad) Name For Yourself

2009-02-18T15:55:00.002-05:00

Hey, want to get in on producing a motion picture? Want to get a co-producer title to your name? You do?

Did I mention Uwe Boll is involved? Not so interested now, are you?

If you are (for some ungodly reason) still intrigued, it's true; Boll is trolling for dollars. And he's taking a page out of the Obama playbook and going to the Internet for it.

Boll hopes to raise $18.5 million, 50 bucks at a time, for "Blackout" through the film's Web site, TheBlackoutFilm.com. Participants who sign up, and transfer the money, are promised a limited-edition DVD of the film plus a chance to win a trip to the set and other prizes.

Sadly, this means that Boll has finally run out of that mystery money he kept getting to make his grade-D schlock. That likely has to do with the disaster known as In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. Not only was the title horrendous, but it only made $11.8M worldwide when it had a budget of $60M. Combine that with the fact that Boll actually had a marketable lead actor in Jason Statham and still couldn't earn back 1/3 of his cost and his mysterious benefactors probably decided that they were getting out of the Boll business.

Also, this puts an end to my open request to those giving Boll his funding. I could have made a much better film for half the cost. But now that dream is gone. So sad...

Anyway, I guess if you want to get your name in IMDB this is the way to do it. A co-producer title for just $50 isn't too shabby, even if the film will be.

And just imagine if, in defiance of past history and the laws of time and space, that Blackout was actually a decent movie. You'd get partial credit for turning Boll into a passable director. That's the film equivalent of discovering cold fusion or curing cancer.

These Are Conservative Films? - #21

2009-02-17T11:44:00.003-05:00

Continuing the countdown of NRO's "25 Best Conservative Films"...and why they are wrong most of the time.

#21 - Heartbreak Ridge (1986)

The commentator is James G. Lakely of the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank that believes global climate change is a scam and lies about scientific support for that viewpoint.

Clint Eastwood’s foul-mouthed Marine sergeant Tom Highway makes quick work of kicking Communist Cubans out of Grenada. And, boy, does “Gunny” hate Commies. Not only does he kill quite a few, he also refuses a bribe of a Cuban cigar, saying: “Get that contraband stogie out of my face before I shove it so far up your a** you’ll have to set fire to your nose to light it.” A welcome glorification of Reagan’s decision to liberate Grenada in 1983, the film also notes how after a tie in Korea and a loss in Vietnam, America can finally celebrate a military victory. Eastwood, the old war horse, walks off into retirement pleased that he’s not “0–1–1 anymore.” Semper Fi. Oo-rah!

I have no bones with supporting the invasion of Grenada. I backed it back in 1983 and I still think it was the right decision. I do question whether chest-thumping about it is appropriate. Considering the facts that the US committed over 7,000 soldiers to the invasion and had total air and sea superiority while facing off against 2,000 enemy soldiers (mostly Grenadians)...weren't we expected to win this one pretty easily?

Lakely also ignores the fact that the real invasion was a bit of a clusterfuck, something that is touched upon in the film. The maps the soldiers were given were crap. US soldiers were victims of friendly fire by USAF close air support. Communications were a mess in general.

But at the end of the day, Heartbreak Ridge is a film that is unflinching in its support of the military (even though in real-life the US military withdrew their support for the film because of numerous issues). And since the conservatives are unflinching in their support...

Verdict: Right

I'll give them this one. The film is overwhelmingly positive about Eastwood's old-school Marine and the way he builds up his platoon. It's stridently anti-communist. And it doesn't expect a lot from it's viewer. It's the kind of film that conservatives love to watch.

Inglourious Basterds For Your Viewing Pleasure

2009-02-12T12:16:00.002-05:00

By now you should know that the first trailer for Tarantino's long-awaited pulp World War Two Flick, Inglourious Basterds is now all over the Intertubes. Check it out. Here's the link. I tried embedding it and it just wasn't working right.

You have to love the whole "Once Upon A Time...In Nazi-Occupied France" beginning. And I like Pitt as Aldo Raine. I am also enthused about the whole look of the film. It has that gritty feel a good action/war flick should have.

My one reservation...Eli Roth as Sgt. Donowitz. His nickname is "The Bear Jew" and he beats Nazis to beat with a baseball bat. Now, I like the whole concept. But does Eli Roth look like a sergeant? Or like someone who would wield a bat as an instrument of death? He just doesn't come across that way to me. That said, it isn't enough of a disconnect to stop me from wanting to see this film. Frankly, there haven't been enough (any) World War Two films with a pulp/exploitation bent. That is pretty much what this film is; the first war-ploitation flick.*

------------------

* This obviously doesn't include Nazi exploitation films, which have an extensive and lurid past. But you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS or any other film in that sub-genre has anything to actually do with war.

These Are Conservative Films? - #22

2009-02-11T11:20:00.002-05:00

And here is where NRO's list goes utterly and completely off the rails. More than any other film on this list, this selection is just wrong in so many ways. I cannot believe they had the brass balls to put it on here. That said, it is wrong because of why NRO thinks it is conservative, not because of why the author thinks it is. Confusing? I'll explain after the description.

#22 - Brazil (1985)

This choice is brough to us by S. T. Karnick, a writer and commentator.

Vividly depicting the miserable results of elitist utopian schemes, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil portrays a darkly comic dystopia of malfunctioning high-tech equipment and the dreary living conditions common to all totalitarian regimes. Everything in the society is built to serve government plans rather than people. The film is visually arresting and inventive, with especially evocative use of shots that put the audience in a subservient position, just like the people in the film. Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate.

Now, if you are like me, you read this part:

Terrorist bombings, national-security scares, universal police surveillance, bureaucratic arrogance, a callous elite, perversion of science, and government use of torture evoke the worst aspects of the modern megastate.

And wondered just what NRO and Karnick were smoking. After all, that basically describes the last eight years of Republican governance. As in, every single thing there is applicable to the Bush Administration, which National Review pimped ad nauseam.

I mean, Gilliam holds up consumerism as the way the government controls the masses. "Consumers for Christ" anyone? And didn't Bush tell everyone the way to respond to 9/11 was to keep shopping? The whole terrorist subplot is shown to be a fiction used by the government to allow for their own excesses. Sound familiar?

So here I am ready to rip into Karnick when I read his explanation.

Karnick is an old-school conservative, as in Edmund Burke and Adam Smith old-school. When you look at Brazil from that viewpoint (a viewpoint utterly disassociated with modern conservatism) his praise for Brazil makes perfect sense. The error Karnick made was in writing it for NRO, a website that has as much in common with classic liberal thought as it does with logic and rational thought. Had he written that paragraph for a movie site or his own, I doubt it would have elicited even 1/100th of the rancor it received.

Verdict: Right For The Wrong Reasons

Brazil can be considered "conservative" if you are using that term as someone like Burke would have used it. Trying to claim it for the modern conservative movement is absolutely nuts, as Brazil is Dick Cheney's wet-dream come to life on celluloid.

These Are Conservative Films? - #23

2009-02-11T10:51:00.001-05:00

Let's continue our stroll through the (supposed) top 25 Conservative films from NRO.

#23 - United 93 (2006)

This choice is brough to us by Andrew Coffin, director of the Reagan Ranch and vice president of Young America’s Foundation.

Minutes after terrorists struck on 9/11, Americans launched their first counterattack in the War on Terror. Director Paul Greengrass pays tribute to the passengers of United 93 by refusing to turn their story into a wimpy Hollywood melodrama. Instead, United 93 unfolds as a real-time docudrama. Just as significantly, Greengrass provides a clear depiction of our enemies. United 93 opens as four Muslim terrorists pray in a hotel room. Several hours later, the hijackers’ frenzied shrieks to Allah mingle with the prayerful supplications of United 93’s passengers as they crash through the cockpit door and strike a blow against those who would terrorize our country.

Okay, I am guessing that this is "conservative" because liberals would have negotiated with the terrorists? Would have sympathized with them and helped? I don't exactly understand the logic that trying to save your lives and those of others is an inherently conservative action.

Keep in mind that United 93 took off from New York, which is not exactly a hotbed of conservatism. Is Coffin making the claim that every person on that plane was a Republican? Because that is the only way you could even begin to make an argument that was happened on that plane was conservative. And that simply isn't true.

Even now, almost eight years later, the Right reflexively politicizes the tragedy of 9/11.

Verdict: Insanely Wrong

United 93 is not a film that is conservative. It is a film that is American in its scope. It extols the bravery and sacrifice of American citizens, regardless of their politics. And for Coffin to misread that says more about him than it does about the film.

These Are Conservative Films? - #24

2009-02-10T14:40:00.001-05:00

Running down the NRO list one film at a time...

#24 - Team America: World Police

This entry comes courtesy of Brian C. Anderson. He writes:

This marionette movie from South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone is hard to categorize as conservative. It’s amazingly vulgar and depicts Americans as wildly overzealous in fighting terror. Yet the film’s utter disgust with air-headed, left-wing celebrity activism remains unmatched in popular culture. As the heroes move to stop a WMD apocalypse, they clash with Alec Baldwin, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and a host of others, whom they take out with gunfire, sword, and martial arts before saving the day. The movie, like South Park itself, reveals Parker and Stone as the two-headed George Grosz of American satire.

Well, Brian sort of tees up the ball when he admits in the first sentence that TA:WP isn't a conservative film. After all, their excesses in fighting terror including blowing up much of Paris and Cairo, which is a clear mockery of how the neo-cons want to pursue the "War on Terror". It also has insane puppet sex and one puppet giving oral to get his job back. And whenever a new location is named, it's distance in miles to the US is shown. It mocks the US-centric world view that is key to modern conservatism.

Of course, Stone and Parker also relentlessly mock the Left and their idiot responses to the terrorists. But that is balanced out by the equal mockery of the Right. No one comes out the winner here in the Battle of Political Sides.

Verdict: Wrong

Team America: World Police is a film crafted by Libertarians, not conservatives. When you look at it that way, it makes perfect sense. Only two films in and you can see how the NRO guys are stretching to fill out this list. Trust me, this isn't even close to their worst offense.

And Anderson calling Stone and Parker "the two-headed George Grosz of American satire" is high comedy. He knows that Grosz was a communist, right?

These Are Conservative Films? - #25

2009-02-10T14:07:00.004-05:00

I don't try to inject politics too often into my movie blog. But I have done it enough that it should be obvious that I voted for Obama and think the GOP is full of lobotomized monkeys.

Anyway, one of the big online right-wing sites is NRO (National Review Online). They have recently compiled a list of what they consider to be the "25 Most Conservative Films." Now, considering these asshats were wrong about Iraq, the economy and everything else, why should we trust them on movies.

So I have decided to see if they are right. I'll look at the film, see what they wrote and then decide if they are right or wrong. There are three possible results:

Right: If they are right you will see the image of a blind squirrel and a nut. Because that is how rare it is for NRO to get something correct.

Wrong: If they misfire they get the Bush "O" face. Because it is so, so wrong.

Right for the wrong reason: If they miss the reason that a film is conservative, you'll know by the picture of Charles Darwin, in honor of his getting evolution right but missing just how species evolved and specialized (hint: it's not a branching tree).

So here we go with the first one:

#25 - Gran Torino

Andrew Breitbart, the self-appointed head conservative in Hollywood, started things off for NRO with Clint Eastwood's latest, and most successful, film. He writes:

Clint Eastwood directs and stars in the ultimate family movie unsuitable for the family. He plays Walt Kowalski, a caricature of an old-school, dying-breed, Polish-American racist male, replete with post-traumatic stress disorder from having served in the Korean War. Kowalski comes to realize that his exotic Hmong neighbors embody traditional social values more than his own disaster of a Caucasian nuclear family. Dirty Harry blows away political correctness, takes on the bad guys, and turns a boy into a man in the process. He even encourages the cultural assimilation of immigrants. It feels so good, you knew the Academy would ignore it.

Um...okay? If turning a boy into a man makes for a conservative film, then I expect to see Karate Kid on this list. I'll grant him the contrast between the Hmongs and Walt's own family. But Breitbart ignores that Walt is increasingly adrift in a changing world (the hospital scene being a clear example) in part because of his reluctance to engage with that world. And the cultural diversity on display is something that isn't exactly associated with conservatives these days.

Verdict: Wrong

Gran Torino is not a paean to conservative thought and hard-work. It's a story of a man haunted by his past and shut off from the world around him re-engaging with that world and putting his demons to rest. It's a story of emotional growth and human connection, which isn't something I consider particularly conservative.

Review: Time Bandits (1981)

2009-02-09T12:31:00.000-05:00

“God isn't interested in technology. He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!” – Evil Genius (David Warner)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Writers: Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin

Producers: George Harrison, Denis O'Brien, Terry Gilliam and Neville C. Thompson

Studio: HandMade Films

Major Stars: David Rappaport, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, Shelley Duvall, David Warner, Kenny Baker, Ralph Richardson, Craig Warnock

There are few directors that take more risks than Terry Gilliam. He is uncompromising in what he wants to show and how to show it. His films reward careful viewing and punish the lazy movie-goer. If you only watch Time Bandits with a casual eye, you'll miss out on an unique sci-fi film that is loads of fun to watch.

Gilliam tackles a theme no less than the evils of modernization. From the get-go, we see our protagonist, 10-year old Kevin (Warnock), ignored by his parents because they are obsessed with their television or the latest kitchen gadgets. Kevin is a dreamer, who reads books about ancient Greece and the Middle Ages. After a bizarre dream, he stays awake to see if it was a dream. Instead, a gang of dwarfs fall out of his closet.

They are on the run from the Supreme Being because they stole his map. A map that shows holes in time and space that one can use to travel anywhere. And when the Supreme Being finds them, Kevin joins them as they flee. Gilliam sets all this up in less than 10 minutes, which is how a film should work. It's amazing how many films screw around for 20-30 minutes before they get to the story itself.

The dwarfs are led by Randall (Rappaport). They worked for the Supreme Being until he demoted them, so they stole the map and decided to commit robberies in different times to become rich. Kevin is looking for something else; a father figure that pays attention to him. As they travel through time, they meet various people like Napoleon (Holm), Agamemnon (Connery) and, unfortunately for them, the Evil Genius (Warner). He wants the map to break free from his castle and destroy the Supreme Being, so he tries to lure the group to his castle that is stuck in the Time of Legends.

It's no mistake that Kevin finds the father figure he wants in Agamemnon; it's the time period in the movie most removed from modern technology. Just as it is no mistake that the Evil Genius is obsessed with technology. Gilliam makes the case that technology binds us and denies us our freedom and he hits that theme throughout the movie. Even the ending, as abrupt, shocking and arguably cruel as it is, is about liberating ourselves from technology and embracing the freedom our minds can provide.

There are parts of the film that are genuinely hilarious. Napoleon is obsessed with the height of great military leaders. Warner plays the Evil Genius so well that every scene with him gets a laugh or two. Ralph Richardson, as the Supreme Being, steals the end of the movie with his portrayal of the Almighty as a slightly absent-minded but all-powerful bureaucrat.

I think there are also moments where the film drags a little. As funny as moments were when the gang was captured by the Ogre and his wife in the Time of Legends, it all seemed kind of pointless. Although, to be fair, the boat they used (and the gang then steals) lines up one of the most awesome visuals I have seen in a movie; a moment of pure, creative genius. And the reappearance across time of Vincent and Pansy (Palin and Duvall) as lovers always finding themselves in a bad way was cute, but it felt superfluous to me.

But that is more than outweighed by all the great stuff in this film. The gang singing "Me and My Shadow" to Napoleon on a stage in a bombed-out Italian city. A bumbling Robin Hood (Cleese) and his band of less-than-merry men. And the interactions between the dwarfs themselves are hilarious. All that is thanks to a really good script written by Gilliam and Palin.

Peter Biziou's great cinematography on a small budget brings a lot of realism to scenes that could have easily looked cheap. He does a great job in making deserts look endless, castles appear ominous, and a bombed-out city looking like a bombed-out city. He went on to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography with Mississippi Burning. He also DPed one of my personal favorites, Richard III. Time Bandits was one of his earlier films but you can see that talent already present in his work.

Another important element is the costume design by James Acheson. This was his first film after doing Doctor Who for the BBC. The gang wears a hodgepodge of various uniforms with bandoleers slung across their waists. The Evil Genius' costume is this wicked design of black and crimson red. The scenes in ancient Greece are full of colorful robes. The costumes so perfectly evoke the personalities of the characters. Even the Supreme Being's classic suit says as much about him as his words. Acheson has won three Oscars for costume design since then, so Gilliam found a gem in hiring him for the film.

And kudos to Palin for writing the movie with idea of casting little people in the role of the Bandits. He didn't have to do that. And he played the film straight; they weren't mocked or used for a cheap laugh a single time. They had a genuine opportunity to act without all of that preconceived bullshit some people have and to a man they knocked it out of the park. Time Bandits is a forgotten film without Rappaport and his co-actors in those roles. They are the reason for its success.

I cannot say enough good things about Time Bandits. It's a funny, thoughtful sci-fi film that has a serious theme but delivers it with some laughs. On the current list I would put it between Rollerball and They Live with it being closer to the former. Not too many sci-fi films can talk about free will and the dangers of technology while being entertaining and funny. But Time Bandits does it with ease. Definitely a must-own for anyone who loves sci-fi or movies in general.

What? What?

2009-02-05T12:59:00.000-05:00

I keep reading this story and I can't make it make sense in my head. I fear I might be stroking off or something, because this is just too bizarre to be real.

Universal Pictures is sweet on "Candy Land."

Studio has set Etan Cohen to write and Kevin Lima to direct a live-action feature based on the enduring Hasbro board game.

Project is the first film to emerge from the deal U made last February with Hasbro, whose properties are the basis for the summer tentpole films "G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" and "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen."

That last paragraph makes it sound like this is the price Universal had to pay. "Oh, we'll let you use our two best properties. But you have to agree to try a make a movie out of a board game that uses colored squares."

I can't wait for the Yahtzee trilogy to come out.

Is it even worth ranting once again about the idiocy of Hollywood? I would guess there is at least one script out there that would make a better movie than Candy Land. In fact, that should be the new studio standard. When presented with a script, they should ask "Would I rather make this or Candy Land?" and then choose accordingly.

Review: Zulu (1964)

2009-02-05T07:30:00.003-05:00

If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle. - Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker)

Director: Cy Endfield

Writers: John Prebble and Cy Endfield (screenplay)

Producer: Joseph E. Levine (executive producer), Stanley Baker and Cy Endfield

Studio: Paramount British Pictures

Major Stars: Stanley Baker, Michael Caine, Nigel Green, Jack Hawkins, James Booth, Ulla Jacobsson

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing the ending of the film. With that in mind, there are SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

Zulu brings you back to the old days of the epic war film. It was mostly shot on location in South Africa, uses thousands of extras and has those wonderful large-scale war scenes. Held back only by a tendency to play loose with history, Zulu is one of the better war films ever made.

The battle in question is the defense of Rorke’s Drift in 1879 in Natal, South Africa. At the time, a war had just broken out between the British Empire and the Zulus. 1500 British soldiers and native levies moved out to attack the Zulu, leaving behind just under 140 soldiers to garrison the mission at Rorke’s Drift. The rest of the British soldiers were slaughtered at the Battle of Isandlwana to a man. That result left the soldiers at Rorke’s Drift facing over 4,000 Zulu warriors.

