When the film ended my wife looked over at me and said "you can rip this one all you want!" Now, it is her film but in her defense I believe she bought it for $2 on a day after Thanksgiving sale so no real harm done. As far as ripping this film goes, what's the point? Do you need me to talk about how Hugh Grant has become the king of phoning in performances? Maybe you want me to ask the unanswerable question of why does Drew Barrymore always play the talented but lacks confidence girl hiding behind a sheepish smile. Perhaps commentary on the films use of cliched '80's music or it's overly transparent 'satire' regarding modern pop music.
All of that would be nice, but instead, what I think this film needs is advise. The first piece of advise is the obvious request to stop being lazy. If something seems like it is easy to parody it's because it is. I'm 29, I remember Wham! Dressing Hugh Grant like a member of Wham! and having him sing songs that are Gouda Cheese does not equal funny. It's lazy and boring.
That also leads to my next, more serious recommendation. As a teen I remember watching Siskel and Ebert review "That Thing You Do!" and one of them commented on how one key to this film was the fact that the films main song was good enough that an audience could sit through hearing it 12 times in 2 hours and not hate it. Now, if you want to make a movie centered in the world of pop music, please write one good song for your movie. Not everything has to be parody. Perhaps the filmmakers here believe that the song Hugh and Drew wrote was that song. If that is true, find a way to feature that is better than having the Shakira type pop star turn it into some ridiculous modern pop number. With "That Thing You Do!" we get little bits of that era piped in for comic relief through out the film but never does the film take shots at it's own song.
Already I know I have wrote too much about this film. If you like Drew Barrymore and Hugh Grant or if you just like movies that aim at making you feel good than there is nothing wrong with liking this movie. Still, I can't ignore that watching this film I felt like I could predict exactly what would happen next every step of the way. I also found it strange, as my wife pointed out, that this RomCom centered in the world of pop music was strangely devoid of an actually soundtrack. I'm not sure what was going on there but I can assure you I will not lose sleep worrying about it. In fact, part of me hopes this will be the final thoughts I have on this forgettable and regrettable by the numbers bore.
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Darjeeling Limited
Recently I watched about Elizabethtown and talked about how a great film maker like Cameron Crowe, even at their worst, can still give you more than enough to enjoy their films. With The Darjeeling Limited we see a great filmmaker in Wes Anderson have his work become overly maligned due to expectations that were created by past work. In other words, the difference between Elizabethtown and Darjeeling Limited is that one former survives because it's filmmaker is too talented to make a terrible movie and the later is a great film that gets unfairly criticized for not being as good as Wes Anderson's best work.
Like all Wes Anderson films, Darjeeling presents the audience with a set of characters who all have their own particular quirks and the audience is always asked to accept these quirks without much in the form of direct explanation. Through their actions and dialogue though we learn much about these brothers who have drifted apart following their fathers sudden death one year earlier. We know Jack is a writer who "fictionalizes" family events, Peter is married with a kid on the way and Francis, the oldest, has had his head nearly crushed in an a recent accident. The three are in India on a spiritual journey set up by Francis to try and rebuild their relationship as brothers.
A lesser film at this point would pack itself full with various hijinks, stunts and cultural misunderstanding. But thankfully this is not a Robin Williams movie. Instead Wes Anderson's focus is on these brothers. Anderson takes his time letting the audience get to know these brothers as they are now before covering the events from their fathers funeral. And when those events are covered we begin to understand and relate to the full arch that represents their relationship.
The one argument against or perhaps less than appealing element to this film is the lack of a strong female character to put up against and provide some contrast to these brothers. I know this is a film my wife likes but no where near as much as I do. That's okay. By the end we are treated to a film that focuses not only on the relationship between brothers but also sons and mothers. By it's nature it is not a universal story. It's a man dramedy in every possible way and for me it works in ways that few other films can. I know some Wes Anderson fans who would hang me out to dry for saying this but this is my second favorite Anderson film. Of course, the fact that a debate regarding what Anderson's second best film is can exist should stand as a testament to the quality of films that he makes. For better or worse, it also looks like these will be the standards all future Wes Anderson films are compared to.