The commanding officer of the soldiers, Lieutenant John Chard, is played by Stanley Baker. Chard belongs to the Royal Engineers and isn’t a line officer, and Baker plays him right. Chard is rough around the edges, not hung up on the little formalities than permeated the British military in that time.

Michael Caine plays that kind of officer in his first role of note. His Lieutenant Bromhead is all upper-crust British, with the affectations and perfectly tailored uniform. Watching him develop into a battle-tested officer is one of the numerous character-growth threads that tie together the major story.

Another key figure is Color Sergeant Bourne, played by Nigel Green*. He is the classic sergeant that holds his men together and is utterly stoic in the face of danger. James Booth plays Henry Hook, a soldier who lingers in the infirmary to get out of duty but becomes a hero. These are the major players in the movie.

And mention must be made of Otto Witt, the missionary played by Jack Hawkins. He doesn’t want the British and Zulu to fight. He scares the native levies at Rorke’s Drift into deserting. He tries to scare the soldiers into fleeing. And he exits the movie as a broken and drunken man. It’s a great role to play, if an unsympathetic one, and Hawkins is excellent in it**.

But what drives this film are the battle scenes. The battle at Rorke’s Drift is the epic defense in British military history. 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to soldiers for their actions that day. They fought off a Zulu army that outnumbered them almost 29-1. And Zulu does a great job of showing how desperate the British defense was against the Zulus.

The native warriors come in waves with their spears and shield as the thin British line engages in volley fire and then use their bayonets. Each soldier has to deal with four or five Zulus. It always looks like they’ll be swallowed whole by the Zulu wave. And yet the Brits survive and keep fighting.

The last engagement is the best one as the power of technology is used against the Zulus. The soldiers form a three-row firing line and set up a rolling fire. Volley after volley crashes into the Zulus as Chard and Bromhead yell out the command to fire with desperation in their voices. It’s a tense scene as the roar and thunder of each volley fills your ears.

The scenery is as authentic as it comes; the film was shot in Natal. It is beautiful and adds even more realism to the film.

And mention must be made of the music and the sound. John Barry scored the film and the music enhances the scenes. There is one moment where the British soldiers, who are mostly Welsh in origin, sing “Men of Harlech” while facing thousands of Zulu singing their war chant. The songs of the two groups mixing with one another are a great bit of work.

But there are a couple of negatives. The first is that the history of Rorke’s Drift is manipulated somewhat. Henry Hook wasn’t a malingerer in real life; he was a damn good soldier. Bromhead wasn’t a near-lisping, wet-behind-the-ears officer; he was almost totally deaf. The Zulu weren’t armed with rifles taken from the British dead at Isandlwana; they had old muskets. Otto Witt wasn’t trying to break British morale and get them to leave; he worked with the British to beat the Zulus. And there wasn’t a big last engagement in the morning, just limited skirmishing before the Zulu left the area. By themselves, the inaccuracies are no big deal. As a group, it does matter a little more. And there were consequences for these decisions. Hook’s daughters walked out on the premiere because of the way he was portrayed.

And the other reason, while not impacting the film itself, is important. South Africa was in its “Apartheid Forever” mode at this time. The crew couldn’t fraternize with the Zulu extras and couldn’t pay them proper wages. The film-makers willingly did a deal with an apartheid regime, and that should count against them. To their credit, though, should go the hiring of Cy Endfield. He was a victim of the McCarthyite “blacklisting” in Hollywood by the studios in the 50s. Endfield moved to England and directed films there.

Nevertheless, the history of the film is inaccurate when there is no need for it to be that way. The story of Rorke’s Drift is compelling as is; how could it not be? Why did the filmmakers feel the need to tamper with it?

But that can’t detract from what is an enjoyable war epic. On the current list I would place it between Waterloo and Khartoum. I guess war films about the British Empire like to bunch together. In the end, Waterloo is just a better film and even more epic in scope.

But that is not a knock on Zulu. This is a good film and a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. It is worth owning on DVD (I don’t see it much on television anymore) and a good look at one of history’s most desperate, and amazing, battles.

----------------------

* Green and Caine were also in Play Dirty. Green played Colonel Masters in that one. Boy, does he ever look different in the two roles.

** He was so good at the role that he refused to attend the premier because of the way Pitt was portrayed. Which seems kind of silly to me. If you are playing a preacher trying to get soldiers to desert, odds are you won’t be portrayed as likable in the film.

In Defense Of Christian Bale

2009-02-03T10:49:00.000-05:00

It's all over the Intertubes now, an audio clip of Christian Bale absolutely losing his shit on the set of Terminator: Salvation. And it is a salty audio clip. You can find it almost anywhere, but here it is on Slashfilm.

Now, I have read comments at multiple sites saying how wrong Bale is and how they'll never watch a movie of his again. And I have to admit, the first time I listened to it, I was pretty aghast myself. But then I listened to it a couple of more times. And while I think Bale went way overboard in the cursing and insanity department, I don't think he was wrong to be pissed. Consider the following...

Acting isn't easy, no matter what some people may think. Memorizing lines, cues and your marks while showing emotion on-demand and doing this while under blazing lights and being watched by tons of people isn't easy. Add in the fact that each blown shot costs thousands of dollars and actors are under enormous pressure to get every scene right. And they know this.

Bale has been acting for over 20 years now. He knows the ins-and-outs of this business as well as anyone. And he likely expects the people around him to know what they are doing as well. Which isn't an unreasonable expectation; the movie business is a specialized business. They don't have idiots doing these jobs.

So when your director of photography, of all people, ruins a shot by walking into it, don't you think an actor has the right to be pissed?

And listen to the recording again. This is apparently not the first time Shane Hurlbut has done this. Bale references another time Hurlbut ruined a shot by walking into it.

So now imagine you're doing this elaborate, expensive movie full of exhausting stunts. You're shooting a scene and then, once more, it is ruined. Not because you flubbed a line or a light blew, but because that jackass Hurlbut still doesn't have enough sense to stay the fuck out of the shot when the camera is rolling.

I'd be pretty damned pissed, and I bet you would too.

And then there is one more thing. About 2/3 of the way through, things have calmed down. And then Hurlbut can't keep his damn mouth shut and starts the whole thing up again. I completely understand why Bale just goes ballistic at that point, because that kind of thing drives me nuts. Hurlbut is just as guilty as Bale for creating this maelstrom of cursing and chaos.

All Hurlbut had to do was apologize for fucking up. Because that is what he did. He shouldn't have tried to explain it away or justify it. He should have flat-out admitted the mistake and then removed himself from the situation. Instead he kept making it worse.

So while he may have cursed a little too much, I'm on Bale's side in this.

Review: Play Dirty (1968)

2009-02-01T22:45:00.003-05:00

You want me to inform against my own men, sir? - Colonel Masters (Nigel Green)

Director: Andre De Toth

Writers: Melvyn Bragg and Lotte Colin (screenplay), George Marton (story)

Producer: Harry Saltzman

Studio: United Artists

Major Stars: Michael Caine, Nigel Green, Nigel Davenport, Patrick Jordan, Harry Andrews

I am almost 100% sure I have never seen a more cynical war film than Play Dirty. A “men on a mission” film, it is overshadowed by The Dirty Dozen, which came out a year earlier. But where that film involved the redemption of the commander and his charges, there is no redemption in Play Dirty, at any point. And that unyielding viewpoint allows it to overcome a mediocre script to be a good, if not great, war film.

Using the exploits of the real-life Long Range Desert Group in WW2 as inspiration, Play Dirty involves a gang of criminals and cut-throats used by Colonel Masters (Nigel Green) as an irregular unit to probe hundreds of miles behind German lines in North Africa. On the verge of having his unit disbanded and his project shut down, he presents his superior (Brigadier Blore – played by Harry Andrews) with photos of a German fuel depot. He gets one more chance to prove his unit’s worth with a 400-mile ramble behind German lines to blow the depot.

Its here we get the first taste of the cynicism of Play Dirty. The brigadier calls in his subordinate and presents Masters’ plan as his own, using the irregular unit as a decoy for the real unit made up of British regulars. As these plans are made, Masters has Captain Douglas (Caine), a BP executive overseeing fuel deliveries, attached to his unit for his expertise. He is led to believe he is leading the attack when it is in actuality Captain Leech (Davenport), a mercenary-minded soldier who only cares about keeping Douglas alive because Masters is paying him a £2500 bonus.

The unit is made up mostly of the most despicable men you have ever seen in a film. There is no one here like Charles Bronson’s Wladislaw in The Dirty Dozen. Even Caine’s Captain Douglas, ostensibly the hero through the early part of the film, is revealed to be a cynic and cold at heart. And Captain Leech…it’s a great role that Davenport has and I wish that De Toth had given him a larger role. Davenport plays Leech straight; there are no efforts to make him likable. He’d sell you to the Germans for a nickel and you’d be a fool to trust him. Let me put it this way; the most sympathetic character in the entire film is a German nurse and she's a Nazi. That is how cynical and dark this film is; the Nazi is who you feel for.

I don’t want to talk too much about the plot of Play Dirty. It depends on a couple of twists and its characters to be effective rather than its tepid dialogue. The final 20 minutes is great and the end of the film is not only one of the best endings I have ever seen, but it is the only way this film could have ended and been true to itself.

But that great ending comes after what is mostly a plodding film punctuated by moments of violence. The biggest moment is when Leech and Douglas watch the regular British unit sent after them get ambushed by a German patrol. The slaughter and explosions are visceral and unrelenting; the blood and death here are much more graphic than anything seen in The Dirty Dozen.

But moments like that are few and far between for the majority of the film. And while that is okay for a war film that isn’t built around action, like Ivan’s Childhood, it’s not a good thing for a war film that needs action. Combine that with the “meh” dialogue and you have a war film that could have been so much more, but is still worth watching.

Of course, the only way you’ll ever see this movie is if you buy the DVD. I have never seen it on television and, considering the bleak anti-war message Play Dirty carries, I doubt I ever will. But it isn’t too expensive to buy, and is available at Amazon.com for $12.99.

On the list, Play Dirty is definitely a lower-tier film. And if it wasn’t for the sheer cynicism of this film, it wouldn’t make the list. But the last act is fantastic and that earns this film a spot. But only above the two weakest films currently on this list; I couldn’t justify placing Play Dirty ahead of Von Ryan’s Express.

If you get the chance, check this film out. It's a fun ride overall and the ending is off-the-charts awesome.

Vigilante Renaissance

2009-01-30T15:00:00.002-05:00

On the day that Liam Neeson's Taken finally reaches American shores, I figured it wouldn't hurt to go back and take a look at the ebb and flow of films that deal with vigilantes.

The sub-genre really got its start in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Crime was rampant in the cities and the economy sucked. There was a real palpable feeling that society was spinning out of control and no one could get a handle on it. Vietnam and the chaos that was causing in America didn't help either.

And then Dirty Harry came along. The seminal 1971 cop film was a vigilante film dressed up with a badge. Clint Eastwood, as Harry Callahan, shot suspects on sight. He tortured criminals for information and ignored their legal rights. He was a vigilante in every sense of the word. The critics were mostly aghast at the movie; Pauline Kael called it "fascist medievalism."

And the public loved it. Made for $4 million, it brought in over $28 million. And it legitimized the vigilante in film.

There were variants on the theme as the 70s progressed. Eastwood returned to the character of Inspector Harry Callahan in Magnum Force (1973) and The Enforcer (1976). Another lawman-as-vigilante film from this time is Walking Tall (1973). There were violent films of wronged people exacting a bloody revenge in films like Last House on the Left (1972), Rolling Thunder (1977) and I Spit on Your Grave (1978)* **. You had private citizens disgusted with society taking the law into their own hands in classic vigilante films like Billy Jack (1971), Death Wish (1974) and Taxi Driver (1976). Even blaxploitation films got into the vigilante scene with Coffy in 1973. All of these films found their genesis in the perception of the breakdown of law and order in American society and the seeming inability of the legal system to regain control.

The vigilante film continued to be popular into the early 1980s but began to lose steam as Reagan came to office and people had a sense of law-and-order returning to American society (which has as much to do with the end of Vietnam and demographic shifts as anything else). Eastwood had two more Callahan films, Sudden Impact (1983) and The Dead Pool (1986)***. There was The Star Chamber in 1983 that had judges acting as the vigilantes. You had the low-budget Exterminator films in 1980 and 1984 and some very weak Death Wish sequels. There was Abel Ferrara's Ms. 45 in 1981 that showed vigilantism gone horribly wrong.**** But as the 1980s progressed, the genre began to fade from the public eye. Between the late 1980s and 2000, the only true vigilante films that come to mind besides some of Segal's films like Out For Justice and Marked For Death is Eye For An Eye (1996) and The Limey (1999). That's a reflection of the general satisfaction people in America had with the direction society was taking and the decrease in crime.

The shift back towards the vigilante film began in the wake of 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War. There was a fear, once again, that we were losing control over our society. Films like Man on Fire (2004) and Four Brothers (2005), throwbacks to the vigilante films of the 1970s, began to appear in theaters. Beatrice Kiddo engaged in the largest revenge/vigilante spree since I Spit on Your Grave in Kill Bill (2003 and 2004). We saw a young girl drive a predator to suicide in Hard Candy (2005), a man don a costume to fight crime outside the law in Batman Begins (2005) and an anarchist fight a future fascist regime in V for Vendetta (2006).

But the real return to vigilante films has come in the final years of the 2000s. By this time the Iraq War was as unpopular as Vietnam, New Orleans had been destroyed by a hurricane and governmental incompetence, and the economy was begin to look shaky. In 2007 theaters saw the biggest 1-2-3 vigilante punch since the early 1970s when The Brave One, Death Sentence and Shooter came out. They were all different takes on the genre. The Brave One embraced the vigilante ethic, with the detective ultimately covering for Jodie Foster's character (a similar ending occurred in Sudden Impact). Death Sentence went the other way, showing the nihilism that exists in the killing and revenge engaged in by Nick Hume. Shooter was in the vein of Magnum Force; one man cleaning up a corrupted system. But all once again dealt with the inabilities of "the system" to dispense justice to average citizens.

In 2008 we were given The Dark Knight, a film that broke box-office records and earned numerous Oscar nominations. But at its core, it is the story of a vigilante.

Now comes Taken, a film shot in 2008 but only making it here to America in 2009. This vein of vigilantism goes beyond Death Sentence or even the Dirty Harry films. Liam Neeson's Bryan Mills doesn't even bother going to the authorities for assistance. He knows that's a dead-end. All he wants is information that he can use to get the job done.

Doesn't that perfectly sum up our opinions of government and law going into 2009? We have seen a government bend, twist and break the law to do as it wants while being utterly incapable of providing for its people. Crime is once again on the rise while the economy is as bad as it has been since the 1970s. Is it any wonder than the American public has embraced the vigilante film once more?

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see more vigilante films come into theaters over the next few years. The socio-economic climate is perfect for it. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Taken do killer business this weekend.

Added: I do realize that the essence of this kind of film can be seen in many Westerns. But those films were never recognized as vigilante films in the way the films of the early 1970s were. The vigilante film is in many ways an extension of those Westerns will all the trappings of the Old West stripped away. Hell, you can see elements of The Searchers in Taken.
-----------------

* I realize I am straddling the line here between "vigilante film" and "revenge film." But the motivations and actions of the protagonist are pretty much the same.

** Last House on the Left is an adaptation/remake of Ingmar Bergman's 1960 film The Virgin Spring. Which is a phenomenal film and I suggest you go see it ASAP. The interesting thing is that in 1960, Sweden was rather prosperous. It was only in the late 1960s that some chaos was introduced into the country with riots and the like. Of course, I doubt Bergman was making a vigilante film and it was more a meditation on good and evil and God, and all the various philosophical questions those subjects create.

*** Staring one Liam Neeson.

**** You have to see this film to truly appreciate how screwed up it is. The protagonist goes insane and just starts gunning down men. The first shootings are justified but by the end innocent guys are getting waxed.

Another Useless Retread

2009-01-29T11:47:00.001-05:00

Apparently, Universal is going to "re-imagine" John Carpenter's seminal horror/sci-fi film The Thing. The difference being that rater than remake the film, they will borrow from the original short-story source ("Who Goes There") and have it focus on the Norwegian base that we all saw in ruins.

Oh boy. A prequel! And we already know how it ends; Base in ruins, two guys in chopper hunting infected dog. Cut to black.

My objection isn't (for once) that it is a remake. Carpenter's was a remake (Nyby's 1951 The Thing from Another World) and an adaptation. My objection is that this prequel is fucking pointless.

What are we learning here? What makes this a great story? We already know what is going to happen, and there is nothing compelling enough at the Norwegian base to make it worth $10 and two hours of my time.

There's a reason you can list all the good prequels on one hand. It's basically Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Godfather II (for the DeNiro parts) and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (which is kick-ass and I will brook no disagreement on this). I'd give a passing grade to Revenge of the Sith for the culmination of Anakin's fall, but the first two prequel episodes were god-awful. But can you think of another?*

The problem with prequels is that we already know how they're going to end. And that means the writing has to be even better than it would for a regular film, because the story has to shoulder the entire load. There are no twists or surprises you can use at the end to cover the film's short-comings. And I just cannot think of a story about the Norwegians in The Thing that would be worth covering in a film.

------------------

* Terminator Salvation may be worthy of adding to the list. But that has the advantage of being an odd prequel. The events happen after The Terminator in the time-line but in the way the story works it exists before The Terminator. And we know little of what happened in the future up to the point that Reese and the T-101 come back, and we know nothing of what happened after that. So there is a whole story there waiting to be told, which is not the usual case for a prequel.

Paul Blart Dominates The Box Office

2009-01-26T12:49:00.000-05:00

I can only chalk this up to one of two things. Either my seven-year old son and his friends have come into an inordinate amount of money are are watching this movie over and over again*, or this country has decided that low-brow is the way to handle the recession. Either way, we now have multiple Kevin James films to look forward to. Woo. Hoo.

I haven't decided if the third Underworld movie cracking $20 million is just as bad as Blart or worse. How can you watch the trailer, listen to that "Or are we....LYCANS?!?!?!" bullshit and then say "Yes, this is worth $10 I could instead spend on groceries, gas, or a good paperback."? And over half that audience was over the age of 25! Guys, you're out of college now**. The days of taking bong hits off of 6-foot Cat-in-the-Hat pipes packed with snow to chill the smoke are over now***. Spend your money on something better.

Oh, and thank you Sony for the 1-2 Punch of Suck. I know you need the cash what with Blu-Ray dominating a dying tech branch and the PS3 being outsold by an abacus these days, but can't you give us something better?

On the upside, Slumdog Millionaire went wide and finished at #5. You should be able to see this at the proverbial "theater near you" now. So get out and see a film worth spending $10 on.

-------------------

* And if this is the case, why didn't I get any of it?

** Or you should be. Seriously, guys 25+ who insist on staying in school and aren't pursuing doctorates are just pathetic.

*** Not that I would know anything about this. Or about how well it works. Or about then watching "The Muppet Show" for three hours straight on a Saturday afternoon in the winter of 1993-94. Nope, not a clue.

I Told You So

2009-01-22T10:58:00.001-05:00

It's not often I get to say that, so I have to enjoy it when I can. Now that the Oscar nominees are out, here is a snippet from my January 6 post:

...the last time the PGA list provided all the Oscar nominees was in 1994. So it is probable that one film that didn't make the PGA list will find its way to a nomination for the Oscars.

...The one dropping off the list? The Dark Knight is the likeliest candidate...