Like all Wes Anderson films, Darjeeling presents the audience with a set of characters who all have their own particular quirks and the audience is always asked to accept these quirks without much in the form of direct explanation. Through their actions and dialogue though we learn much about these brothers who have drifted apart following their fathers sudden death one year earlier. We know Jack is a writer who "fictionalizes" family events, Peter is married with a kid on the way and Francis, the oldest, has had his head nearly crushed in an a recent accident. The three are in India on a spiritual journey set up by Francis to try and rebuild their relationship as brothers.
A lesser film at this point would pack itself full with various hijinks, stunts and cultural misunderstanding. But thankfully this is not a Robin Williams movie. Instead Wes Anderson's focus is on these brothers. Anderson takes his time letting the audience get to know these brothers as they are now before covering the events from their fathers funeral. And when those events are covered we begin to understand and relate to the full arch that represents their relationship.
The one argument against or perhaps less than appealing element to this film is the lack of a strong female character to put up against and provide some contrast to these brothers. I know this is a film my wife likes but no where near as much as I do. That's okay. By the end we are treated to a film that focuses not only on the relationship between brothers but also sons and mothers. By it's nature it is not a universal story. It's a man dramedy in every possible way and for me it works in ways that few other films can. I know some Wes Anderson fans who would hang me out to dry for saying this but this is my second favorite Anderson film. Of course, the fact that a debate regarding what Anderson's second best film is can exist should stand as a testament to the quality of films that he makes. For better or worse, it also looks like these will be the standards all future Wes Anderson films are compared to.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Marley & Me
I admit it. Frankly, I don't see how anyone would expect any less from a cold hearted movie dork such as myself. It's a badge I wear proudly and in wearing it the expectation is simple. Before I even start the film I already know that I will hate a movie like Marley & Me.
And early on the film does not disappoint. The film opens with Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson running through snow covered streets as newly weds. It's early spring in southern Michigan so a freak snow storm is actually the norm. What is not the norm is to see two people so ridiculous tanned that you wonder if either actor could even find southern Michigan on a map.
To aid in their overly tanned existence the newly weds move to Miami and begin working for separate newspapers. The central figure here is Owen Wilson who wants to be a serious news reporter and is doing stories on speed bumps when his boss offers him an opportunity to slum it and start writing columns. Around this time Wilson also allows his best buddy to talk him into getting a dog in order to put off having a kid. Yup, because that makes so much sense.
The hyperbole that exists once Marley arrives is a bit nauseating. The film is selling us on the idea that Marley is the world's worst dog and the film makers are almost gitty in their approach to beating the audience senseless with this idea. To survive and even thrive amidst this adversity, Wilson begins to focus many of his columns on Marley. We are treated to a montage in which Wilson dryly covers many events in his life and the ways Marley has provided a notable catastrophe.
This brings us nearly 45 minutes or an hour into the movie when something strange happens. Wilson and Aniston have one kid, and another and another and we see this family develop and the films tone changes from a movie about the world's worst dog to a movie about family that is actually pretty nice. Wilson struggles with what he wants out of his career, Aniston adjusts to life as a full time mom and I actually find the film improving by leaps and bounds at this point. The hijinks are dialed down and we get to see this family grow together and take on more meaningful life experiences than preventing a dog from peeing on a dog beach.
The family eventually moves to a suburb of Philadelphia and some of the films most poignant moments come from seeing the children react to the family dog getting sick and eventually passing away. It's something that everyone who has ever owned a dog can easily relate to and is done very effectively here.
The film is based on a book/memoir of the same name that my wife is a fan of. In both mediums the audience is trying to be sold that this is the worst dog ever, but in an endearing way. I can't speak for the book but I will tell you that this aspect of the film is boorish and cumbersome. This film adds nothing new to the bad but lovable dog category of films that has absolutely no need for any new entries. But, if you find yourself watching this film stick it out. Eventually the film dials down the bad dog routines and the family aspects of the film are actually somewhat enjoyable to watch. This film is far from a must see but it has at least earned to right not to be hated. Which for a guy who lately has only wanted to watch films were stuff goes BOOM is nothing short of a miracle.
And early on the film does not disappoint. The film opens with Jennifer Aniston and Owen Wilson running through snow covered streets as newly weds. It's early spring in southern Michigan so a freak snow storm is actually the norm. What is not the norm is to see two people so ridiculous tanned that you wonder if either actor could even find southern Michigan on a map.
To aid in their overly tanned existence the newly weds move to Miami and begin working for separate newspapers. The central figure here is Owen Wilson who wants to be a serious news reporter and is doing stories on speed bumps when his boss offers him an opportunity to slum it and start writing columns. Around this time Wilson also allows his best buddy to talk him into getting a dog in order to put off having a kid. Yup, because that makes so much sense.
The hyperbole that exists once Marley arrives is a bit nauseating. The film is selling us on the idea that Marley is the world's worst dog and the film makers are almost gitty in their approach to beating the audience senseless with this idea. To survive and even thrive amidst this adversity, Wilson begins to focus many of his columns on Marley. We are treated to a montage in which Wilson dryly covers many events in his life and the ways Marley has provided a notable catastrophe.
This brings us nearly 45 minutes or an hour into the movie when something strange happens. Wilson and Aniston have one kid, and another and another and we see this family develop and the films tone changes from a movie about the world's worst dog to a movie about family that is actually pretty nice. Wilson struggles with what he wants out of his career, Aniston adjusts to life as a full time mom and I actually find the film improving by leaps and bounds at this point. The hijinks are dialed down and we get to see this family grow together and take on more meaningful life experiences than preventing a dog from peeing on a dog beach.
The family eventually moves to a suburb of Philadelphia and some of the films most poignant moments come from seeing the children react to the family dog getting sick and eventually passing away. It's something that everyone who has ever owned a dog can easily relate to and is done very effectively here.
The film is based on a book/memoir of the same name that my wife is a fan of. In both mediums the audience is trying to be sold that this is the worst dog ever, but in an endearing way. I can't speak for the book but I will tell you that this aspect of the film is boorish and cumbersome. This film adds nothing new to the bad but lovable dog category of films that has absolutely no need for any new entries. But, if you find yourself watching this film stick it out. Eventually the film dials down the bad dog routines and the family aspects of the film are actually somewhat enjoyable to watch. This film is far from a must see but it has at least earned to right not to be hated. Which for a guy who lately has only wanted to watch films were stuff goes BOOM is nothing short of a miracle.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
District 9
Maybe it's the fact that this is my sixth entry in 24 hours but I am struggling to get a grasp on how to start this post. When it comes to Sci-Fi films I am primarily a fan of the bigger franchise entries such as Star Wars, Aliens, or Terminator. Rarely though do I go out of my way for the run of the mill entry in the Sci-Fi genre.
Thankfully, District 9 is anything but an average entry into the genre. The Neil Bloomkamp helmed film which was famously made on a relatively low budget thanks to support from Peter Jackson and his special effects team, District 9 boasts some of the most impressive Alien characters and weapons ever seen on screen.
More impressively though is the fact that District 9 is held together by an incredible story which opens with a history of the District 9 slums which have been located outside of Johannesburg where the Aliens originally landed over 20 years ago. The story essentially splices the Alien population into the already diverse population of South Africa and quickly assimilates them as another group that society must deal with.
At the center of the human side of this story is Wikus Van De Merwe, a character who the audience immediately recognizes as a character who is in over his head. He works for his father-in-law at MNU, an international organization that whose focus is on alien relations and studying the Aliens. Wikus is placed in charge of a program to move the Aliens to a new, smaller slum that is further outside of the city and he must get the Aliens to sign a paper acknowledging their agreement to be evicted. Wikus dives head first into his in role and is seemingly competent his role until he comes in contact with an alien device that sprays him leading to his slow mutation into an alien.
From here on District 9 could have simply been a story about how humans are evil and understanding is what we need for harmony. Given the effects that exist here the film likely would have still been very entertaining. But District 9 goes deeper into human nature than just a film about understanding and looks at the variety of human relationships that exist in a city like Johannesburg. The most remarkable effect the film pulls off is the way it intertwines the Aliens into the fabric of society in Johannesburg. In my life time Alien films fit into one of two categories. You either have a film about understanding like E.T. or a film in which aliens try to destroy us like the ridiculous Independence Day. District 9's success is living in gray areas that past alien sci-fi films have never gone to. Watching it repeatedly has only made me like enjoy it even more.
Thankfully, District 9 is anything but an average entry into the genre. The Neil Bloomkamp helmed film which was famously made on a relatively low budget thanks to support from Peter Jackson and his special effects team, District 9 boasts some of the most impressive Alien characters and weapons ever seen on screen.