Granted, I was wrong about which film would replace it (I thought Rachel Getting Married or The Wrestler would step in; it was The Reader). But I was right about TDK dropping off. I think that is a little bit of backlash against people calling it one of the greatest films ever. Is it a very good movie? Yes. But an all-time great? No.

Anyway, here are my quick picks on the big five categories:

Best Actor: I'd love to see Mickey Rourke win for The Wrestler. But Sean Penn will likely win for Milk, unless some voters are turned off by the content. Which would be a sad state of affairs, but let's be honest; some people are still homophobes.

Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger will win this in a walk, especially since TDK isn't up for Best Picture. If Ledger doesn't win, it would be the big news of the evening.

Best Actress: In an ideal world, Anne Hathaway would win for Rachel Getting Married. But going up against Meryl Streep (Doubt) is like coming with a knife to a gun fight. Especially since she hasn't won since 1982 for Sophie's Choice.

Best Supporting Actress: Can Marisa Tomei win a second Oscar for The Wrestler? Why not? The film didn't make the Best Picture list and Rourke will likely miss out for Best Actor. Here is where the voters will make up for it.

Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire will take this, riding the wave of interest and positive word-of-mouth that has pushed it into wide-release this week.

Why You Watch A Movie

2009-01-21T10:53:00.000-05:00

Living on the east coast and having a college education, I am fated to be a Democrat. And as such, I have to read The New Yorker every week lest my implant sends a signal and the tiny explosive at the base of my brain stem is detonated.

Anyway, this week there is an excellent piece by Tad Friend that talks about how a movie is marketed. It is fascinating reading. It focuses mostly on Tim Palen, who is co-president of theatrical marketing at Lionsgate and how he marketed Oliver Stone's W. But it goes into more stuff than just that story.

Even as movie attendance has dropped nineteen per cent from its peak of 1.6 billion theatregoers, in 2002, the number of films released each year since then has increased by thirty per cent. A dozen new films—three of them big studio releases—now vie for attention on any given weekend. To cut through the ambient noise, major studios spend an average of thirty-six million dollars to market one of their films. “Most of a movie’s opening gross is about marketing,” Clint Culpepper, the president of Sony Screen Gems, says. “You can have the most terrific movie in the world, and if you can’t convey that fact in fifteen- and thirty-second TV ads it’s like having bad speakers on a great stereo.” At Sony, executives ask, “Can we make this seem ‘babysitter-worthy’? Will it get them out of the house?”

And right there is the essence of what is going on in movies today. It is no longer a quality-driven market; it is a quantity-driven market. You have to throw out film after film after film and pray that you get the marketing right on enough of them to turn a profit, even if those films suck. There is a quick story in the article about the marketing for The Fast and the Furious that clearly demonstrates how the marketing of films has changed in 30 years. And the bottom line is this; a shit film opened for $40 million because they nailed the marketing.

And if you love quality film-making, as I do, then you will go slowly insane as this trend continues. Because I guarantee you that movie attendance will drop in 2009, which means that studios will throw more cheaply-made films into the fray and try to make them seem better than they are in ads. So much of a film's total take is predicated on its opening weekend, and for a crap film the open is even more vital. Take for example the horrendous Disaster Movie a film for which Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer should be jailed for violating common decency and the Geneva Conventions. It had a total take of just over $14.1 million in the theaters over a run slightly under two months. In its first four days (Labor day weekend) it made $6.95 million. That's roughly 49.2% of the total take of the movie, which means the other 50+ days made slightly more*.

There was nothing good about Disaster Movie, and yet through targeted advertising and swamping the airwaves with those ads, Lionsgate was able to make it a Top 10 film when it opened. Which says as much about our mush-brained society as it does about the skill of the marketing department at Lionsgate.

Anyway, it's a good article and I highly recommend you read it.

----------------

* On the upside, the budget for the film was $20 million. Which means that Friedberg and Seltzer cost Lionsgate money. And that means that the rest of us may be spared another dumb-ass film.

Will Watchmen Come Out On Time?

2009-01-13T10:51:00.000-05:00

If you are at all interested in this film, then you know that Warners and Fox are engaged in a legalistic brawl over who has the rights to the film. You'll also know that the worst thing that could happen would be if Fox took ownership of the film, since Fox chief Tom Rothman has the brainpower of a lobotomized monkey and would undoubtedly "edit" the film into a slag heap of suck. And you should also know that Fox, sadly, has a good case about their rights to the property being ignored.

The good news is that a settlement seems near. It will undoubtedly be a settlement that makes Fox a wad of cash. Which is good, since any film Fox Studios has actually had a hand in recently has done nothing but tank at the box office. Look at 2008; the only studio not to have a $100 million live-action film in their list was Fox Studios. The only film they had that cracked that level was Horton Hears A Who. Rothman gave us such classics as Meet The Spartans, Jumper, Deception, The Happening and Meet Dave. Has any studio ever had a run of crap like that?

With a record like that, I can't blame Rotham for wanting to get his hooks into Watchment. He'll likely make more money off of that than any of his films in 2009*.

-------------

* I have hope for exactly two films in Fox's 2009 stable: Taken and Avatar. Liam Neeson is the shit and the idea of him going around Europe pulverizing people to rescue his daughter is all right with me. And I and very interested in seeing Cameron's sci-fi magnum opus. Will it be revolutionary or fall flat?

24 Off To A Good Start

2009-01-12T12:08:00.000-05:00

If they can amp up the action another notch and avoid the ridiculous romantic sub-plots, 24 could be worth watching again this year. Season Seven kicked off nicely yesterday. And the return of Tony Almeida as a bad guy was an inspired choice.

What I don't see is how they're tying together this domestic terror cell and the overthrow of General Juma in Africa. Obviously, they are related in some fashion or they wouldn't be mentioned. But I'll be damned if I see where the connection is.

I also think it's funny that at the end of all this, Bauer ends up back in front of the Senate Committee on the verge of indictment. Which I think is how this has to end.

Bauer even said it himself; he broke the law. He may not regret it, but he did break the law and should be prosecuted for it. One can only hope the airheads who think 24 translates into real-word policy take that bit o' knowledge to heart as well.

Surreal

2009-01-08T15:11:00.002-05:00

It'll be nice to have a President we can respect again. The fact he's an apparent comic book geek? Cherry on the sundae.

In a growing world of Barack Obama collectibles, one item soon may be swinging above the rest.

On Jan. 14, Marvel Comics is releasing a special issue of Amazing Spider-Man #583 with Obama depicted on the cover. Inside are five pages of the two teaming up and even a fist-bump between Spidey and the new president.

Spider-Man prevents a villain from ruining Obama's inauguration. So now we know what Karl Rove will be doing in a week or so (although Marvel insists on calling him The Chameleon for some reason in the book).

And the best part is an aside from Spider-Man saying he confused Joe Biden with the Vulture one time. Which is really funny if you're familiar with the villain. Anyway, here's the cover:

Man...he's even cool in comic form. Obama is setting the bar ridiculously high for the rest of male-dom in this country. With Bush, all you had to do was have a command of the English language and you came off better.

One Of These Films Will Win The Best Picture Oscar

2009-01-06T11:11:00.000-05:00

At least, that has tended to be the way it works out. The Producers Guild of America released the nominees for their top feature award the other day. They are:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

Frost/Nixon

Milk

Slumdog Millionaire

If I am not mistaken, the PGA winner has also been the Oscar winner 12 times in the last 18 years. So to make it onto this list has major implications for these films. It also has major implications for films not on the list, like The Wrestler. Although I think that Rourke has a solid chance to take home the Best Actor Oscar.

The films that didn't make the list should take heart; the last time the PGA list provided all the Oscar nominees was in 1994. So it is probable that one film that didn't make the PGA list will find its way to a nomination for the Oscars. But that will likely be all they get. The first and only time a film that wasn't on the PGA list went on to win the Best Picture Oscar was in 1995, when Braveheart won.

So which film will make the Oscar list that isn't here? I'm betting it is either Rachael Getting Married or The Wrestler. The one dropping off the list? The Dark Knight is the likeliest candidate, although Ledger's death throws that up into the air.

Upcoming War Film Reviews for 2009

2008-12-30T14:46:00.000-05:00

I recently made some more DVD purchases to add to my collection. Added to the films I already have, I hope to crank out another 20+ reviews for the Top 100 War Films in a much shorter period of time than my first batch of reviews. Hopefully by March we'll have 40 films or so on the list. Anyway, here are some of the films I'll be reviewing:

Taegukgi: The Brotherhood of War
Zulu
The Last Valley
Prisoner of the Mountains
Play Dirty
Days of Glory (Indigenes)
Musa
Fires on the Plain
Bang Rajan

These are my new purchases. I tried to vary the time periods and countries of origin. There are only three WW2 films in the bunch; Play Dirty is a cynical, English take on the "men on a mission" subgenre, Days of Glory is a french film about the French African soldiers who fought for France in Europe against the Nazis and were treated like shit by the French*, and Fires on the Plain is a masterpiece by Japanese director Kon Ichikawa.

As for the others...Tae Guk Gi is one of the most successful Korean films ever made and deals with the Korean War and how it impacts two brothers. Zulu is the classic 1964 film about how 130+ British soldiers held out against 4000 Zulu warriors at Roarke's Drift in 1879. The Last Valley is set during the Thirty Years War that devastated Central Europe in the 17th Century. Prisoner of the Mountains is a Russian film set during the Chechen War and was directed by Sergei Bodrov, who also helmed the recent Mongol (another film I am desperate to get). Musa is a Korean film set in the 14th Century that is about a group of Koreans who are trapped in China and rescue a Chinese princess from the Mongols in hopes that delivering her back to the Chinese will help them and Korea**. Bang Rajan is a Thai movie based on the war between Siam and Burma in the 1760s. The only success that Siamese had during the war was the defense of Bang Rajan, which was run by villagers while the king sat around with his thumb up his ass.

In addition these are some of the other films I'll be reviewing:

Patton
The Big Red One
Battleground
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
The Longest Day
Pretty Village, Pretty Flame and No Man's Land***
The Thin Red Line
Tora! Tora! Tora!

They're mostly WW2 flicks but all deserve to be there in some capacity.

And if any of you have a request/suggestion/demand for a film to be reviewed, let me know in the comments or by email and I'll try to add it to my queue.

----------------

* And that isn't an understatement. The way the French treated their indigenous soldiers made the way the US treated black soldiers look positively enlightened. And yet they feel free to lecture us on so many things...

** Yes, this is a really lousy explanation. Trust me, it's a good film with lots of action.

*** Both these films deal with the Bosnian War from alternate viewpoints. I think in a conflict like this, where our (the USA's) perception of the war was influenced by propaganda from both sides as much as anything else, you have to have a balance in your review. So I am actually toying with combining both in one single review.

2008 National Film Registry Selections

2008-12-30T12:22:00.000-05:00

Every year, the US National Film Preservation Board selects 25 films to be preserved in the National Film Registry in the Library of Congress. It can be any film, from a full-length masterpiece to an obscure experimental film.

They have made the selections for 2008 and you can view the full list here. But if you ever wanted to know what you should watch to gain an appreciation for film-making, story-telling and the rest, the National Film Registry is a good place to start.

From this year's list, I would recommend The Asphalt Jungle, The Killers*, the 1922 silent film Foolish Wives directed by Erich von Stroheim**, the original The Invisible Man***, 1967's In Cold Blood, The Pawnbroker, Sergeant York, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad**** , The Terminator and the Buster Keaton short comedy One Week*****.

For historical significance, I hope it will be possible to view The March. This was a movie shot by the US Information Agency in 1964 that detailed the 1963 Civil Rights March in Washington that culminated in Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. By all accounts of anyone who has seen it, it is a masterpiece of film-making. But until recently, it has been impossible for people in the US to watch the film because of a well-intentioned law passed in 1948. The Smith-Mundt Act was passed that year to prevent the US Government from distributing USIA films in the US without Congressional approval because of the fear of government-produced propaganda being disseminated to the general public as it was in the Soviet Union. And while recent events (such as the White House paying columnists to pimp their programs in newspapers) shows that fear had a legitimate basis, the downside was films like these were, until recently, not available to the public.

---------------

* If you ever wanted to know why Ava Gardner made so many men nuts and was the only woman to turn Frank Sinatra into Silly Putty, this film will answer all your questions.

** von Stroheim is one of the great directors of the period that straddled the Slient Era and early sound films. He was also a well-regarded actor, staring in films like La Grande Illusion and Sunset Boulevard. That came about because he was such a pain in the ass to work with as a director it was the only way he could get steady work. If you aren't familiar with the man, there was a great book written by Richard Koszarski in the 1980s titled The Man You Loved To Hate: Erich Von Stroheim and Hollywood that was reissued with new material in 2001 (?) and called Von - The Life and Films of Erich Von Stroheim.

*** A great film that has resisted every attempt to remake it. It's like it has some magical power that turns any remake into crap.

**** When I was in grade school, they would run these "Movie Afternoons" where you could stay after school and watch an old film in the cafeteria, complete with popcorn and that really good orange Hi-C that used real sugar and not the corn syrup crap they have today. One of the movies was The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, which I adored as a kid and still do. The Harryhausen films are just a joy. And with all the CGI that is prevalent today, as good as some of it is, I still get more of a kick out of what Harryhausen did. Oh, and definitely get Jason and the Argonauts. I liked that one even more.

***** If you are not familiar with the works of Buster Keaton, then I suggest you get off your ass and watch some of his work right now. Keaton was a master comic and is still funnier than 99.9% of the guys working in comedies today.

A Timeless Classic

2008-12-23T12:30:00.001-05:00

Starting tomorrow on TNT and TBS, we can all enjoy the now-traditional 24-hour A Christmas Story marathon. This has become required watching for me and my wife as we furiously wrap the kids' presents late at night so they can wake us up mere hours later to open them at five in the morning. More than any other film, it perfectly captures all the various emotions of the Christmas season that you experience not only as a child, but as an adult. And it doesn't sugar-coat anything.

For me, the scene that makes the film is the last one where they enjoy a Christmas dinner in a chinese restaurant. There isn't a traditional Christmas turkey or ham, but a be-headed duck. But the family is laughing and enjoying all of it because they are together, which pretty much sums up what Christmas (and life in general) is supposed to be about. It isn't the trappings that make the season, it's the people we care about.

This movie never gets old and will likely be just as funny 30 years from now. And if you don't like it...then you must not have a heart. Probably some mechanical contraption that keeps your blood circulating instead.

Don't Bother With That Blu-Ray Player

2008-12-22T11:48:00.000-05:00

Didn't you know? It's already obsolete.

Digital Entertainment Group data shows that DVD sales actually hit their peak in 2005, stagnated, and are now on the decline. As of November, independent tracking service Nielsen VideoScan reported a 9 percent overall drop in DVD sales, and an even greater drop (22%) in higher-priced, high definition titles.

Since Blu-ray became the unofficial successor to DVD, a number of analysts predicted that sales of the high definition media would eventually come to offset any declines in DVD sales. Parks Associates analysts went so far as to predict that Blu-ray player sales would actually surpass most other electronics items during the next four years as they gain traction in the developing world. Analyst Kurt Scherf predicted that unit sales would climb to around 40 million by 2012.

However, Neilsen's figures show that not only is Blu-ray not shouldering the weight, but it's buckling under the pressure. Despite the fact that Warner Bros' first BD-Live title The Dark Knight broke all previous Blu-ray sales records by moving 1.7 million units in December, it is still dwarfed next to the 11.8 million DVDs that same title sold.

In July, Netflix CFO Barry McCarthy said that less than 10% of Netflix subscribers have Blu-ray titles in their rental queues, suggesting that adoption was so low that it had little chance to have an appreciable effect on retail sales.

With Netflix and Blockbuster both vending their own on-demand video services that strip out the tremendous overhead associated with mailing, sorting, and maintaining an inventory of discs, it's no surprise Netflix should rebuke Blu-ray in such a way.

Now, I should say I disagree slightly with the contention that digital with completely replace the disc. Until a secure and easy way to store and own the digital movies is found, then some people will opt to continue buying discs. I happen to be one of those people; I like to own my films. Even though it is cheaper to pay a monthly fee and stream unlimited films, will a Netflix account allow me to watch a film like Kon Ichikawa's Fires on the Plain within the next 5-10 years? I doubt it. So I like to own DVDs.

That said, I think Blu-Ray is screwed. First of all, you can buy an upconverting DVD player that gives you near-enough 1080p quality on regular DVDs for less than half the cost of a Blu-Ray player. Second, only Blu-Ray is really competing directly with the new digital hi-def streaming video. People want to see the high-end quality on The Dark Knight and films like that. And you can either pay $15 a month for a digital account or shell out 25-30$ per film for a Blu-Ray disc. I think it is obvious where that competition will end up.

But with DVDs, they have films that these digital services won't have and that studios won't pay money to remaster for Blu-Ray. There are tons of foreign films I wouldn't expect to see on a digital stream any time soon. Even slightly obscure US/UK films will likely be ignored. For example, take the 1968 war film Play Dirty. How many of you have heard of it? It stars Michael Caine and Nigel Davenport. It was released in the US by United Artists, so we aren't talking about a minor film here. But it is relatively unknown. I can buy a DVD of the film right now for $12. How long before a digital service gets around to adding this film to their list? I wouldn't hold my breath.

And that leads to a point about a digital stream versus DVD ownership. With DVDs, I control what I get to watch. I decide what is in my collection. With a digital stream, the company decides what I get to watch. Sure, I may have my choice of more than 100,000 movies. But that is a mere fraction of the total number of movies ever made. And the company that runs the stream ultimately chooses my "universe of films", if you will. I'd rather make that decision myself.

If You Are A Full-Blown Masochist...

2008-12-17T13:33:00.000-05:00

...and you have some spare time today and tomorrow, AND you happen to live in the L.A. area or are wealthy enough to randomly take a flight there, you too can attend the Uwe Boll Film Festival!

No, I am not having a fucking stroke. There really is a Uwe Boll film festival going on. And it has every last one of his films. Over two days. If you have $50 to blow, you can have full access to what may be the single-longest run of back-to-back shit films in modern history.

If you do go see it, my hat is off to you. Because that would take a steel spine and an iron-cast stomach.

And again, my Uwe Boll-related offer still stands to whoever it is that keeps giving him all this money. Give me 1/3 of it and I will make you a better film.

My Five Favorite Films From...1997

2008-12-15T13:39:00.000-05:00

1996 | 1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987 | 1986 | 1985 | 1984 | 1983 | 1982 | 1981 | 1980 | 1979 | 1978 | 1977 | 1976 | 1975 | 1974 | 1973 | 1972

Honorable Mention – The Boxer: I like pretty much anything that Daniel Day-Lewis is in. And this film is one of his best. The tortured relationships, both personal and political, that are affected and created by The Troubles in Northern Ireland are on full display here.

5. Starship Troopers: Verhoeven's satirical adaptation of Heinlein's classic novel was savaged by some reviewers who thought he was endorsing a fascist outlook. Boy, did they miss the point. It's a great action/sci-fi flick that attacks mindless militarism. The in-movie news clips and commercials are wonderful and stand as a perfect example of how propaganda is used by the government to justify actions and convince the populace that they are necessary.*

4. The Fifth Element: It's no secret to readers here that I like this film. It is still criminally underappreciated. The sense of style that Luc Besson brings to this movie is unique, and the story is solid. Definitely one of the better sci-fi films in circulation today.

3. Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery: Now that this franchise has descended into self-parody, it is hard to remember how awesome the original film was. It flew in under the radar and just took everyone by storm. It is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen.**

2. L.A. Confidential: The best modern film-noir to date. Wonderful adaptation of James Ellroy's novel. It brought Guy Pearce and Russel Crowe to America's attention and to our lasting benefit. What I like best about the film is that none of the protagonists are particularly likable. I wish more films would be willing to show their heroes as flawed humans.

1. The Full Monty: The most unexpected hit film in recent memory. The idea that a movie about a bunch of Brits who lose their jobs and decide to do a one-night male striptease to get some money and help their friend make his child support payments so he can see his son would become insanely popular not only in the US but around the world...it sounds pretty daft, doesn't it? And yet here we are 11 years later and I still cannot turn away when it comes on television. And tell me when you hear "Hot Stuff" on the radio you don't do the double-arm pump. And if you say you don't, you're a liar.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Air Force One, Amistad, The Apostle, Boogie Nights, Brassed Off, Breakdown, The Butcher Boy, Chasing Amy, Cop Land, Cube, Donnie Brasco, Face/Off, Fierce Creatures, The Game, Grosse Pointe Blank, The Ice Storm, Jackie Chan's First Strike, Liar Liar, Lost Highway, Ma vie en rose, The Man Who Knew Too Little, Men in Black, Private Parts, Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, Smilla's Sense of Snow, Suicide Kings, U-Turn, The Van, Wag the Dog, Waiting For Guffman, Welcome to Sarajevo

Underappreciated (x2) – Event Horizon and Gattaca: I don't know why Event Horizon get dogged as much as it does, though I suspect the director and his subsequent work has something to do with it***. It combines sci-fi and horror quite well, and the scenery in the title spacecraft is awesome. As for Gattaca...it's a crime that it doesn't get more love. It's a solid movie from beginning to end and deals with some serious issues as well.

Guilty Pleasure (x2) – The Relic and Con Air: One is a forgettable horror film starring Tom Sizemore of all people. The other a Nic Cage action film that is big on the explosions and small on the logic. But I like watching both of them and I have no excuse for it.

Major Disappointment – The Postman: David Brin's 1985 novel is a great read. So when it came to the big screen in 1997, I couldn't wait to see it. What I saw was that most maddening of films; the good film strangled in its sleep. I don't think Costner the actor was the problem here as much as it was Costner the director. The film is way too long (just shy of three hours), it has a ton of mawkish shots of Costner's character (the aforementioned Postman) and it just doesn't have the "umph" that the novel did. But there is a lot of good to it as well, and the combination of the two make for a frustrating film-watching experience****.

Growing Disenchantment With… – Good Will Hunting: I liked this when I first saw it. But the more I saw it, I'd watch less and less of it until I stopped looking at any part of it altogether. I can't even put my finger on why that is, exactly. Maybe its that I cannot believe anyone would throw away their career for Minnie Driver.

Totally F***ed-up Film ̵ In the Company of Men: It's hard for some to believe that good-guy actor Aaron Eckhart debuted in this twisted little film that centered around two guys screwing up the life of a deaf woman for kicks. And yet that is exactly where Eckhart got his start. Playing the sociopathic Chad, Eckhart and his friend Howard decide to screw with a deaf secretary as revenge for all the wrongs women have visited upon them. As if that isn't bad enough, Chad tops it with a kick-in-the-gut ending that makes him even more twisted and sick than the whole film made him out to be. Of course it goes without saying that you should see this movie. If you are a guy in a relationship, though, I would suggest that you do not see it with your significant other. Just trust me on this.

----------------------------

* Of course, did I see any of this the first time I saw it? Of course not; I just loved the action in it. Only watching it a couple of more times did I begin to see Verhoeven's take.

** I think the way I saw it made it even funnier. I watched it at the Somerville Theater, which was about a 3/4 mile walk from my apartment on the Cambridge town line. It was showing in their smallest room, which I think held something around 110 people at the most but was only half-full. That theater was rocking with laughter as everyone fed off of everyone else's energy. It was like a bunch of friends getting together. I would say that was my second-best movie-going experience ever, topped only by the first time I went to a movie with my wife-to-be.

*** That would be Paul W.S. Anderson for those of you who don't know. He followed this up with the flawed Soldier and then went off the cliff into suckitude. Resident Evil, AvP, Death Race... ye gods.

**** But what is with women asking Costner's characters for his "seed"? This happened in Waterworld as well. It's kind of weird. Is this something Costner was obsessed with in the late 90s?

Review: Letters From Iwo Jima (2006)

2008-12-10T15:19:00.003-05:00

If our children can live safely for one more day it would be worth the one more day that we defend this island. - General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe)

Director: Clint Eastwood

Writers: Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Tsuyoko Yoshido (book), Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis (story), Iris Yamashita (screenplay)

Producer: Paul Haggis, Clint Eastwood, Tim Moore, Robert Lorenz, Steven Spielberg

Studio: Paramount (US theatrical), Warner Bros. (all other US media)

Major Stars: Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryo Kase, Shido Nakamura

Letters From Iwo Jima is a remarkable film. The counterpart to Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, it shows us the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese. In doing so, it also shows us that the biggest difference in the soldiers who fight is the color of their uniform and not who they are or the color of their skin.

I think this is a very important movie in that respect. If you visit history sites or message boards, you will come across many people arguing that the Germans of WW2 shouldn't be universally vilified because many of the soldiers were just defending their home. But you will almost never see a similar argument made for the men of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). When, truth be told, the "defending their home" argument would apply more for the Japanese than the Germans, who almost universally (at the time) bought into Hitler's program. After all, Iwo Jima was considered part of the Japanese homeland by the Japanese people. The reasons for this dichotomy are rather self-apparent.

We see the saga of Iwo Jima through the eyes of Saigo, played by Kazunari Ninomiya. He is a simple baker who was unwillingly drafted to fight in the IJA. All he wants to do is to make it home alive and see his wife and daughter. He doesn't want to be on Iwo, preparing for a battle he somehow knows is futile. How similar are these feelings to ones an American soldier would feel, far away from his family? That theme of commonality amongst all the soldiers is touched upon again and again by Eastwood.

The commanding officer of the Japanese forces was General Tadamichi Kuribayashi. Ken Watanabe plays the role and he deserved another Oscar nod for it. Kuribayashi was a general who believed in defending his country. He also knew that it would be ultimately futile; he had visited the United States from 1928-30 as as military attache and saw first-hand the might of American industry. These two sides come across easily through the use of flashbacks and Watanabe's portrayal. Kuribayashi breaks time and time again with standard Army protocol. He doesn't want to throw away his soldier's lives on the beach. He refuses to let them engage in banzai charges because they are wasteful and useless. He wants his men to retreat to other locations rather than commit suicide (a gruesome example of this is portrayed in the film). And while all of this is sound military planning that will exact more casualties from the U.S. forces, Kuribayashi also does it because he doesn't want to simply waste their lives, even in a hopeless situation. He fights not to fulfill a warrior's code, but to keep the people of Japan safe for one more day, one more hour, from the American bombers that he knows will inevitably arrive.

The other intriguing character, both in the film and in real life, is Baron Nishi. Nishi was an Olympic gold medalist, winning the individual show-jumping event in Los Angeles in 1932. He moved amongst the social circles in the United States during that time. Played by Tsuyoshi Ihara in the film, we see him as someone who is willing to fight although it pains him to do so. More than anyone, including Kuribayashi, he understands that there is little that actually separates the common soldiers on either side of the war. The film does take a liberty in showing Kuribayashi and Nishi as friends; in reality they did not get along particularly well. And that may have led to a complaint from some reviewers that I will get to in a moment.

We are not spared the sight of true believers, however. There are many soldiers and officers that believe in suicide charges and killing oneself when all hope is lost. And the way they browbeat the conscripts into following them is heart-breaking. You try to understand why they did it, and can't. It was decades of relentless indoctrination, something we have no experience with.

The cinematography in Letters is wonderful. Tom Stern, who has worked with Eastwood almost non-stop since the early 80s and has been his cinematographer on every film since Blood Work in 2002, does a great job. Mount Suribachi looms over the black sand beach. The chaos of the pre-invasion bombing is on a par with anything else shot in recent memory. The actual invasion is massive in its scope, terrifying and awe-inspiring at the same time. The tunnels dug into the hills and mountains are claustrophobic and fear-inducing, because you never know what is around the corner. His choices with color in the film are interesting. A good portion of this film is shot in almost black-and-white. Every so often it springs into color. Other times it fades into almost a light sepia tone. Whatever the reasons, it works.

I also like that Eastwood shot the film in Japanese. It always irks me when foreign soldiers speak in English as the default language in a war film*. If you are going to make a film like this, don't take the easy way out. The use of Japanese just heightens the realism and allows more of the actors' emotions to come across.

Now to the aforementioned complaint. Some reviewers felt that it was a bias on the part of Eastwood to show that the two "good" Japanese were the two that had been to the United States (Kuribayashi and Nishi). That in doing so, their "goodness" was due to being somewhat Americanized. And that the others, who hadn't had the privilege of being exposed to American values, were benighted and evil as a result.

I can't agree with that angle. It's not out-of-bounds to show Kuribayashi and Nishi as conflicted. More than the other soldiers at Iwo Jima, they know that fighting America is a losing proposition. Kuribayashi wants to save his men as much as possible not because he was imbued with American values, but because he knows banzai charges are useless. Nishi knows the Americans better than anyone there and is personally conflicted, but that doesn't stop him from doing his duty and fighting.

But if anything, Saigo comes off best of all because he thinks the whole damn thing is stupid. And he's never been off the Japanese mainland until now. And it isn't like the Americans are pure and clean here. One of them kills two Japanese prisoners. But just as Kuribayashi and Nishi are balanced by some officers that embrace death as the ultimate achievement, so to the prisoner-killing GI is balanced by a lieutenant that spares a Japanese soldier's life when he doesn't have to.

And that is the point here. All these men fighting this horrible, brutal war, are, at their core, the same. They are good and bad. They miss their families. They want, more than anything else, to go home. The difference is that, for the Japanese, that isn't an option.

Letters from Iwo Jima is a well-made film period, and one of the best war films to ever grace the screen. It shows us a side of the war in the Pacific that we may not be familiar with and reminds us that, many times, we have more in common with our enemies than we may realize. On the current list I think Letters fits nicely between Downfall and Stalingrad. All three show us the war from the side of the enemy (if you don't live in Japan or Germany, of course). I think Downfall gets the nod because of Ganz's remarkable portrayal of Hitler and, frankly, the brass balls it took to show that story. But all three films are fantastic and definitely worth owning.

-------------

* There are exceptions to this rule. Kingdom of Heaven comes to mind. Having everyone speak English for the most part in that film makes more sense than listening to a cacophony of Middle Ages tongues.

You Have To Be Kidding Me

2008-12-09T21:24:00.004-05:00

It always seems like Keanu Reeves gets into more and more ridiculous films. The Lake House was a joke and the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still looks flat-out retarded. But this news makes my eyes bleed.

Keanu Reeves will star in "47 Ronin," an epic period film for Universal Pictures based on the true tale of a band of samurai swordsmen who avenged the death of their master in 18th century Japan.

Chris Morgan, who co-wrote "Wanted" and penned the upcoming "Fast and Furious" for Universal, is writing the script. Scott Stuber will produce through his Stuber Prods. banner.

Reeves stars in sci-fi remake "The Day the Earth Stood Still," which Fox bows Friday.

In "47 Ronin," he will play one of the swordsmen; the group and their master are revered in Japan for their revenge attack on Dec. 14, 1702.

The story of the 47 Ronin is one of the Japanese national epics. It is a part of their cultural soul. I can't imagine they are too thrilled with the idea of Hollywood turning it into a second-rate action flick. And I have no doubt that is exactly what will happen.

First of all the story misses the whole point of the 47 Ronin. What the Japanese admire isn't the sword attack. It is their loyalty to their master, their willingness to right a wrong and then to accept the consequences of their actions.

Second, I doubt the guy who wrote Wanted is going to be able to capture the essence of the 47 Ronin. I am guessing it'll be a lot of slow-motion sword fights and other assorted asinine scenes.

Lastly, how the fuck do you put Keanu Reeves in this movie? Yes, he is half-Chinese. But he doesn't look remotely Japanese. How do you retro-fit the story without totally gutting it? The answer is...you don't. And so we'll get some half-assed sword story with a wooden Keanu Reeves standing out like a sore thumb. Boy oh boy, I can't wait.

Review: The Dirty Dozen (1967)

2008-12-08T12:15:00.004-05:00

You've seen a general inspecting troops before haven't you? Just walk slow, act dumb and look stupid! - Major John Reisman (Lee Marvin)

Director: Robert Aldrich

Writers: E.M. Nathanson (novel), Nunnally Johnson and Lukas Heller (screenplay)

Producer: Kenneth Hyman

Studio: MGM

Major Stars: Lee Marvin, Jim Brown, Ernest Borgnine, George Kennedy, Charles Bronson, John Casasvetes, Richard Jaeckel, Robert Ryan, Donald Sutherland, Telly Savalas, Clint Walker

One of the enduring sub-genres in war films is the “men on a mission” style film. A group of soldiers are thrown together. They clash at first but somehow find a common bond before getting sent on a suicidal mission that most of them won’t return from. And the archetype of that sub-genre is “The Dirty Dozen.” The title is recognizable to almost everyone. And it also happens to be a pretty fun war film to boot, if a little long and uneven at the end.

To quickly summarize for the 12 people who may not know about this film, a group of military convicts are given a chance to wipe their records clean if they train for and go on a suicidal mission to kill German officers at a chateau in France on the eve of D-Day. They are led by Major Reisman, an officer who is as insubordinate with his superiors as the convicts are with him.

That’s it. There isn’t much of an overarching theme to the film. It’s a straight action flick with some humor thrown in for good measure. And that makes for a really watchable film.

Most of the actors in the film had prior experience in the military and some actually fought in the Second World War. Marvin, Savalas, Borgnine and Bronson all served during the war. That brought an extra touch of realism to a film that was – let’s be honest here – a fantasy of sorts. But it’s a good one.

Marvin is great as Major Reisman, a hard-as-nails combat officer who barely tolerates his superiors, most of whom have never fought in a real battle. This mission is his last chance as well. Reisman alternates between encouraging and breaking down his charges, but always stands up for them against outside agitators, the main one being Colonel Breed (Ryan). The hatred that Reisman and Breed feel for each other make for some of the funniest moments in the film.

All the major actors playing convicts did a nice job as well. Cassavetes plays the slightly-nuts Franco (big shock there) as a man who alternates between being a bully and a coward. Savalas nails the all-the-way nuts Maggott*, a religious freak who murders people (mainly women) because they are unclean. He’s actually quite unsettling in the role. There were also two breakout roles.

The first was Jim Brown as Jefferson. At the time Brown was filming The Dirty Dozen in London, he was still the best damn player in the NFL, breaking records like clockwork as a running back for the Cleveland Browns. Owner Art Modell gave him an ultimatum; movies or football. Brown retired before the 1966 season began and became a full-time actor. It’s not a coincidence that the Browns never won another championship after Brown left**. And it was the beginning of a very successful career for Brown.

The other was Donald Sutherland, who hit the acting equivalent of an inside straight in this movie. The role of Vernon Pinkley was supposed to be played by someone else but they dropped out of the movie. Sutherland was called in to replace them. Then there is a scene in the film where one of the Dozen has to impersonate a general and inspect Colonel Breed’s soldiers. The original plan was for Clint Walker, an actor who stood 6’ 6”, to do it. But he didn’t want to. So director Robert Aldrich chose Sutherland to play the role. The cocky, breezy way Sutherland played the scene led to his getting cast as “Hawkeye” Pierce in M*A*S*H and launched his career. I don’t know who the original actor was, but I hope Sutherland sends him a nice card every Christmas.

What I forgot about this movie is that, despite its length (just under 2.5 hours), there isn’t much in the way of fighting Germans. Between introducing the characters, all the training and the mission prep, the actual attack on the chateau takes up roughly the last half-hour of the film. Granted, that last half-hour is an action-packed half-hour. But for an action-centric war film, there isn’t much of a war.

One thing I didn’t know is that, when the film was released, the violence was quite excessive by the standards of that time. Roger Ebert wrote a review decrying the fact that a burning corpse was visible in the movie. Watching it now, the violence is positively tame by modern standards.

What I find interesting is that just one of the convicts survives the mission, and it is the one who really shouldn’t have been there to begin with. Bronson’s character is on Death Row not because of rape or wanton murder. He’s there because he shot an officer who was fleeing a battle with all of his unit’s medical supplies. The only way to stop him was to shoot him.Which I think is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. And I guess Aldrich did as well since Bronson’s character is the only convict to survive, along with Major Reisman and his sergeant.

There was also some controversy in the way the Germans at the chateau were killed. They are trapped in the cellar which doubles as an ammunition bunker. The Dozen dump grenades down the air vents along with about 100 gallons of gasoline and then Jefferson throws a live grenade down each vent (just before a sniper kills him). It’s a particularly cruel way to kill, especially since there are civilians in the cellar as well. But Aldrich wanted a bit of “war is hell” in the movie.

One negative against the film is the choppy way the end of the film was edited. The cuts between the Germans caught in the wine cellar, the Dozen setting their explosives and the firefights with German soldiers trying to reach the chateau are not particularly smooth.

And let’s be honest, there isn’t a lot of heft or seriousness to this movie (the chateau fricassee aside). It’s as much an excuse to have a bunch of actors who play tough-guy roles shooting guns as anything else. Even Lee Marvin said the film was nothing but a “moneymaker.” But it’s a fun moneymaker. It also paved the way for more movies of its type; in the next year alone, The Devil’s Brigade and Where Eagles Dare would come out. And it calls out to that part of every American that chafes at idiots in positions of authority. We're a people whose ancestors came to this country because there were idiots in authority in their home country. So we're almost predisposed to cheer for a guy like Major Reisman.

On the current list, I would place The Dirty Dozen below The Bridges at Toko-Ri. It’s a well-shot, well-crafted film. It has a lot of action and some nice humor. But it’s like appetizers before the main course; nice but not satisfying by itself. The Dirty Dozen doesn’t have the heft, plot or pacing to crack the top echelon of this list. But that doesn’t mean this isn’t a good film. Any movie that stays on this list is worth watching, and The Dirty Dozen will likely stay in the upper-half when all is said and done. This is a great film to watch with friends or on a lazy weekend, maybe as a home-made twin-bill with Where Eagles Dare or The Guns of Navarone. It definitely should be a part of your collection.

-----------

* This is one of the all-time great movie names for a villain. Probably second behind Roy Stalin.

** To Modell's credit, he has since admitted this was profoundly stupid of him to do. It probably cost him two NFL titles and two Super Bowl titles (which went to the Jets and Chiefs instead when they played the Colts and Vikings in Super Bowl III and IV, respectively, before the 1970 AFL-NFL merger. Cleveland with Jim Brown at running back would've likely won at least one of those matchups.

Ah...More Suck From Hollywood

2008-12-04T10:30:00.002-05:00

So I wake up this morning and get to read this little nugget from hell.

"They Live" is finding life again.

John Carpenter's cult 1988 film is getting the remake treatment from Universal and studio-based Strike Entertainment, which are in negotiations to acquire the film rights with rights holder Les Mougins.

Strike's Marc Abraham and Eric Newman will produce, while Shep Gordon of Les Mougins and Carpenter will serve as executive producers.