More impressively though is the fact that District 9 is held together by an incredible story which opens with a history of the District 9 slums which have been located outside of Johannesburg where the Aliens originally landed over 20 years ago. The story essentially splices the Alien population into the already diverse population of South Africa and quickly assimilates them as another group that society must deal with.
At the center of the human side of this story is Wikus Van De Merwe, a character who the audience immediately recognizes as a character who is in over his head. He works for his father-in-law at MNU, an international organization that whose focus is on alien relations and studying the Aliens. Wikus is placed in charge of a program to move the Aliens to a new, smaller slum that is further outside of the city and he must get the Aliens to sign a paper acknowledging their agreement to be evicted. Wikus dives head first into his in role and is seemingly competent his role until he comes in contact with an alien device that sprays him leading to his slow mutation into an alien.
From here on District 9 could have simply been a story about how humans are evil and understanding is what we need for harmony. Given the effects that exist here the film likely would have still been very entertaining. But District 9 goes deeper into human nature than just a film about understanding and looks at the variety of human relationships that exist in a city like Johannesburg. The most remarkable effect the film pulls off is the way it intertwines the Aliens into the fabric of society in Johannesburg. In my life time Alien films fit into one of two categories. You either have a film about understanding like E.T. or a film in which aliens try to destroy us like the ridiculous Independence Day. District 9's success is living in gray areas that past alien sci-fi films have never gone to. Watching it repeatedly has only made me like enjoy it even more.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Great White Hype
A history lesson first. For those who are unfamiliar the story of Mike Tyson let us recall first that be the end of the '80's he was considered the most feared man on the planet. Than he showed up out of shape and got beat by Buster Douglass. Then he went to jail for a few years on rape charges. Upon his release his promoters asked the world to buy into the idea of a white kid named Peter McNeely having a chance to beat the once feared champion at the most vulnerable point in his career. Millions dropped $50 a piece to watch on pay-per-view as Tyson KO'd his challenger in less than one minute. Needless to say those who dropped $50 to watch this charade certainly felt cheated.
I mention all of this because part of appreciating the humor in the film "The Great White Hype" is being able to laugh at ourselves for buying into such hype. The film stars Sam Jackson as the Sultan, a boxing promoter who is disturbed by the decline in money he is making off the champ played by Damon Wayans. Jackson believes the remedy to his growing finicial troubles is to find a white man to sell as a legitimate contender to the champ. And those the wheels begin to turn as the Sultan prepares to sell the world a fight between James "The Grim Reaper" Rooper and "Irish" Terry Conklin (for added effect the fight was scheduled for St. Patrick's Day and of course, Terry is not Irish).
The film is fueled by acknowledging and exploiting the racial overtones that not only exist in boxing but in society as a hole. Which is why we don't feel bad for anyone who feels cheated when Conklin gets beat in 27 seconds. The Sultan is right, Americans don't want to pay good money to watch brothers beat up brothers.
The film was originally released in 1996 and did not achieve much box office or home video success. Personally, I believe the film failed to be successful because it essentially made fun of it's target audience. Still, the film features a great cast including Jeff Goldblum, Jaime Foxx, Jon Lovitz, Cheech Marin, Corbin Bernson and Peter Berg and all of them seem to have a keen grasp on who the character is and how to bring the humor in their character out. The film is more vulgar than I would like but it is still entertaining and it remains one of the most underrated comedies I have ever seen.
I mention all of this because part of appreciating the humor in the film "The Great White Hype" is being able to laugh at ourselves for buying into such hype. The film stars Sam Jackson as the Sultan, a boxing promoter who is disturbed by the decline in money he is making off the champ played by Damon Wayans. Jackson believes the remedy to his growing finicial troubles is to find a white man to sell as a legitimate contender to the champ. And those the wheels begin to turn as the Sultan prepares to sell the world a fight between James "The Grim Reaper" Rooper and "Irish" Terry Conklin (for added effect the fight was scheduled for St. Patrick's Day and of course, Terry is not Irish).
The film is fueled by acknowledging and exploiting the racial overtones that not only exist in boxing but in society as a hole. Which is why we don't feel bad for anyone who feels cheated when Conklin gets beat in 27 seconds. The Sultan is right, Americans don't want to pay good money to watch brothers beat up brothers.
The film was originally released in 1996 and did not achieve much box office or home video success. Personally, I believe the film failed to be successful because it essentially made fun of it's target audience. Still, the film features a great cast including Jeff Goldblum, Jaime Foxx, Jon Lovitz, Cheech Marin, Corbin Bernson and Peter Berg and all of them seem to have a keen grasp on who the character is and how to bring the humor in their character out. The film is more vulgar than I would like but it is still entertaining and it remains one of the most underrated comedies I have ever seen.
Elizabethtown
When your a talented filmmaker inevitably you are bound to make that one film that stands out as your worst film. For Cameron Crowe, that film is Elizabethtown.
So, the question becomes, why do I own it? Well, even at his worst Cameron Crowe still has a knack at creating characters the audience will care about. So, when you have a movie like Elizabethtown which opens with preposterous opening in which Olando Bloom ponders the difference between failure and fiasco until moments away from committing suicide in as ridiculous a fashion as anyone could imagine he finds out that his dad has died and that he needs to go and pick up the body.
That body is in a small town called Elizabethtown which is somewhere near Louisville, Kentucky. The town loves Mitch though and upon arrival Bloom's character Drew quickly realizes the town wants Mitch buried there instead of being brought back to Oregon (which the town refers to as California because if your in Kentucky than everything west of the Mississippi River is California).
On his trip Drew also meets flight attendant Claire who could not appear more obnoxious after first meeting her but who Drew eventually finds himself calling and essentially sharing his entire life story with her. They both approach the idea of a relationship as if they would do anything to avoid it and yet they still manage to come together.
The flaws in this film can be summed up as Crowe including some fluff material that could just as easily be removed without damaging the film. Drew could have been just a workaholic and not a suicidal fiasco. Claire's aversion to being in a relationship seems counter to everything we like about her. It's these elements that combine to make this Crowe's worst film.
But, it should be said that the film is still filled with wonderful things. The town folks in Elizabethtown are not as cartoonish as they might have been in lesser hands and quickly we find them endearing. Drew's mom, played by Susan Sarandon, is also great as the woman who is scared to return to Elizabethtown because she knows she is always the woman who took Mitch away from them. The film also features seemingly half the songs from Crowe's IPOD which is okay because Crowe does have a great taste for music and only occasionally does it feel like Crowe is going to the well with his music to cover up for a low point in the movie. And ultimately we care about seeing Drew and Claire end up together. Which, when you start a film like this, regardless of the potholes you hit along the way, if you reach the end and you are happy to see these characters end up together the film has served it's purpose. Even at his worst Crowe is still talented enough to get us to this point.
So, the question becomes, why do I own it? Well, even at his worst Cameron Crowe still has a knack at creating characters the audience will care about. So, when you have a movie like Elizabethtown which opens with preposterous opening in which Olando Bloom ponders the difference between failure and fiasco until moments away from committing suicide in as ridiculous a fashion as anyone could imagine he finds out that his dad has died and that he needs to go and pick up the body.
That body is in a small town called Elizabethtown which is somewhere near Louisville, Kentucky. The town loves Mitch though and upon arrival Bloom's character Drew quickly realizes the town wants Mitch buried there instead of being brought back to Oregon (which the town refers to as California because if your in Kentucky than everything west of the Mississippi River is California).
On his trip Drew also meets flight attendant Claire who could not appear more obnoxious after first meeting her but who Drew eventually finds himself calling and essentially sharing his entire life story with her. They both approach the idea of a relationship as if they would do anything to avoid it and yet they still manage to come together.
The flaws in this film can be summed up as Crowe including some fluff material that could just as easily be removed without damaging the film. Drew could have been just a workaholic and not a suicidal fiasco. Claire's aversion to being in a relationship seems counter to everything we like about her. It's these elements that combine to make this Crowe's worst film.
But, it should be said that the film is still filled with wonderful things. The town folks in Elizabethtown are not as cartoonish as they might have been in lesser hands and quickly we find them endearing. Drew's mom, played by Susan Sarandon, is also great as the woman who is scared to return to Elizabethtown because she knows she is always the woman who took Mitch away from them. The film also features seemingly half the songs from Crowe's IPOD which is okay because Crowe does have a great taste for music and only occasionally does it feel like Crowe is going to the well with his music to cover up for a low point in the movie. And ultimately we care about seeing Drew and Claire end up together. Which, when you start a film like this, regardless of the potholes you hit along the way, if you reach the end and you are happy to see these characters end up together the film has served it's purpose. Even at his worst Crowe is still talented enough to get us to this point.