Why? What do these guys think they can do that will make They Live better? It's a cult film classic. What makes it great is the low-end budget and the scenery-chewing performance by "Rowdy" Roddy Piper and the one-liners. Oh, and the best fight ever in all of film. You can't remake stuff like that. It's like catching lightning in a bottle.

And it just goes to show, again, how intellectually bankrupt Hollywood has become. It's remake after remake. I wouldn't have as much of a problem if I thought these guys were bringing something to the movie that would improve it. But I don't see how they can. It's B-movie gold. It shouldn't be good and yet it is. And I don't think you can make that happen twice.

But then, to make it worse, comes this little add-on right at the end of the story.

Strike is also working on a remake of Carpenter's "The Thing."

WHAT!? You are talking about Carpenter's masterpiece and one of the greatest science-fiction/horror movies of all-time. It is a classic and is perfect as it is. There is nothing, nothing, that these guys could bring to the film in a remake. I guarantee you 100% that a remake would pale in comparison to the original.

For fuck's sake, guys, get some original ideas already.

Review: Der Untergang (Downfall) (2004)

2008-12-01T13:06:00.001-05:00

We didn't force the German people. They gave us a mandate, and now their little throats are being cut! - Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes)

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Writers: Joachim Fest, Traudl Junge and Melissa Müller (books), Bernd Eichinger (screenplay)

Producer: Christine Rothe, Bernd Eichinger, Wolf-Dietrich Brücker, Doris J. Heinze and Jörn Klamroth

Studio: Constantin Film Produktion (Germany), Newmarket Films (US Distribution)

Major Stars: Bruno Ganz, Ulrich Matthes, Thomas Kretschmann, Alexandra Maria Lara, Heino Ferch, Juliane Köhler, Christian Berkel

Downfall is a remarkable film. Chronicling the final days of Adolph Hitler as the Russians surrounded Berlin, it shows us not only his final collapse, but how it affected those around him in the Reichsbunker and the citizenry of Berlin. It almost, almost makes you feel moments of pity for Hitler, which only testifies to Oliver Hirschbiegel skill as a director and Bruno Ganz's skill as an actor.

The material for the film came from numerous books, but a majority of it was provided by Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge. She died two years before Downfall was released, but we watch this film primarily from her perspective. Clips from an interview she gave shortly before her death bookend the film and provide a very sobering analysis of her role in history.

In the film itself, she is portrayed by Alexandra Maria Lara. Lara does a very nice job of having Junge sway between hysteria and competence, which is what it must have been like in that bunker, having to take dictation on the last testaments from murderous men and then talking to them as if they were just your average person.

There is not enough that can be said about the entire cast. Not only were the characters well-acted, but they all looked like their historical counterparts. I went online and compared photos of the actual people and the actors/actresses who portrayed them. It is remarkable how much they look alike. And that just enhanced their performances. Ulrich Noethen played Himmler amazingly well, getting exactly right his facile loyalty to Hitler and his ultimate loyalty to himself. Ulrich Matthes as Goebbels was pitch-perfect as the man who most believed in Hitler's vision but was constantly overlooked by Hitler. And Juliane Köhler as Eva Braun...it was like watching an archival tape. She was fantastic.

But the performance of the film, and one of the greatest I have ever seen, was Bruno Ganz as Hitler. I cannot imagine what it is like to have to portray a man like Hitler day in and day out. And Ganz did it so thoroughly; from the voice to the walk to the look, Ganz was Hitler.

Ganz gives a performance that will make many people uncomfortable, because it shows Hitler as human. You see the things you expect to see; Hitler ranting about the Jews, making insane commands to divisions that don't exist and condemning the German people to their fate because they are "weak."

But then you see Hitler being gentle to his secretary during her first interview. You see him crushed when he has to put his dog down. In what I thought was the most remarkable scene of the film, you see him shed a single tear when he finds out Albert Speer, who in many ways was Hitler's closest friend, has not carried out his order to burn Germany to the ground before the Allied advance but still swears his personal loyalty. And it throws you off because you almost feel for Hitler...and then you remember he is Hitler. Ganz's performance is just stellar.

This portrayal of Hitler created more than a little blowback for Hirschbiegel. He was condemned for showing this side of Hitler without the context of his massive litany of crimes. And I think this misses the point.

We hate to think of people like Hitler, or Stalin or Pol Pot, as human. We think of them as pure monsters, bereft of any humanity. But we seem to want to forget that monsters like these must be human as well. I think that Hirschbiegel's point, in part, is that we need to recognize this. We need to acknowledge that even monsters such as Hitler are human. Because that means that any of us could find ourselves down this kind of path if circumstance and fate were aligned correctly. Which, in turn, requires us to be all the more vigilant against behaviors like these and the cultural/political situations that allow them to develop. Because Hitler was as much a manifestation of the German people at that time as he was their leader. That is brought home towards the end of the film with the roving bands of "security forces" who execute any German man they see not fighting the Russians in a lost cause.

The "humanizing" criticism extended to other characters in the film as well. Ernst-Günther Schenck, an SS doctor, is seen trying to find supplies for wounded soldiers and maintain food supplies for the citizens of Berlin. What you aren't shown is that he was a doctor at Dachau and that he tested health and food suppliments on prisoners, some of whom died. We are shown SS General Wilhelm Mohnke as a soldier who just takes orders and tries to get his people to safety. What we aren't told is that in real life, Mohnke was accused multiple times of tolerating executions of Allied POWs.

While necessary to show their human side as well, I think that these criticisms hold more weight. We know that, for all the crying and gentleness that Hitler shows us on screen, he was also responsible for the slaughter of six million Jews and a war that that destroyed Europe. There is a balance there. But how many people know who Schenck is? Or Mohnke? Their backgrounds are a blank slate to most people. And that unbalances their portrayal in the film.

Hirschbiegel also makes an interesting decision in regards to Traudl Junge. By film's end she has escaped Berlin with a young boy and is riding a bike towards American lines along a forest road. In reality she was captured in Berlin by the Soviets and held for a year as a Soviet officer's "personal prisoner." Make of that phrase what you will. I don't know if that was to somehow symbolize Junge's freedom from the Nazi ideology that had ensnared her three years earlier or simply because Hirschbiegel didn't want to show the Soviets as they were in their drive on Berlin. The atrocities engaged in on both sides of the Russo-German conflict are well-documented. I guess Hirschbiegel wanted to keep the focus on the Germans.

The cinematography was wonderful; it looks like Berlin in early 1945. The rubble and ruin look fresh. The handful of battle scenes are very impressive. And I have never been treated to such authentic-looking amputations performed with a hacksaw. Which makes me all the more thankful for modern medicine.

Downfall is a fascinating, disturbing look at one of the most brutal men in human history in his final days. But it is also a look at the people who followed him, some who worshiped him (the fate of Goebbels' children, and how it comes about, is one you will remember long after the film), and the impact that faith and leadership had on Germany as a whole. Downfall would be a very good film even without Bruno Ganz. But his performance brings this film to another level.

I would place Downfall just behind Ivan's Childhood. There is something haunting and touching about Ivan that makes me place it higher by the slightest of margins. But that in no way degrades Downfall; I think if you look at the list you are beginning to see sections form and Downfall is in the top section. This was such a great film to watch and I cannot encourage you enough to do the same. You won't regret it.

The Consequences Of Hate

2008-11-26T11:43:00.001-05:00

If I haven't mentioned it before, I find the passage of Prop 8 in California to be abhorent. For the first time in this country, a state constitution was changed to strip a class of people of their civil rights. I find that inexcusable.

So when stories like this come out, I find it hard to summon up any sympathy.

Film fest chief resigns amid political controversy

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) – In the wake of harsh industry criticism over his $1,500 donation to support the recently passed California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, Richard Raddon has resigned his post as director of the Los Angeles Film Festival.

Board members of Film Independent, the nonprofit organization that produces the festival, refused to accept Raddon's resignation two weeks ago, shortly after his personal donation was revealed on Movie City News' The Hot Blog. But during a meeting Monday, they reversed their decision.

"I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights," Raddon said in a statement. "As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT community."

Well, if you actually believed that, Mr. Raddon, you wouldn't have given $1,500 to the cause of rendering some people second-class citizens.

And to do it in Los Angeles...did you actually think there would be no blowback? That'd be like an Irish-American politician in Boston sending money to a unionist group in Northern Ireland.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap...

Hollywood East?

2008-11-24T12:40:00.001-05:00

We all know Plymouth, MA from history lessons in our youth as where the Pilgrims first landed in America*. Well, now we may also know it for an extensive movie studio that rivals anything in La-La Land.

But the staid and historic image of Plymouth could soon be tempered by a decidedly modern attraction: a $488 million film and television studio, complete with 14 sound stages, a 10-acre back lot, a theater, a 300-room upscale hotel, a spa and 500,000 square feet of office space.

This is a great idea for the area. I only see one major problem; access. The nearest major airport is Logan, and traffic between there and the South Shore is horrific. And while talent may fly from Boston to Plymouth, most people will have to drive. The only real alternative would be establishing a dedicated high-speed ferry between the airport and Plymouth. On the other hand, I doubt traffic is worse than what you see in L.A. on a daily basis. But having more films in New England, and more access to them, is a good thing for those of us in New England who like this sort of thing.

---------

* I believe the Native Americans call this "The Day Everything Went To Hell."

If Satan Made A Comedy

2008-11-24T12:29:00.000-05:00

I am guessing The Spy Next Door would be in permanent rotation on 100-inch plasma screens in every circle of Hell.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – George Lopez and Billy Ray Cyrus have joined Jackie Chan in "The Spy Next Door," a comedy shooting in Albuquerque, N.M.

Chan's character is asked to baby-sit his neighbor's children and winds up having to protect them from secret agents after one of the kids accidentally downloads a code.

Lopez is a CIA agent who might not be all that he appears; Cyrus is another agent.

Wow, you can feel the suck coming off of that in waves and it hasn't even been made yet.

I expect this kind of schlock from Lopez and Cyrus, but sadly I also expect it from Chan. And that kills me. Chan made some of the most memorable action flicks of the past 30 years, and now he has willingly reduced himself to performing in these pathetic movies that would be direct-to-DVD if it wasn't for his name being involved. And they probably should be relegated there anyways.

Black Dynamite Is A Hundred Kinds of Awesome

2008-11-22T08:15:00.003-05:00

This movie has literally come out of nowhere over the past couple of days. If you are a fan of the old-school blaxploitation films like Dolemite and The Human Tornado, then you are going to love Black Dynamite. He carries two guns...one to stop trouble, and one to make trouble.

Now, you have probably watched that and gone "Who cares about another 70s film?" Oh no, my friends, this is a 2008 film. Michael Jai White stars in the title role of what may be the most bad-ass film of the year.

What is cool about this film is that they get it exactly right. This isn't a spoof or a "how cool are we for doing this" self-aware type of production. This is old-school grindhouse. And if it lives up to its trailer, it'll be a hell of a lot better than the Tarantino/Rodriguez attempt from a couple of years ago.

I am equal parts psyched and pissed for this. Psyched because I love movies like this. Pissed because I know it will never find its way up here to the Eastern Hinterlands (i.e. Maine) and I'll have to wait for DVD. Unless Time Warner On Demand can get it earlier, which they've done with certain films.

So, Is Twlight Any Good?

2008-11-21T13:25:00.001-05:00

Damned if I know. I'm much older than 13 and sans vagina, so I'm not a whit interested in this and the filmmakers know it. But some poor bastards have to review this film as their job. So hats off to Devin Faraci at CHUD, Massawyrm at AICN and David Chen at Slashfilm for going to see this and giving it a honest write-up.

And even though none of them were particularly pleased with the film (Massawyrm in particular), it won't matter a whit. Every reviewer in the world could hammer this into the ground and it wouldn't stop Twilight from cracking $60 million this weekend. Films like this are review-proof. Just like the first Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings or Episode I, critics take a back seat to the cultural wave that overwhelms everything else.

I'm just glad my daughter is only three, because I don't know if I could handle a house full of pining pre-teen girls wishing a 90-year old vampire would come along and kill them for love. I'd probably just wish for Edward to come along and use my head for a practice swing in vampire baseball.

And that is my main problem with this whole phenomenon; the gelding of the vampire film genre. It should interest and horrify you, not get you all swoony and wishing to get your neck bit. Stephenie Meyer has pulled off the remarkable trick of turning the vampire story into an allegory for abstinence while completely denuding the vampires of any meaning. Edward is more like a angst-ridden superhero with a melanin deficiency than a completely abnormal creature that needs blood to survive.

Nevertheless, my rantings are a small drop compared to the tidal flood of Twilight, which will succeed in further redefining what is expected from a vampire film. The upcoming remake of Let the Right One In (worthy of a rant in itself - how the hell do you remake a movie as good as that?) will undoubtedly borrow heavily from Twilight and screw up everything about that movie. Maybe Dracula can be remade and Mina Harker can be a exchange student from America and Dracula is just some Euro-trash trust-fund kid she falls for. Good times ahead...

Because Fox Didn't Screw Up X-Men Enough

2008-11-19T12:17:00.000-05:00

I don't think there has ever been as horrendous a drop-off in quality within a sequel as there was between X2: X-Men United and X-Men: The Last Stand. The former was a damn good movie, the latter a mish-mash of action scenes and not much else*.

Now comes word that Fox is going to do skew younger with a fourth film, and they are getting Josh Schwartz to write it.

Now, I like his NBC show Chuck. It's funny and a blast to watch. But he also did The OC and Gossip Girl. Which is apparently what Fox wants for their franchise.

Fox has been leaning toward using the younger characters introduced in the previous pics in future installments -- teenagers with powers taught at the Xavier Institute for Higher Learning.

So we'll see even-moodier mutant teens dating and breaking up with each other, someone punching out Angel and saying "That's how we do it in Westchester, bitch!" before Shadowcat gets wasted in a flying car accident and God knows what else. Allow me to be the first to say "meh."

-----------------

* Although we did get Vinnie Jones to mutter the immortal line "I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!" So there is that.

Review: Ivan's Childhood (1962)

2008-11-18T13:36:00.001-05:00

Scouts are the soul of the front. - Ivan (Nikolai Burlyaev)

Directors: Andrei Tarkovsky

Writers: Vladimir Bogomolov (screenplay and story "Ivan"), Mikhail Papava (writer), Andrei Tarkovsky and Andrei Konchalovsky (uncredited)

Production Manager: G. Kuznetsov

Studio: Mosfilm

Major Stars: Nikolai Burlyayev, Valentin Zubkov, Yevgeni Zharikov, Valentina Malyavina, Stepan Krylov

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing what happens in the film. With that in mind, there may be SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

Ivan's Childhood is one of the most powerful films I have ever watched. It is a war film that shows very little of the war itself but explores the impact war has on people and their lives. That it does so through the eyes of a 12-year old boy just makes it that much better.

Ivan's Childhood was Andrei Tarkovsky's first major film, one he came upon by accident. The original director, Eduard Abalov, was fired from the project. Tarkovsky was told about the film by his cinematographer, Vadim Yusov. Tarkovsky applied for, and was granted, the project. The result is a film that is akin to visual poetry.

Ivan (Nikolai Burlyayev) is a 12-year old boy whose family has been killed by the Nazis. He had joined a band of partisans who flew him to safety when they were surrounded by the Germans. He fled the school and fell in with an Army unit as a scout. His age and size allows him to go places others cannot.

But the soldiers want to get him away from the war as well and they want to send him to a military academy. Instead, he resists the plan and demands to remain as a scout, as that is the only way he can have revenge on the Germans. They give in and allow him to go on another mission behind enemy lines, one that he never returns from.

That brief description does no justice to this movie. Tarkovsky explored war and its cost in Ivan's Childhood in a way that earlier directors could not. This film was made during Khrushchev's "de-Stalinization" period between Stalin's death and the rise of Brezhnev. This was the period when other great Russian films like The Cranes are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier were made. Like these movies, Ivan's Childhood was a break from the old Russian style of war movies, where dying for Mother Russia was a great honor.

For example, you have young Lieutenant Galtsev (Yevgeni Zharikov), a good-looking, healthy soldier in the movie. In a Stalin-era film, he would be exhorting his men to sacrifice themselves for the country and telling them how lucky they were to fight. But in Ivan's Childhood he says that war is no place for a child. He tries repeatedly to get Ivan away from the war. He is bored more than anything and definitely not overjoyed to be in a war. And at film's end we see him in Berlin in 1945, his face scarred and his eyes cold and haunted. There is no joy for him in Russia's triumph.

There is another sequence with Captain Kholin (Valentin Zubkov). He is an experienced soldier, the kind that in the older films would have talked of the joys of combat and repelling the German hordes. Here, he woos a young nurse in a grove of trees, in one of the most beautiful scenes in the movie. The iconic moment is when he helps the nurse cross a trench and then holds and kisses her as she hangs over the trench. The symbolism is powerful, of this soldier and nurse fighting for a moment of peace and humanity in the chaos of war.

But the truly remarkable moments of this movie surround young Ivan. Tarkovsky added four "dream sequences" to the movie where we see flashbacks to Ivan's life before the war. There, he is fresh-faced and happy. He is in nature, playing with his sister and mother, eating apples, playing on the beach as the sun shines down. These contrast with his "real" childhood, one of bleak landscapes and death. Ivan is gaunt and dirty. There is no sun and no trees are seen. There are no apples, just black bread and onions.

And the ending, when we find out Ivan's fate in Berlin along with Lieutenant Galtsev, is heart-breaking, especially as it segues into Ivan's final dream. It is one where he is clean and strong and young, playing with his sister and other children on a sunny beach. The beach's only feature is a dead, black tree which he runs to in a race with his sister. It ties back to the beginning of the movie when Ivan had to swim across the river to safety because he missed his contact who was hiding in a dead tree.

There are also repeated images of Ivan being caught in this war and being unable to escape. The very first image we see is in one of his dreams; Ivan is staring at us through a spider's web. In another dream he is at the bottom of a deep well at the moment his mother is shot by the Germans. Tarkovsky's ability to communicate so much to us without words is on full display here and it works wonderfully.

We also see that Ivan is driven not only by his desire for revenge, but his inability to actually take it. The most haunting moment of the film is when he pretends to stalk a German in a darkened room. At the climax of the scene he threatens an empty coat (the surrogate German) with a knife, and then breaks down crying as he realizes this is as close as he will ever come to truly taking his revenge. Even he knows his participation in the war is ultimately futile. And yet he cannot do anything else.

Yusov's cinematography compliments Tarkovsky's film. He uses different angles and positions to help communicate the feelings of the characters. It is a beautiful film to watch, one that shows you something new with every viewing. Tarkovsky also experimented with sound a lot. Clashing and jarring tones to create unease, lilting music during the dreams and disembodied voices telling us of what happened in the past as we watch current events unfold.

The other thing to note is that, in a movie about the Great Patriotic War, you only see the Germans once near the film's end. In the final sequence in Berlin, as Galtsev explores the prison and execution chamber, you hear the voices of the Germans who worked there. And that is about it. This film is not about the Germans and fighting; it is about the act of war and how it damages humans.

Ivan's Childhood is a remarkable work, a powerful story about how war can affect and damage us all. On the current list I would place this by the slightest of hairs behind Saving Private Ryan. Emotionally I don't think there is another film on this list that comes close to Ivan's Childhood. But Ryan shows us the brutality of battle at which Ivan only hints. We feel the pain of the war empathetically in Ivan but viscerally in Ryan and that is why it rates slightly higher.