Dr. Strangelove: Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb!
I have surprisingly little to say about this film. As it stands, this is my favorite Stanley Kubrick film and remains a surprisingly timely film over forty years after it's release. If you have not seen this film than I have no pity for you. The plot surrounds a rogue army general giving a green light for to drop nuclear bombs on targets in Russia and also follows the actions that occur in the War Room, as the President tries to get answers on how this is possible and how to stop it. The film stars Peter Sellers, Goerge C. Scott and Sterling Hayden all in hilarious roles. It definitely requires a cynical attitude to fully appreciate but is worth watching even if you only like happy go lucky films. I suppose the main reason I have so little to say about this film is that it speaks better for itself than anything I can say. The film is great on it's first viewing and only improves on repeat viewing. If you have never seen it than just trust me that there is nothing I can say that will improve your experience, just give it a chances and you shouldn't be disappointed.
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
This film is a holdover from years having an unhealthy man-crush on Jim Carrey. I loved him on In Living Color, Ace Ventura was great and I still believe he is a great dramatic actor when he wants to be. With Lemony Snickets, Jim Carrey reminds us that he is also great at playing the villain.
Lemony Snicket's is a kids film that does everything it can to convince you that it is not a kids film. Narrated by Jude Law, the audience is frequently reminded that this is not a film about happy little bunnies but a tale a 3 siblings who lose there parents and then find themselves continually pitted against Jim Carrey's Count Olaf character who seems to be after the kids inheritance.
In facing off with Count Olaf, each sibling brings a unique skill to their survival as these kids soon learn that Count Olaf will not easily quit. After escaping Olaf's initial attempt to adopt them the kids are sent to live with distant relatives who provide clues to the life and eventually to the cause of death of their parents. With each stop we see Olaf arrive with a new costume which the kids easily see through while the adults in the story seem oblivious to it.
Since the movie was first released I have often wondered and I have been disappointed that no sequel has come since. It did well enough at the box office and for Carrey's part I know he said at the time that he liked the idea of playing Count Olaf because it would give him the opportunity to play a variety of characters. In this installment Carrey is great to this end because he is able to really dive into each character and have fun with it. I thought the child actors involved in this film all did fine, but if they were recast in order to do another live-action version of these stories I would be fine with that. I know some felt the material here was too dark for a kids film and I certainly wouldn't show it to my 4 year old yet, but for pre-teens this is a quality and age appropriate in my opinion. While this isn't great, it's very entertaining and is Jim Carrey's best work since it was released.
Lemony Snicket's is a kids film that does everything it can to convince you that it is not a kids film. Narrated by Jude Law, the audience is frequently reminded that this is not a film about happy little bunnies but a tale a 3 siblings who lose there parents and then find themselves continually pitted against Jim Carrey's Count Olaf character who seems to be after the kids inheritance.
In facing off with Count Olaf, each sibling brings a unique skill to their survival as these kids soon learn that Count Olaf will not easily quit. After escaping Olaf's initial attempt to adopt them the kids are sent to live with distant relatives who provide clues to the life and eventually to the cause of death of their parents. With each stop we see Olaf arrive with a new costume which the kids easily see through while the adults in the story seem oblivious to it.
Since the movie was first released I have often wondered and I have been disappointed that no sequel has come since. It did well enough at the box office and for Carrey's part I know he said at the time that he liked the idea of playing Count Olaf because it would give him the opportunity to play a variety of characters. In this installment Carrey is great to this end because he is able to really dive into each character and have fun with it. I thought the child actors involved in this film all did fine, but if they were recast in order to do another live-action version of these stories I would be fine with that. I know some felt the material here was too dark for a kids film and I certainly wouldn't show it to my 4 year old yet, but for pre-teens this is a quality and age appropriate in my opinion. While this isn't great, it's very entertaining and is Jim Carrey's best work since it was released.