But that should not make you think for a second that Ivan's Childhood is a film you can miss. It is absolutely amazing and a film that should be a part of everyone's collection. The Criterion Collection DVD is well worth the extra cost.

I Don't Get Twilight

2008-11-17T13:14:00.000-05:00

And by that I mean, I don't get why it is so popular.

If there are certain events that should be considered "crimes against film", then Anne Rice's wussification of the vampire genre has to rank near the top of the list.

Interview With The Vampire created the idea that vampires are tortured, emo souls. That they fight so hard against their nature. And that has now devolved further with the addition that young girls want nothing more than to meet a vampire and then become one because it is so romantic. And now it has beget Twilight, which has teen girls who don't know better, and mothers who do, getting the vapors over a tortured soul of vampire named Edward.

Blech.

Vampires drink blood, people. It is one of the most primal actions any mythic creature engages in. The very act speaks of a monster that is not reticent and emo and sad, but of a hunter. A stalker. A creature of cunning and possible violence. And now their biggest problem is deciding whether they should go to the prom.

Someone has to turn this around. The Swedish film Let the Right One In is a good step in that direction although I am sure the US remake (which more people will see) will fuck it up and make it more like Twilight. Here are nine other films anyone who is making a vampire movie should see before they do it:

Nosferatu
Dracula - the 1931 original
Vampyr
Black Sunday
Salem's Lot
The Lost Boys
Near Dark
Cronos
Shadow of the Vampire

Vampires can be philosophical. They can dress nice. They can even be somewhat witty. But they shouldn't be gelded to the point that they are practically indistinguishable from a fan of The Cure.

They are immortal and need to feed on blood to live. That combination is almost assuredly going to make them rather indifferent to the concerns of humans, be it expressed through cruelty or simple dis-interest. There is still a lot to explore in the genre. But if it becomes redefined by what is the film version of a vampire romance novel, that may never happen.

Zombies have been beaten into the ground. Vampires have been wussified. Who's next? My guess is that werewolves are about to get placed in the crosshairs.

All Hail Manos: The Hands of Fate

2008-11-15T09:14:00.001-05:00

On this date in 1966, what may well be the worst film ever made was shown for the first time. Manos: The Hands of Fate debuted in El Paso, the hometown of director Harold Warren, whose day job was being a fertilizer salesman.

The history of the film is a fascinating one. Warren made the film as a result of a bet. From the Wikipedia entry:

Warren was very active in the theater scene in El Paso, Texas, and once appeared as a walk-on for the television series Route 66, where he met screenwriter Stirling Silliphant. While chatting with Silliphant in a local coffee shop, Warren claimed that it was not difficult to make a film, and bet Silliphant that he could make an entire film on his own. After placing the bet, Warren began the first outline of his script on a napkin, right inside the coffee shop.[1] To finance the film, Warren accumulated a small sum of cash, reportedly $19,000, and hired a group of actors from a local theater and modeling agency.[1] Warren promised the cast and crew a share in the film's profits due to his lack of funds to pay actual wages.[2][3]

Silliphant wasn't a nobody writer either; he wrote the screenplay for In the Heat of the Night and won an Academy Award for it. I would imagine he was both amused and irritated by Warren's claim.

Nevertheless, Warren went on to make the movie. And what a movie it was. The highlight, for me, is the random couple making out in the car that has nothing to do with the plot and seems stuck in there just to fill space. And the dialogue? Judge for yourself:

A look at the Master:

And the original trailer:

A film that will always be remembered for its sheer awfulness. Happy Birthday, Manos.

The Economy Is Hammering Hollywood

2008-11-14T12:06:00.001-05:00

I knew in the back of my mind this was happening. But the story at the Hollywood Reporter makes it clear La-La Land is in a world of hurt.

"Every single source of capital has suffered a seismic shock that we haven't seen in our lifetimes," said Nigel Sinclair, co-principal of film producer Spitfire Pictures. "That's going to lead to a broad squeeze throughout the studio system."

The industry's woes are reflected in recent financial announcements.

NBC Universal is cutting $500 million from its budget in 2009 and likely trimming staff.

Viacom's third-quarter earnings dropped 37% as its cable networks saw an ad revenue dip in the U.S., and chairman Sumner Redstone and his holding firm National Amusements are under pressure from nervous creditors amid a global credit crunch and declining stock prices.

Disney's recently announced quarterly earnings dropped 13% from last year, citing a sudden and significant decline in TV ad and theme parks trends.

"Studios are taking a much harder look at the bottom line," said analyst Larry Gerbrandt of Media Valuation Partners in Beverly Hills. "When they contract, they contract across the board, and that includes production."

Big banks that usually are regulars in movie financing, like Deutsche Bank and Societe Generale, are backing out of the business. Hedge funds that invest in movies are trying to extract themselves as quickly as possible so they have cash on hand for future emergencies.

The big downside here is consolidation. Independents and small studios are going to take it on the chin for the next year or so, at a minimum. Larger studios will pick up the pieces. Small filmmakers won't have the capital to get their films made and will have to work with a larger studio to get them done.

Also, you can bet that spec script sales will drop. Fewer studios and producers will want to take a chance on an unknown writer when every film's importance to the bottom line is magnified.

That said, there may be some upside to this. The big, brash and ultimately empty spectacle film will be harder to make now. That doesn't mean films like Big Exploding Robots II (aka Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) won't get made, because they somehow make their money back. But other big ticket films that depend more on an actor/actress than big effects (think Evan Almighty) will have a hard time getting to the screen. And that may open the door for more modest, less expensive movies that depend more on story than spectacle. That isn't a bad thing.

It will be interesting to see the effect the economy has on the films we see.

My Five Favorite Films From...1996

2008-11-13T15:50:00.002-05:00

1995 | 1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987 | 1986 | 1985 | 1984 | 1983 | 1982 | 1981 | 1980 | 1979 | 1978 | 1977 | 1976 | 1975 | 1974 | 1973 | 1972

Honorable Mention – Swingers: The film catches some flack these days for being too self-aware and too hip for its own good. But it's a solid film that captures the time in which it was made very well. And it made hockey on the Genesis a must-have*.

5. Rumble in the Bronx: The first time I ever saw Jackie Chan was in this film**. I caught it at the old theater near BU off of Commonwealth Ave. in Boston. I was totally blown away by Chan and immediately went out to find everything he had ever been in.

4. The Cable Guy: I will never understand why this movie wasn't more popular. A wicked satire on the television culture we live in. Jim Carey's best role and a nice turn from Broderick as well. And the scene at the medieval restaurant is fantastic.

3. Fargo: Unlike my intro to Jackie Chan in Rumble, I knew what I was in for here. Just another top-notch film from the Coen brothers. I love the character of Gaear Grimsrud. And the wood-chipper...that was inspired by the Crafts Murder in my home state of Connecticut back in the 80s. Guy fed his wife through a woodchipper after she planned to divorce him***. Trust the Coen Brothers to use that in a film...

2. Trainspotting: Great movie. And it gave us two new film stars: Ewan McGregor**** and Robert Carlyle. The character of Begbie was just fucking inspired.

1. Michael Collins: I'm a big history buff and have Irish blood in my background, so a film like this was just fantastic to be able to watch. The "Big Fella" is an Irish icon and in many ways the father of the modern Irish state. Granted, the history was somewhat inaccurate, but it brought his story to a wider stage. And it was a well-told story.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Beavis and Butt-Head Do America, Executive Decision, The People vs. Larry Flynt, My Fellow Americans, Lone Star, Broken Arrow, Flirting With Disaster, The Great White Hype, Hard Eight, Ghosts of Mississippi, Bottle Rocket, Matilda, Hamlet, Primal Fear, Mulholland Falls, Ransom, Sling Blade, Two Days in the Valley, Scream, The Birdcage, The Frighteners, Kolya, The Rock, Star Trek: First Contact, Tim Cup

Underappreciated (x2) – Mission: Impossible and The Long Kiss Goodnight: I always hear people say that the first M:I movie is too confusing. Which is just ridiculous. It's a good film, easily the best of the three in the series*****. And I don't know why The Long Kiss Goodnight doesn't get more love. Unless people don't like Geena Davis in the lead role in an action film. But the script is really good. Hell, it foresaw the problems with Islamic terrorists (and using them as straw men) in the United States years ahead of everyone else.

Guilty Pleasure (x2) – Dragonheart and Happy Gilmore: Sean Connery as the last dragon and Dennis Quaid as a dragon-killing knight who believes they are evil. And then he doesn't and they fight the evil king blah blah blah. Silly little film but I watch it every time it's on television. As for Gilmore...it's a ridiculous movie but I love it. I don't know why these Sandler movies have a hold on me when all the stuff he did later doesn't******. I mean, almost everything after this is forgettable for me.

Major Disappointment – Escape from L.A.: The follow-up to the classic Escape From New York had everyone jazzed to see it. And then it came out and it blew chunks. The second-worst CGI surfing scene ever done on screen*******. A script that is essentially a warmed-over copy of the original. It was a huge letdown and the first real sign that Carpenter had lost his fastball********. I've written more than once about this failure of a sequel and my opinion hasn't changed.

Growing Disenchantment With… – Independence Day: I've talked about this before as well. ID4 was a remarkable thing to experience when it first came out in the theater. But once the glitz of the special effects wore off, the massive problems with the script overwhelmed the movie. Now when it comes on television I can't stand to watch any of it except for when the aliens blow up the cities. It's just a mediocre film when you get right down to it.

Almost Awesome ̵ Kingpin: This move sits between the Farrelly Brothers' two best films: Dumb and Dumber and There's Something About Mary. It has some wickedly funny parts to it, and Bill Murray playing Ernie McCracken makes me laugh every single time I see him. But something about the movie seems a little...off. For all its funny moments and memorable characters, Kingpin never quite clicks. I can't even put my finger on why that is. Maybe they needed a different actress for the role of Claudia than Vanessa Angel. Kingpin flirts with being a great gross-out, slap-stick comedy but falls just short.

----------------------------

* Even though the version they were playing didn't have blood. That was NHLPA '93, which was 100 kinds of awesome. We played it all the time in college and got in more fights and caused more injuries...good times.

** I know, it's pathetic. I love martial arts movies and I never saw the guy in a movie until 1996. That'd be like growing up in the 40s and 50s as a war film fanatic and never seeing John Wayne in a war film until The Horse Soldiers.

*** That doesn't do the gruesomeness of the murder justice. He knocked her out, froze her to death in a walk-in freezer, dismembered her with a chainsaw in the woods and then later fed the limbs into a woodchipper during a snowstorm on a bridge over the Housatonic River so the whole mess would go in the water. Richard Crafts was a cold-blooded S.O.B.

**** Yes, yes, I know he was in Shallow Grave before this. But no one was singing his praises until after Trainspotting.

***** Okay, that is faint praise to some degree. But the first M:I is a genuinely good film. Why they couldn't repeat that success is beyond me.

****** Exceptions to this are The Wedding Singer and Punch-Drunk Love. No, I wasn't fond of Spanglish.

******* The worst of all-time? That would be the Bond surfing scene in Die Another Day. I would bet this is why the new Bond films are so determined to do real stunts. Man, that CGI sequence was brutal.

******** In retrospect, the falloff in the last third of In the Mouth of Madness should have raised an alarm. From that point on his films just fell off in quality. To be fair, though, his Masters of Horror episode Cigarette Burns wasn't bad, so maybe his upcoming movies (like Riot) will be more like his older work.

My Five Favorite Films From...1995

2008-11-10T13:53:00.004-05:00

1994 | 1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987 | 1986 | 1985 | 1984 | 1983 | 1982 | 1981 | 1980 | 1979 | 1978 | 1977 | 1976 | 1975 | 1974 | 1973 | 1972

Honorable Mention – The City of Lost Children: Another Jean-Pierre Jeunet film that has made my lists. The story revolves around a crazed scientist who kidnaps children in order to extract their dreams. And that doesn't come close to doing this wondrous sci-fi film justice.

5. Twelve Monkeys: One of Gilliam's best films. This dystopian time-traveling film is so much fun to watch. The way Gilliam plays with time and memory...you discover things you missed before each time you watch it*.

4. Goldeneye: The current "in" thing is to rip on Brosnan's Bond and to heap all the praise on Daniel Craig. But Goldeneye is a great Bond film. One of the best ever made**.

3. Richard III: If you have not seen this adaptation of Shakespeare's play, go see it now. Ian McKellen as the title character is amazing. And setting the play in a 1930s-style time period was used to great effect by director Richard Loncraine.

2. (Tie) The Usual Suspects and Heat: You know, I figured that by now I would be tired of The Usual Suspects. Especially because it relies so much on its twist ending. And yet...I still watch it. It's just a well-made movie that is fun to watch even after you know how it ends. And Heat is just...can you say "wow" and sum it all up? Just a great film from top to bottom. Michael Mann is one of the best directors working today***.

1. Casino: If there is one constant in the universe, it is that Martin Scorcese can direct the hell out of a gangster flick. In some ways, I like this even more than Goodfellas****. It has more of an epic feel to it. And it's a standing reminder that there was a time when Sharon Stone could actually act*****.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Apollo 13, Desperado, Angus, Crimson Tide, Toy Story, Ghost in the Shell, First Knight, Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead, Leaving Las Vegas, Get Shorty, The Quick and the Dead, Hackers, The American President, Se7en, The Brady Bunch Movie, Land and Freedom, Devil in a Blue Dress, Before Sunrise, Clueless, Friday, Rob Roy, Outbreak

Underappreciated – Strange Days: I cannot figure out why this movie doesn't get more love. Maybe it is because Kathryn Bigelow completely subverted the usual sci-fi stereotypes of the time by casting Angela Basset as the muscle. But this is a great cyberpunk film with a solid script.

Guilty Pleasure (x2) – Billy Madison and Mortal Kombat: Look, I know these movies are stupid in their own unique ways. But Billy Madison just makes me laugh each and every time I see it. I can practically recite the damn thing from memory. Hell, I'm laughing now just thinking about it.

As for Mortal Kombat...dumb as the day is long. But for some reason I enjoy the fights and the cheesy special effects and the stilted dialogue. I can't explain it.

Major Disappointment – Four Rooms: The idea of having Tarantino, Richard Rodriguez, Allison Anders and Alexandre Rockwell collaborate on a film got everyone all excited******. Then the film came out and...meh. It was disjointed and the four stories didn't flow well at all. It was like someone took four episodes of a sit-com and threw them together on a movie screen. The sole saving grace of the film was Tim Roth as the bellhop.

Growing Disenchantment With… – Braveheart: When I first saw this I thought it was one of the best films I had ever seen. And I still believe that it is a well-shot, well-directed movie. But as I said in my review, it's utter lack of regard for history bothers me. And it bothers me more each time I watch it. Too much of the film depends upon non-existent events or complete disregard of what actually happened during an event. And when you say you are telling a history of William Wallace, then you have to be held accountable for that. If I wasn't so much of a history nut, I likely wouldn't care. But I am, so I do.

Almost Awesome ̵ In the Mouth of Madness: The first 2/3 of this movie are as awesome as they come in a horror movie. The way Trent and Styles reach Hobbs End. The Black Church and the creepy kids. Mrs. Pickman. Just top-notch stuff. But it falls apart at the end, beginning when Carpenter tries to show the monstrosities that Sutter Cane wants to unleash. And then at the end it goes all "meta" as Trent watches a film that shows everything we just watched as the world is over-run by Lovecraftian evil. It just doesn't hold up. But to be fair, the first 2/3 are so good that this movie is a success just based on that. But if it could have ended as well as it started...we'd be talking about a classic.

----------------------------

* This was exceedingly easy for me. The first time I saw it I took a girl I had just started dating and...I didn't see much of the movie. The second time when I went alone...discovered all sorts of new stuff. Like who was in it.

** I'm not kidding, either. Goldeneye is up there with Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me and From Russia, With Love. Top notch Bond film.

*** Look at Mann's filmography. He's barely had a mis-step in it. Probably the only one since Heat was Miami Vice.

**** Though let the record show that I do, overall, think Goodfellas is the better film. But Casino is solid and, I think, gets downgraded unfairly because of Goodfellas being from the same director and containing similar material. If Goodfellas never happened, everyone would be praising Casino 24/7.

***** 1995 was Stone's high-water mark with this movie and The Quick and the Dead. After that it's a lot of Diabolique, Gloria, Catwoman and Basic Instinct 2. That last one...wow, what a bad idea.

****** In retrospect, this should have alerted us to possible issues with Grindhouse. And why were people so jazzed about Alexandre Rockwell? What the hell had he done at this point to get into the movie to begin with, let alone get people excited? If I could review his film from the previous year, Somebody to Love, in just one word that word would be "sucked." His inclusion is baffling to me.

Review: The Machine Girl (2008)

2008-11-09T12:51:00.004-05:00

How to explain a movie like The Machine Girl? You start here: a Japanese revenge flick with some martial arts and as much gore as you would find in any splatter film. Maybe more.

But that doesn't do it justice. A young schoolgirl named Ami Hyūga is seeking revenge against the son of a Yakuza boss because the boy killed her brother. She loses her left arm to the Yakuza boss after she invades his compound. She is sheltered by the family of her brother's friend, who was also killed by the son of the Yakuza boss. Ami has her arm replaced with a Gatling gun. And then she and the mother seek revenge.

And did I mention the gore?

The Machine Girl is a pulp film in all the right ways. Lots of action and over-the-top violence. Then you add in the ridiculous carnage and you get a really good cult film.

How ridiculous is the carnage? There is one scene where the Yakuza track Ami to the family that is sheltering her. They send three ninjas after them. After an extensive fight, Ami uses the gun to blow a hole through a ninja's chest. Then she shoves the gun through the hole to blow away the other ninja. And that is one of the tamer scenes in the film.

Minase Yashiro, who plays Ami, does a good job in what appears to be her first role on film. Ami comes off as a nice girl forced to be hard as nails, which makes it easy to be sympathetic to her even as she hammers 20 nails into someone's face. And I enjoyed Kentaro Shimazu as the insane head of the yakuza family. At his core he is a father defending his son, even if he is homicidal in how he goes about it.

Even with all these compliments, it should be understood that they are made within the context of what is a pulp film. The actual dialogue is often ridiculous and a lot of the acting could be generously described as "wooden." Part of the reason for that could be the background of most of the people involved. Director Noboru Iguchi seems to have got his start in both softcore and hardcore films. Many of the actresses in this film have an adult background in film or photography. You're not exactly getting the elite in acting from that arena.

But at it's core, this is a fun little revenge flick with the gore dial cranked up to "11" the whole time. I'll give The Machine Girl a 6.8 out of 10. For what it is, it's pretty good. It was a direct-to-video release earlier this year in the US (I caught it on PPV). Amazon is selling it for $12.99 right now, which is a decent price if you like these kind of films.

NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

2008-11-07T16:30:00.001-05:00

To begin this post, if you have not seen Chan Wook-Park's Oldboy, your current assignment is to put your life on hold and go see it NOW. I am not going to tell you the details of the film, just that it is a remarkable film and definitely worth seeing.

That said, it is also a graphic film. A disturbing film. A film that is great, in part, because of the things it shows and the places it takes you. It's rated "R" for a reason. And now, rather than try to expose more people in America to this work in its original form, Spielberg and Will Smith are going to gut it for American consumption.

Steven Spielberg and Will Smith are in early discussions to collaborate on a remake of Chan Wook-park's "Oldboy." DreamWorks is in the process of securing the remake rights, and the new pic will be distributed by Universal.

In the 2003 Korean original, a man gets kidnapped and held in a shabby cell for 15 years without explanation. Suddenly, he's released and given money, a cell phone and clothes and is set on a path to discover who destroyed his life so he can take revenge.

Okay, so now you know some of the details. But still...nothing irks me more than a great foreign film getting remade in the US, because the remake almost always sucks. I can't think of one remake that actually equals it's European original

I take that back; the only one that can hold it's own with the original source material is Twelve Monkeys. And that's because Gilliam directed it.

So I encourage you to go out and rent or buy Oldboy today so you can see a great film as it was meant to be seen. Waiting for a watered-down remake will be a dis-service to yourself.

Why Should I Be Excited About This?

2008-11-03T11:55:00.001-05:00

Cam someone explain to me why Spielberg has a hard-on for Tintin?

If you never read the books as a child, they follow the adventures of Tintin, a young Belgian reporter. He is always accompanied by his dog, Milou. They mostly take place between the First World War and World War Two. They're kind of like neutered Indiana Jones adventures. Maybe that explains Spielberg's interest in making the films.

But is there an audience for this stuff? Maybe in Belgium, but is the United States going to embrace someone named Tintin? And a dog that occasionally talks? And twin detectives that look like Charlie Chaplin? I just don't see this being successful in the United States.

Review: Rollerball (1975)

2008-10-31T13:23:00.001-04:00

“You can't make me quit.” – Jonathan E. (James Caan)

Director: Norman Jewison

Writers: William Harrison (short story and screenplay)

Producer: Norman Jewison

Studio: MGM/UA

Major Stars: James Caan, Maud Adams, John Houseman, Moses Gunn, John Beck

I was worried going into this viewing that I would find myself disappointed the way I was with Logan’s Run. That a 70s sci-fi movie that I loved growing up would fail under the weight of those rose-colored expectations.

That didn’t happen here. Rollerball is still a solid sci-fi movie, one with a message. It doesn’t redefine the genre, but it carves its own niche into it and can hold its own with today’s flashy additions to the genre.

The plot is pretty straightforward. In the near-future, a handful of mega-corporations run the world. They provide all the basics of life and in return simply ask that the people let them run things as they see fit. To further distract the masses, they run a game called Rollerball where each corporation has a team. It is a hyper-violent sport that not only entertains the crowds but reinforces the idea that individualism is useless, that no one person can rise above the masses. It’s like if Mussolini ran a soccer league where all the players carried spiked bats.

On the Houston Energy team is the most popular player in the world, Jonathan E. (Caan). He starts to receive pressure to retire. No one will tell him why. His decision to seek out the answers drives the film to its conclusion.

Caan is great as Jonathan E. Jonathan begins the film content in his role as a player. He is a product of his world; a contented worker bee with a rudimentary education. But as he is pressured to retire, his eyes are opened to how rotted the world has become. Libraries are gone and now fully digitized, but information is constantly lost. Executives are awarded “privileges” where they can do things like take someone’s wife for their own (which happened to Jonathan). The Corporations run the world with unchecked power but rely on a faulty master computer for guidance.

That makes for one of the great moments of the movie. Jonathan demands to question the master computer in Zurich to find out why things are the way they are. Once there he is informed the computer has lost all the information pertaining to the 13th century, but that it doesn’t matter since the only thing of interest then was Dante. At which point the computer starts to babble incoherently. Jonathan realizes the computer is hopelessly corrupted, just like the world it has spawned.

And yet he doesn’t give in. The whole movie is, in part, a message about the individual fighting to claim their uniqueness in a world that tries to nullify it. The rollerball matches Jonathan competes in get more dangerous. His best friend on the team, Moonpie (played wonderfully by John Beck) is attacked during a match against Tokyo and intentionally placed into a permanent coma with a spiked glove shot to the back of his unprotected head. Jonathan is offered power, money and women. He is even offered back his wife, the one taken away from him by the Corporations so many years ago, as the ultimate bribe. All of this if he will simply retire.

But Jonathan won’t do it. Mostly because no one will tell him why they want him gone at first. But by the climax, he won’t do it because he sees everything the Corporations touch as rotted to the core, including the game he loves. The only thing he has that is untouched, that is his, is his name. And he won’t give that up.

During the story there are a couple of great scenes with Jonathan and Bartholomew (Houseman), the head of Energy. Bartholomew treats Jonathan like a simple child, telling him that it is all for his own good. But as Jonathan’s stubbornness asserts itself, Bartholomew gets angrier and angrier until, in their final meeting, he tells Jonathan he can and will be stopped.

That leads to a great ending. Houston and New York meet for the championship in a match with no substitutions, no penalties and no time-limits. It is a match designed to kill everyone, to demonstrate the power of the Corporations and the futility of one man, any man, to try and control his own destiny. The match is hyper-kinetic and brutal beyond measure. And in the end, Jonathan triumphs once more in one of the great closing scenes in the sci-fi film genre.

Director Norman Jewison was also commenting on violence in Rollerball, and its use as a form of entertainment. The sport is completely insane, with motorcycles, spiked gloves and death a constant possibility. And when it fails to do its job, the corporations just up the violence until the last match is a mockery of itself, a sanctioned slaughter. I guess we’re doing a little better these days; most trends in sports are towards safety, not blood.

The scenery and such is slightly dated, but Jewison was trying to incorporate a lot of modern architecture from the time into his shots. It’s almost like looking at an alternate version of our future. That’s more than made up for by the rollerball scenes, which are intense and 100% real. Rollerball was the first film where stuntmen got a full credit in the closing credits. They earned it; the scenes are great.

If I had a complaint about the movie it would be that, outside of Jonathan, everyone else is kind of a cardboard cutout. That includes the world itself. We never exactly find out how the world got the way it is beyond vague references to the “Corporate Wars.” The other characters are there to play off of Jonathan. The one exception is his wife, Ella (Adams). Their scenes together towards the film’s end are good because Ella has her own desires and needs and you can see them come across on the screen.

So where to put Rollerball on the current list? I feel confident ranking it between The Fifth Element and They Live. I like They Live but Rollerball has a message and an emotional core the other film doesn’t. But The Fifth Element is light-years ahead of Rollerball in scenery and costumes, and has a solid story to boot.

Rollerball is a good sci-fi film, easily re-watchable and more than just a few action sequences. It’s also a voice against violence for the sake of entertainment and a stand for the sanctity of the individual. It’s holds up real well even today. Definitely a must-see if you have missed it up to now and a definite buy for your DVD collection.

Oh, and whatever you do, don’t go see that horrendous 2002 remake. The fact the two movies share the same name should be grounds to lock McTiernan away at the Supermax in Colorado for life.

Thank You, Devin Faraci

2008-10-29T14:13:00.001-04:00

Yesterday at CHUD I was reading a piece on Edgar Wright's Halloween double-bill he was presenting. The first was one we all know: Shaun of the Dead. But the second was a film I wasn't familiar with: Riki-Oh: The Story of Riki.

So I read the story, wishing there was some way to get cool shit like this out here in my neck of America. And for kicks I decided to Google Riki Oh.

Turns out, Google Video has the whole damn film. So I sat back to watch it.

Oh. My. God. What I would have given to know about this movie back in '91 when I was in college. Riki-Oh is the balls.

It's not quality, mind you. It's a Hong Kong kung-fu flick set in the "future" (2001) where all the prisons are privatized*. At one prison the Warden abuses his prisoners and four big criminals called the "Gang of Four" run the four wings of his prison. Into this framework is introduced Riki, a young man serving 10 years for manslaughter.

Did I mention Riki can punch through a man's chest?

The gore in this film is off the charts. Heads explode, stomachs are ripped open, arms are shredded, skin is flayed. In one fight a man tries to strangle Riki with his own intestines after Riki disembowels him. And no, that is not a misprint. And what I have said here doesn't even begin to touch on all the crazy you'll find in Riki-Oh.

This is a cult film that is off-the-charts awesome. If you take it for what it is you'll have a lot of fun with it. I don't think you can "rate" a film like this. If you like cult films or crazy gore-filled kung-fu films, you'll love this. If you don't, I wouldn't bother watching this.

But I do want to thank Devin for mentioning this film through his story. Without it I would have never known to check it out.

-------------

* Can't mock this, though, since it is actually happening.

Rudy Ray Moore 1927-2008

2008-10-20T21:37:00.003-04:00

Rudy Ray Moore, the man who created Dolomite, the baddest muthafucka in the land, the man who made the elephants roost in trees and had the muthafuckin' ants wearin' BVDs, has died at the age of 81.

Moore, whose low-budget films were panned by critics in the 1970s but became cult classics decades later, died Sunday night in Toledo, Ohio, of complications from diabetes, his brother Gerald Moore told the Associated Press.

Though he was little known to mainstream audiences, Rudy Ray Moore had a significant effect on comedians and hip-hop artists.

That's the truth; Moore was the original pimp. And my God, were his films something to behold. By the time I was old enough to see them they were on videotape. Dolemite and its sequel The Human Tornado were in steady rotation on my VCR. Here are the trailers for both:

How can you not love that? Moore was the shit. The world is definitely a less-cool place today for his passing.

Star Trek Pics Hit The Web

2008-10-17T11:29:00.001-04:00

Head on over to CHUD for the full listing of which site has which photo. This is the crew shot photo from UGO.com:

Devin makes the point at CHUD that Karl Urban is nailing it as Bones, and I concur. Just by looking at how he stands and looks, you actually believe this is Bones as a young man. And Chris Pine seems to be getting Kirk as well, with that always-slightly bemused look.

I really want this to do well. I guess we'll be able to form a better opinion as more dribs and drabs slowly come to light.

This Should Be...Interesting

2008-10-16T13:18:00.003-04:00

Whomever picked "The Napoleonic Wars" in your "Next Steve Carell Film Setting" office pool...you're a winner.

Steve Carell is attached to play the title character in “The Adventures of Brigadier Gerard,” a comedy set during the Napoleonic Wars that Media Rights Capital is mobilizing for a spring 2009 production start.

Script was written by John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky (“Blades of Glory”).

Pic is among several films that Carell is considering; he plans to star in one or two films during his hiatus after shooting the fifth season of NBC sitcom “The Office.”

Carell will play the title character, the bravest soldier in Napoleon’s army and also the dumbest. Gerard follows Napoleon from his rise to power to his permanent exile. The comedy is based on stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

The stories in question can be found in two books: The Exploits of Brigadier Gerard and The Adventures of Gerard. I have actually had the pleasure of reading the first book. I found the tales of Etienne Gerard to be enjoyable, so I am interesting in seeing how Carell brings this character to the screen.

It's not unheard of for this period of history to be used in film and television. Usually they are serious works, like Waterloo or Sharpe's Rifles and it's sequels*. So it will be interesting to see if a humorous take on the period as a whole can work. The closest thing that comes to mind are the adaptations of Thackeray's Vanity Fair, but that is satire and I have a feeling Carrell's humor will be just a little broader. Though, with Mike Judge as an executive producer, that may be reined in somewhat.

------------

* The best drama on television you have likely never seen. The Sharpe's series kicks ass. And if you like Sean Bean...well, you'll love his acting here. Top notch all the way around.

The Last Great Push Forward In Cinema

2008-10-14T11:37:00.000-04:00

Interesting piece over at the Hollywood Reporter about the recent deal between major theater chains and movie studios to upgrade over 15,000 screens to digital projection and then push 3D to the masses.

"It's definitely a critical time," says Doug Darrow, marketing manager at Texas Instruments, which makes the chips that power digital cinema projectors. "While 3-D is greeted with excitement and anticipation, there's also a level of concern -- albeit optimistic -- that the output will be there when the content comes."

The numbers back up that sentiment. Only about 1,000 screens in the U.S. are currently digital 3-D-ready. This is about the same as when "Beowulf" opened last November and not nearly enough to provide the desired screens for the dozen 3-D titles slated to open in 2009, not to mention the 30 or so in the pipeline beyond that.

The question that exhibition and distribution execs are asking as they gather at ShowEast in Orlando on Monday is: Will there be sufficient screens to handle the 2009 slate?

"There is an urgent need for (conversions) to happen," says Cary Granat, co-CEO of Walden Media, which released "Journey to the Center of the Earth" this summer on 2,811 screens. Only 854 of those were equipped to handle 3-D, yet they accounted for 57% of the film's $21 million opening weekend. "We were thrilled with boxoffice for 'Journey,' but we certainly left money on the table," Granat says.

I am on record as saying that the movie theater as we know it is on the way out and 3-D is a temporary respite. It may take a couple of decades, but the theater-going experience is rapidly going to become a thing of the past. The reason is that home theater technology is getting cheaper. Right now you can go get a 60" DLP HDTV at 1080p resolution and 3D ready to boot for $1299. That sounds expensive. But consider where that price point will be in five years. I bet that television will cost under $1,000.

The day is coming where the average American family will be able to install a digital, 3D-ready home theater system in their house for under $2,000. The actual 3-D technology itself will probably double that price, but that cost will also come down as more and more are installed.

And this will come at the same time as theaters charge more for 3D tickets to try and increase revenue. In the story they talk about how theaters right now can charge a 20% premium on a 3-D ticket. They also don't discount for kids as I found out when I took my two kids to see Fly Me to the Moon. So it is profitable...for now. But the day is coming when that won't be an edge.

"(Studio) production commitments are often based on the here and now, instead of thinking about how much value there is to this 3-D product in the future," says Vince Pace, president of Pace, a 3-D production service company.

The first 3-D-ready TV sets have already started to roll out, and "glasses-free" sets are in development. But while the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers has started an initiative to create 3-D mastering standards for content viewed in the home, these standards are at least 18 months away.

The irony of all this is that the studios are helping the theaters spend all this money on a technology that will eventually seep into the home-market. The studios will continue to profit as they push DVDs and digital content to the home. The theaters, though, will be shit out of luck.They are willingly putting their necks in the noose and ending up in the position of having expensive equipment and being forced to charge more per ticket just as their audience begins to stay at home in greater numbers. The inevitable end of all this is theater chains crashing under the weight of increased debt and reduced revenue.

As I said before, there are three types of theaters that will survive this decline:

First is the old drive-in. Driving up to watch a film from your car is NOT something you can capture at home. The second are theaters in college towns. There, the shared experience with hundreds of other people is important. The third are in depressed urban and rural areas. Home technology will be too expensive for people in these areas.

And I will add a fourth to my list; revival theaters. Someone who is smart enough to run older films at discounted prices in heavy-suburban/urban areas will survive. People will come out to recapture the experience of watching Star Wars on a big screen for $6, or a double-bill of Animal House and Caddyshack. But it won't be a huge money generator, just enough to make a living.

Other than that, I don't see what the theaters can offer. Unless they can make the movie experience a literally immersive experience, i.e. having it occur around you. But the cost for something like that would be insane.

Five More Movies To Check Out At Hulu

2008-10-12T16:25:00.002-04:00

Hulu has really taken off as an online movie/TV site. More and more content is being added every day. Here are five recent movies you can (and should) check out.

1. Slacker: Richard Linklater's 90s look at the 20-somethings in Austin. This was one of the movies to kick off the indie movement. It's also a great free-form film, with the focus constantly shifting from one character to another.

2. The Professional: Luc Besson's film (the original title is Léon) is one of the best action films ever made. It is hard to believe this was Natalie Portman's first film.

3. Carnival of Souls: This film didn't make much of an impact when it was made. But appreciation for this horror film has grown over the years. Made for only $30,000 this film scares you not through gore, but in the atmosphere it creates.

4. Crawford: I heard about this documentary, and it turns out Hulu is premiering it. A humorous look at how Crawford has co-existed with George W. Bush. Unsurprisingly, he is leaving chaos in his wake.

5. Close Encounters of the Third Kind: One of the definitive sci-fi movies of the past 40 years.

Another Nail In Sci-Fi's Television Coffin

2008-10-09T15:24:00.001-04:00

Over at Hollywood Reporter you can read about a match made in Hell; The Sci-Fi Channel and RHI signing a five-picture deal.

The license agreement includes basic cable rights for the U.S. TV premieres of five new horror and thriller projects. Production is set to begin shortly in Romania on three of the movies:

-- "Sand Serpents," starring Gedrick, follows American combat soldiers in the Afghan desert who battle the Taliban and a horde of giant carnivorous serpents.

-- "Alien Western" is set in an Old West town in the 1890s where monstrous buglike machines from another world attack.

-- "Carney," based on the Jersey Devil legend, where a fiendish carnival side-show attraction escapes and terrorizes a Depression-era Mid-Atlantic town.

Also part of the deal are two previously announced movies: "Hellhounds," directed by Ricky Schroder, and "Rise of the Gargoyle," starring Eric Balfour. Those two just wrapped production on location in Romania*.

Are you as underwhelmed as I am? RHI is like the Golan-Globus of the new millennium**, pumping out plenty of shlock for mass consumption. Their big claim to fame on Sci-Fi is Tin Man, the Wizard of Oz re-imagining that probably looked great on paper and came off pretty lame on television.

But this points to a larger trend, which is the slow death of sci-fi on US television. I know, that sounds crazy considering we are in what appears to be a virtual renaissance of the genre on the small-screen. But look at what Sci-Fi is doing; they are paring down on solid sci-fi series (Stargate SG-1, Farscape) and replacing them with cheap movies of low-end quality and lousy reality shows. Yes, BG and Doctor Who are still there. But BG is near the end of its run and Doctor Who is a BBC show, not a Sci-Fi creation. There is Eureka, but it has struggled to gain a notable audience.

Over on network television you have Heroes falling off the cliff as that series gets more and more convoluted and confused. Fringe is getting good reviews but hasn't really captured national attention. The one standout has been Lost, but that has a definitive end date.

Compare what is going on today to even 10 years ago. In 1998 you had Babylon 5, The X-Files, Buffy, Stargate SG-1 and both Deep Space Nine and Voyager. There were minor series like Lexx and Earth: Final Conflict. Within four years you also had Enterprise, Firefly, Farscape, Andromeda***, and Jeremiah.

Now all of that is a faded memory as we look forward to watching Carney. Jesus wept.

Of course, not everyone is cutting back on quality sci-fi television. The BBC has two of the best shows out there, in Doctor Who and Torchwood. That isn't surprising since sci-fi on television got its start on the BBC when they ran an adaptation of Rossum's Universal Robots in 1938. The Life on Mars show ABC is crowing about is a remake of the recent original BBC series****. There is a new show, Primeval, which you can see on BBC America and has received great reviews. I am sure we'll see it on ABC in three years.

I don't know why quality sci-fi is dwindling on television here in the US, but it is. And that is a shame as it is the only genre that allows us to expand our imaginations and imagine "What if?" It is a genre that allows us to explore issues like racism and religion without actually using real-world examples. And it would be a shame if our only exposure to the wealth and depth of that genre was from British imports.

---------------------

* And you know the highest quality films come from Romania.

** I liked Golan-Globus films when I was a teenager. There was a reason for that. I'll give them credit for The Assault and Lifeforce, but Invasion USA, Masters of the Universe, America Ninja....dude, those films are crap. Once you're old enough to drink, you have to drink to enjoy those movies. And don't get me started on Cyborg, the film that killed the Golan-Globus partnership.

*** Andromeda was one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but it went totally off the rails in its last season. I just didn't find that conclusion satisfying. Those first four seasons, though, can go toe-to-toe with the best of any other series, ST:TNG included.