The Lord of the Rings
While trilogies such as The Godfather or Indiana Jones contain parts that can easily stand alone, The Lord of the Rings trilogy really is the sum of all of it's parts. Each individual film is highly entertaining however, watching just one or two of them will not leave you any where near as satisfied as watching the whole trilogy. (A small note here, DO NOT try watching all 3 in one day! Heidi and I tried that after Return of the King was released and by the end of the day we felt like death!)
Now, regardless of what Kevin Smith may think, there is much more going on here than people just walking around. The Lord of the Rings is set in the fantasy world of Middle Earth and opens with an amazing intro to the world that focuses on the ring of power. The ring was forged by the Dark Lord and has the power to control all of middle earth for evil. Sauron however was defeated and lost the ring, however, the weakness of man would not allow the ring to be destroyed. It was lost only to be found thousands of years later by Gollum who loses it to a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives Bilbo unnatural long life so when he decides to leave his home for one last adventure he leaves the ring with Frodo.
And so begins the tale of Frodo and the men, dwarfs, elves and wizards who would come together to prevent the return of Sauron and destroy the ring once and for all. Considering how much detail I have entered setting up the saga I have no intention of doing that with what amounts to the remaining 8 plus hours of the films. Instead I just want to hit some highlights.
With The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson introduces the audience to the world of middle earth and allows the audience to get to know each character and their role in the story. There are some incredible sequences, in particular my favorite sequence is in the mines of Moria, and we get the foundation for the next two stories to come. I had never read the books before hearing about them being made into movies and I always feel a little empty with the way this one ends. I remember hearing people complain about that when it was first released but the quality of film making going on here made it easy to get excited for the stories continuation with the Two Towers.
The second movie is arguably a fan of the book series least favorite. Huge portions of the book (including some of the best sequences for Sam and Frodo) were left out and moved to the third movie so it's easy to see how a fan of the book could walk out furious. But, like the unfulfilling ending to the first film, it's a flaw that is easily overlooked when you consider that by the trilogies end you still get the bulk of what you wanted to see. Also, the Helm's deep sequence remains my favorite of the entire series and the tension created just before the battle as rain begins to fall is incredible. One small complaint I do have with the film is that Gimli is turned into a comic relief character, a decision which is frustrating on repeat viewing. And of course, the scene stealer's of this second installment include the return of Gandalf and Gollum's role in helping Sam and Frodo. Andy Serkis, who provided the motion for the CGI character Gollum actually garnered some Oscar consideration for his truly unique role in the film. It's doubtful someone will ever get a nomination for playing a CGI character, but I think everyone can agree that as CGI characters go, Gollum was infinitely better than Dobby or Jar-Jar.
The Return of the King is essentially everything you would expect form a trilogy of this magnitude. It is bigger, grander and louder than the other two. It is also nearly 30 minutes longer in run time and still manages to leave fans of the book longing for a few of the scenes that did not make the film. I leave this one wishing actors like Viggo Mortenson got more attention from the Oscars but considering this film one 12 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director it certainly wasn't ignored. There is very little here that disappoints as story lines are tied up and the film gives it's audience the type of closure you would expect after over 9 hours of adventure.
If you are wondering, the answer is yes, the books are better (shocking, I know). But that shouldn't take away from what Peter Jackson has done on film here. Books are a medium that allows an author to do more while Jackson's film trilogy shows the limitation that exist in adapting a novel even when given 9 hours to do so. It some ways it's an apples to oranges comparison, but ultimately the books are more fulfilling which should only be read as high praise for the books and is not intended to be a knock on the film. After all, Jackson puts a lot more on screen for you than just characters walking around.
Now, regardless of what Kevin Smith may think, there is much more going on here than people just walking around. The Lord of the Rings is set in the fantasy world of Middle Earth and opens with an amazing intro to the world that focuses on the ring of power. The ring was forged by the Dark Lord and has the power to control all of middle earth for evil. Sauron however was defeated and lost the ring, however, the weakness of man would not allow the ring to be destroyed. It was lost only to be found thousands of years later by Gollum who loses it to a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins. The ring gives Bilbo unnatural long life so when he decides to leave his home for one last adventure he leaves the ring with Frodo.
And so begins the tale of Frodo and the men, dwarfs, elves and wizards who would come together to prevent the return of Sauron and destroy the ring once and for all. Considering how much detail I have entered setting up the saga I have no intention of doing that with what amounts to the remaining 8 plus hours of the films. Instead I just want to hit some highlights.