**** And of course they gutted the central premise of the show. I can't wait to see how ABC fucked it up.

Another Venerable Series Comes Back For One More Shot

2008-10-07T11:44:00.001-04:00

Hopefully, this one will end up better than Indiana Jones and the Nuked Fridge. You've likely heard the buzz about Lethal Weapon coming back for another go-around. Well, it appears that we may see #5 sooner than later. From Slashfilm:

Back in August it was reported that Shane Black had handed in a detailed treatment to Joel Silver for a Lethal Weapon 5, which he hopes to direct. When Black signed on to helm Cold Warrior for Universal, we assumed that the project fell into development hell. Not so, turned out that the sequel was just waiting on Mel Gibson’s approval.

Now IGN has talked with Columbus Short, who was at one point rumored to be involved with the project. Short not only confirmed that is he up for a role, but claims the film is being fast tracked into production by Warner Bros. No word on if Gibson has seen Black’s treatment or given his thumbs up to go ahead, but it certainly sounds like it. Rumor has it that Short would play Murtaugh’s son.

The only question I have is "Will Mel Gibson hate on the Jewish people in this movie?" Oh, too soon?

I have to admit, I am not that enthused for a fifth dip into this particular water bucket. I loved the first two and liked the third. The fourth one (great action scenes with Jet Li aside) was very...forced. It didn't move as easily as the other films. It was like they were trying to hit certain points, plot and flow be damned.

Now, Shane Black is back writing on this one as well as directing, so maybe it will be better. But it's going to take a hell of a film to make the fifth Lethal Weapon a worthy addition to the collection as opposed to a painful tack-on.

Politics Face-Off In The Theaters

2008-10-06T11:23:00.002-04:00

Very rarely do you ever see two movies with diametrically-opposed political philosophies open at the same time in the theaters*. It happened this weekend, with the release of David Zucker's An American Carol and Bill Maher's Religulous.

I hope to get a chance to see Maher's film this weekend. As for Carol, well, you know how I feel about it. So how did they compare?

Carol out-grossed Religulous by the smallest of margins; $3.81 million to $3.50 million. So, a victory for Zucker and the Right, yes?

Not so fast. If you look at the per-screen average, Religulous crushed Carol: $6,972 per screen to $2,325 per screen. See, Carol opened on 1,639 screens while Religulous opened on just 502 screens.

So which is the more important number? Well, it depends on if you want to win the battle or the war. Carol gets immediate bragging rights but doesn't look like it will do much overall. Religulous, however, looks like it'll do larger business over a longer period of time as it goes wider this weekend.

So take from this what you will. I find it encouraging that a film that makes you think will (in the long-term) top a film that is little better than a childish rant about Those Mean Lefties^TM.

-------------

* I really cannot remember when this has happened before. You'll notice I didn't say two comedies. This is because Carol is likely not funny at all.

Amazingly, This Is No Joke

2008-10-01T20:51:00.003-04:00

I thought Devin Faraci at CHUD was kidding when he said blind people were protesting against the new movie Blindness.

He wasn't.

Seriously. They're enraged about the adaptation of Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago's book, and not due to the fact that by all accounts the movie ain't that good. No, they're pissed off that the movie depicts a society that falls into mass chaos when a contagious blindness epidemic sweeps a city.

....

Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, is organizing 75 protests around the country, which should be worth gawking at.

Egads. As if that isn't exactly what would happen if everyone lost their sight. What does Maurer think, that everyone would sit down, have a cup of Sleepytime Tea and chill out? It'd be fucking chaos.

People need to lighten up.

Paul Newman: 1925-2008

2008-09-27T10:30:00.002-04:00

Tragic news today as acting great Paul Newman has passed away at the age of 83.

Where do you even start when talking about Paul Newman's career? It spanned television and film over five decades. He starred in some of the most beloved films in America. These are a mere handful of the films in which he appeared.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
The Hustler
Hud
Harper
Cool Hand Luke
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Sting
Slap Shot
Absence of Malice
The Verdict
The Color of Money
Road to Perdition

That is a career in and of itself. But it's just a small part of Newman's total body of work. He was a phenominal actor.

But what I truly admired him for were two things he did off the screen.

First, he stayed married to and was faithful to Joanne Woodward for over 50 years. That is practically unheard of in Hollywood.

Second, rather than hoard his money or waste it on foolish things, he invested it in charitable works. His Hole in the Wall Gang camp for terminally-ill children is wonderful and the Newman's Own food brand has raised more than $250 million for charity. Newman was a shining example of what Hollywood stars can achieve if they actually give a damn about making the world a better place.

Newman represented what Hollywood and acting could be; not a place full of narcissism and greed but one of quality and service. The man, and his example, will be sorely missed by us all.

God bless you, Mr. Newman. The world is a poorer place for your passing.

Valkyrie Poster Is Out

2008-09-27T08:57:00.003-04:00

You've likely seen this elsewhere as well. But it came in my mail and I just didn't get around to posting it until today.

I like it. I think it's pretty stylish. And the B&W offset by the red stripe is a nice touch. In case you are unaware of the background in the poster, it's a map and the red stripe is the path Cruise's character (von Stauffenberg) takes through Hitler's Wolf's Lair before reaching the meeting room where he plants the briefcase bomb.

I am excited to see this movie, not so much because of Cruise but because I am a voracious reader of military history and have been most of my life. I am interested to see how they tell this story. There were many plots and attempts to assassinate Hitler, but this was the only one that ever came close to succeeding.

And for what it is worth, Cruise looks a lot like von Stauffenberg. So that's a plus right there. Anyway, here's the poster:

Hollywood Hits Its Nadir

2008-09-25T16:40:00.002-04:00

There is a movie currently making the festival rounds called Let The Right One In. To simply call it "a vampire movie" would be to do it a great injustice. Everyone who has seen it has loved it. There is already talk about it being on multiple Top 10 lists for 2008. I have not heard or seen one bad word written about the movie. But it apparently has one big problem.

It's all in Swedish.

Yes, Let The Right One In is a foreign film. And while that shouldn't be a problem or an issue, for Hollywood that can only mean one thing. You guessed it...here comes the remake! A remake of a film that was seen for the first time in the United States in April of 2008.

Hollywood is remaking a movie that isn't even six months old.

I quit. I have railed and railed against the intellectual bankruptcy of Hollywood for a while now, but it is apparent that it's an unstoppable force. Hell, look at the upcoming movie Quarantine. How many people know that is a remake of REC, a Spanish horror film that bowed in August of 2007 and went into wide release in April of 2008? Not many people in the US, considering the film was never released here. And considering the overwhelmingly positive response REC received, how much would you like to bet that Quarantine will be a pale imitation? What, no takers?

So fuck it. Why fight the trend? Hell, let's embrace it. Since Hollywood has decided that they cannot ever take a chance on a homegrown, original idea again, lets go all out.

First, remake The Godfather. Why not? It was an adaptation to begin with, so why should Hollywood give a damn? Besides, it obviously needs some updating. Sonny could get killed by a rocket-launcher. And instead of Vito dying, he can spring out of his coffin to kill Tessio once he sets up Michael at the "funeral." It writes itself!

But here's the bigger plan for the movie execs. First, write down all the names on IMDB's Top 250 list. Then, go through all the films ever nominated for an Oscar in any category that also isn't on the Top 250 list. Then comb the year-by-year lists for the Top 50 box-office earners for any names you may have missed. And make sure to get the name of any foreign movie that has ever been mentioned positively in America.

I would guess that this would give them a list of 1000-2000 movies. Lets be generous and call it 2000 movies. That would now be The List; the only movies that ever need to be made again. An endless recycling of favorites.

Why not? If Hollywood is remaking Swedish horror flicks before they're barely out of the gate, they shouldn't have any qualms about remaking the same films over and over again. Hell, they're successful films. Isn't that all that matters?

Figure five films a week for the movie-going public, with a couple of extras on big holiday weekends (Memorial Day, 4th of July, Thanksgiving, Christmas). That means we would see about 250 movies released each year. That is an eight-year cycle, more than enough time to remake a film, let it filter out of the public consciousness, and then be shown again.

Did you miss Star Wars when it first came out? Don't worry, now you'll see it at least four times with different actors. Dying for a remake of Saving Private Ryan? Now you'll get to save him over and over again. And who wants to see The Good, The Bad and The Ugly remade with Paul Walker playing Eastwood's role? Now you'll get your chance!

Okay, I am ranting here. But it just bugs me to no end how Hollywood does this stuff. I want to see the original version of this film that everyone has praised, not the cheap American knockoff. Why should that be a problem?

Absolutely Unacceptable

2008-09-23T16:11:00.002-04:00

What the fuck?

How can you even pretend to want to remake a classic film like Rashomon*? And to move it to the United States is even worse. Christ, I thought the brief moment of Brett Ratner getting his mitts on Escape From New York was my worst nightmare. I stand corrected.

If you want to celebrate Kurosawa's 100th birthday, hold a film festival or something. But how is remaking one of his greatest films** respecting the director? That'd be like going to Scorsese and saying "We thought we'd honor you by remaking Goodfellas. How's that work for ya?"

Just a bad idea all around. Maybe Harbor Light Entertainment will go belly-up in a clear example of karmic justice.

--------------

* I know Ritt remade Rashomon in the early 60s, threw a Western motif over it and called it The Outrage. And it sucked. Which only reinforces my point.

** And making a hash of it. You know this remake will completely suck compare to the original. Kurosawa is one of those directors whose works should be left alone because no one is ever going to do it as well as he did***.

*** This doesn't apply to using his films as inspiration and/or canvas, though. The Magnificent Seven rocked**** and The Hidden Fortress influenced the Star Wars saga to great effect. And you don't make A Fistful of Dollars without seeing Yojimbo***** first. But none of those guys thought they could do a Kurosawa film as well as Kurosawa.

**** Okay, The Magnificent Seven is The Seven Samurai with a Western motif thrown over it as well. So what's the difference between this and The Outrage? The obvious difference is that The Magnificent Seven is a good movie. Call it the exception that proves the rule.

***** Which Kurosawa made by using plot lines from Dashiell Hammett's Red Harvest. You'll note that Kurosawa didn't simply slap Hammett's story on the screen. Even when he used Shakespeare for some of his greatest works (Throne of Blood, Ran) Kurosawa didn't just make a copy with Japanese trappings. He used it as a base and then grew something wonderful from it. Which is the difference between what he did and what the asshats at Harbor Light want to do.

My Five Favorite Films From...1994

2008-09-23T13:22:00.002-04:00

1993 | 1992 | 1991 | 1990 | 1989 | 1988 | 1987 | 1986 | 1985 | 1984 | 1983 | 1982 | 1981 | 1980 | 1979 | 1978 | 1977 | 1976 | 1975 | 1974 | 1973 | 1972

Honorable Mention – Natural Born Killers: I have written about seeing this movie before. Very intense, bloody and off-the-charts nuts, but it’s well-made and definitely worth seeing.

5. Hoop Dreams: Even now I think this stands as one of the better documentaries of the past 20 years or so. It was a sin against common sense and general decency that it wasn’t nominated for an Academy Award that year.

4. Clerks: To many this is still Kevin Smith’s best movie*. I think it holds up as one of the better comedies of my generation. The sequel…not so much.

3. The Shawshank Redemption: If this was a list about quality, this would be first in a cakewalk. The best adaptation of a Stephen King story ever**. Still amazes me whenever I watch it.

2. Léon (The Professional): A huge sleeper film that caught everyone by surprise and is now recognized by many as one of the better movies ever made***. Not a down moment the entire movie. And it still amazes me that this was Natalie Portman’s first film. Who acts that they their first time out?

1. Pulp Fiction: The film that resurrected the careers of John Travolta and Bruce Willis and made the careers of Samuel L. Jackson**** and Ving Rhames. Tarantino’s best movie. Spawned a whole new sub-genre of movies trying to copy what Tarantino did with dialogue and playing with the timeline of the movie*****.

Wow. Even though 1993 was stronger overall, the top three films (for me) of 1994 are all some of the most respected films ever made. If you go to IMDB, Shawshank is currently #1 while Pulp Fiction is #6 and Léon is #37. That’s remarkable.

Films I Like But Didn't Make The List: Three Colors: Red, Three Colors: White, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Clear and Present Danger, Quiz Show, Bullets Over Broadway, City Slickers II, Junior, Legends of the Fall, Heavenly Creatures, Ed Wood, Dumb and Dumber, Wyatt Earp, The Mask, True Lies, Little Odessa, Immortal Beloved, PCU, The Madness of King George, The Paper, Reality Bites, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle, Speed, Star Trek: Generations, The Ref

Underappreciated – Cobb: This movie never got a lot of love from people. My theory is that a lot of people were uncomfortable watching Tommy Lee Jones portray a man who was a great ballplayer, but also a nasty, vile unrepentant racist and misanthrope. It’s hard to make a person like that the centerpiece of a story and then expect the public to come out in droves. But those people missed out on a great little film.

Guilty Pleasure (x2) – Timecop and Stargate: Both these movies rise above the usual “Guilty Pleasure”. The first was Van Damme’s only $100 million film, and it was his best by a wide margin. Stargate was the only film Roland Emmerich ever directed that doesn’t make me want to jump out a window******.

Major Disappointment – Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult: After the first two films, expectations were high that this would be a gut-buster as well. Instead, it stunk. I mean, this movie is flat-out bad. Not funny at all. Peter Segal’s career as a director would have died right here if it wasn’t for Tommy Boy coming out the next year and saving his ass.

And what has David Zucker written since this bomb? High School High, BASEketball and H.U.D.. I am sure An American Carol will exceed this level of tripe*******.

Growing Disenchantment With… – Forrest Gump: I loved it when it first came out. Then I liked it a little less each time I saw it. Now I don’t even bother flipping to it if it’s on television. I don’t know what it is exactly about the movie that caused this to happen. Maybe it’s the fact that Jenny dicks Forrest over for decades, sleeps with him once and then dumps a kid on him before she dies of AIDS. And this is the love of Forrest’s life. Yeah, that might have something to do with it…

----------------

* For me personally, it’s Chasing Amy. I know some people dislike it but I think it is a lot more solid than Clerks. That said, I think Zack and Miri Make a Porno will blow them both out of the water.

** There are three more adaptations that are allowed into this discussion: The Mist, Stand by Me and The Shining. I liked 1408 and Salems Lot. The Stand and It were awesome mini-series. But the argument begins and ends with those four films.

*** It’s true. #37 on the IMDB Top 250. And it’s just obvious from watching it. Jean Reno and Gary Oldman are flat-out awesome in that movie.

**** Unless someone wants to argue that Jackson’s role as Stacks in Goodfellas or his star turn in Amos and Andrew was his big break. In which case I’ll have to take a croquet mallet to your temple.

***** Yes, Reservoir Dogs did the same thing. But Pulp Fiction got a bigger audience than Reservoir Dogs ever did. I mean, it isn’t even close. More people saw the second film and that is why it had that kind of impact on film-making.

****** He also directed The Patriot, which only makes me want to ram my head into a wall. By that standard, it was a roaring success.

******* No it won’t. I am betting An American Carol is about as funny as finding out you have cancer of the pancreas. That said, I have no doubt the 25% of Americans who are still stupid enough to think that George Bush is a good president will go see this drek and declare it funnier than Duck Soup. And then we’ll be treated to watching a hagged-out Ann Coulter pimp this all over the television. At which point I’ll have to dump bleach in my eyes.

My (Tenuous-At-Best) Connection To D.W. Griffith

2008-09-22T14:10:00.003-04:00

I was reading The New Yorker the other day, and in particular the piece on Spike Lee and his new movie, Miracle at St. Anna*. It mentions how, while at film school in NYU, he and his classmates were shown Birth of a Nation. Griffith's work was shown for its style and direction, while nothing was said of its content or history. This angered Lee and he made a student film called The Answer that was controversial enough that some teachers didn't want him back the next year**.

That made me ponder two things. First, the idea that we should judge a film (and it's creator) not only on its technical achievements and storytelling skill, but also on its social merits***. Second was the fact that my hometown has a connection to a film made by D.W. Griffith.

I grew up in Farmington, CT. It is one of the oldest towns in the country; it was founded in 1640 and is the oldest European settlement in America west of the Connecticut River. So we are all very cognizant of our history. We know that Washington rode through Farmington during the Revolution and Rochambeau stayed there. We know all about the Amistad uprising and how Farmington housed the freed Africans while money was raised to return them home****. We know that Alexander Haig lived there back in the 70s. And we all know that D.W. Griffith shot a famous movie scene on the Farmington River.

The film was Way Down East, the next-to-last film that Griffith made with Lillian Gish. It came after Birth of a Nation and Intolerance. It's a good, if pretty forgettable, silent film about how the wealthy treat the rest of us*****, but it has one memorable moment. The climax finds Gish's character kicked out into the cold of winter, trapped on an ice floe in a river that is about to go over a waterfall. She is rescued by the one man who has ever loved her (of course). He hops from floe to floe to rescue Gish and they live happily ever after.

That scene was shot on the Farmington River in the middle of summer. It was done without any special effects and is pretty impressive. And anyone who knows that in town will be sure to mention it.

I always liked that fact about my hometown. But then I read the piece about Lee. And now I wonder if I should be proud of the fact that an unrepentant racist shot part of a movie in Farmington.

Does it matter that Griffith made those other movies when looking at Way Down East? After all, none of those themes were present in this film. Or should the director's whole body of work be weighed in the balance when evaluating each film?

I'm still not 100% sure where I fall on that question. But I feel a little less willing to bring up Griffith's film when someone asks about where I grew up.

--------------------

* My relationship with Lee's movies is...complicated. I think Bamboozled was a great film that got unjustly hammered because it made people uncomfortable. But at the same time I am still pissed Sal's Pizzeria got burned down. I mean, the guy owns the place. He has the right to tell someone to turn their music down. It's not like he killed Radio Raheem. Beyond doubt, however, is that Lee knows how to make a damn good film and he is criminally underappreciated. I'll let you decide why that is.

** I would pay a large, large sum of money to see this movie, which has never been seen by the general public. And how much of an ass do you have to be to get pissed at a student who points out that Nation was used to recruit for the Klan and then crafts a response to that? What, they were opposed to calling out racism?

*** As you can tell from the end of the post, I think you do have to look at the larger picture. You have to acknowledge that Riefenstahl's Olympia was made for the Nazis even as you admire its skill. You can appreciate and enjoy Sergei Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, but you also have to recognize it as Soviet propaganda. And while Birth of a Nation may be a historical artifact of great importance, to ignore the racist overtones and how it was used in society is inexcusable.

**** Not in a "we don't want them here" way. Joseph Cinqué and the other Africans wanted to be returned home. And would it have killed Spielberg to film part of Amistad in Farmington?

***** It ended up being a remarkably profitable film, making $5,000,000 for Griffith. In 2008 dollars that would be $54,771,500. How many directors today would kill for a take like that?

Short People Take Note

2008-09-20T10:14:00.001-04:00

This is from long-time reader Blue Guy. If you are vertically-challenged and looking for a gig in Hollywood, this might be right up your alley.

Thought you might be interested in knowing this:

Looking for people who are 4' 11" and under to work as stand-ins in the movie Alice in Wonderland directed by Tim Burton. The movie is a motion capture type of film. Must be physically fit and be able to work with a mask covering their face

Thanks, BG. Sounds pretty cool. I'd love to see Burton's take on what is already a very surrealistic tale.