With The Fellowship of the Ring, director Peter Jackson introduces the audience to the world of middle earth and allows the audience to get to know each character and their role in the story. There are some incredible sequences, in particular my favorite sequence is in the mines of Moria, and we get the foundation for the next two stories to come. I had never read the books before hearing about them being made into movies and I always feel a little empty with the way this one ends. I remember hearing people complain about that when it was first released but the quality of film making going on here made it easy to get excited for the stories continuation with the Two Towers.
The second movie is arguably a fan of the book series least favorite. Huge portions of the book (including some of the best sequences for Sam and Frodo) were left out and moved to the third movie so it's easy to see how a fan of the book could walk out furious. But, like the unfulfilling ending to the first film, it's a flaw that is easily overlooked when you consider that by the trilogies end you still get the bulk of what you wanted to see. Also, the Helm's deep sequence remains my favorite of the entire series and the tension created just before the battle as rain begins to fall is incredible. One small complaint I do have with the film is that Gimli is turned into a comic relief character, a decision which is frustrating on repeat viewing. And of course, the scene stealer's of this second installment include the return of Gandalf and Gollum's role in helping Sam and Frodo. Andy Serkis, who provided the motion for the CGI character Gollum actually garnered some Oscar consideration for his truly unique role in the film. It's doubtful someone will ever get a nomination for playing a CGI character, but I think everyone can agree that as CGI characters go, Gollum was infinitely better than Dobby or Jar-Jar.
The Return of the King is essentially everything you would expect form a trilogy of this magnitude. It is bigger, grander and louder than the other two. It is also nearly 30 minutes longer in run time and still manages to leave fans of the book longing for a few of the scenes that did not make the film. I leave this one wishing actors like Viggo Mortenson got more attention from the Oscars but considering this film one 12 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director it certainly wasn't ignored. There is very little here that disappoints as story lines are tied up and the film gives it's audience the type of closure you would expect after over 9 hours of adventure.
If you are wondering, the answer is yes, the books are better (shocking, I know). But that shouldn't take away from what Peter Jackson has done on film here. Books are a medium that allows an author to do more while Jackson's film trilogy shows the limitation that exist in adapting a novel even when given 9 hours to do so. It some ways it's an apples to oranges comparison, but ultimately the books are more fulfilling which should only be read as high praise for the books and is not intended to be a knock on the film. After all, Jackson puts a lot more on screen for you than just characters walking around.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Julie and Julia
So far I have skipped Hardball, Hope Floats, The Holiday and I Am Sam from my wife's collection because I have seen all them before. I enjoy the Jack Black/Kate Winslett story in The Holiday but I care very little for the rest. I Am Sam is fine but it is not a film I love and my dislike of Sean Penn makes me uninterested in seeing it again. Hardball is basically ghetto Mighty Ducks only I would rather watch Emilio than Keanu. It's probably been about 10 years or more since I saw Hope Floats and it remains one of my top ten least favorite movies of all time.
That brings me to Julie and Julia. I am going to try and watch movies from my wife's collection that I have not seen before, but that does not mean I am going to finish watching each one. With Julie and Julia, I made it about 40 minutes trying to watch it by myself while my wife was at work.
That sounds bad, but I am not totally condemning the film. Perhaps someday my wife will want to put it in and we will finish it together. I can at least recognize that while there is not much here for me to enjoy, it is a well made and well acted film.
Two things turned me off to the film early on. The first is Meryl Streep and her portrayal of Julia Childs, the American cooking aficionado who became something of a star in France being a lovable TV cook. I have no doubt that Streep's portrayal of the famed chief is spot on but that doesn't prevent me from finding her character (and her accent) obnoxious as I have very little knowledge of Mrs. Childs or very much appreciation for TV cooks. The question for me in regards to this character quickly became why do I care about someone I would not otherwise watch outside of this film. The answer is that I don't care and I found myself paying very little attention to her while she was on screen.
My other issue has to deal with the character of Julie and I have no doubt that my complaint will seem small and perhaps even stupid, but I lost interest in her character early on when she was at lunch with her friends. Each friend seemed too pre-occupied with there own lives to mentally be in attendance at this lunch and Julie seemed justifiably annoyed by this fact. What stood out to me in this scene was the stereotypical idea of how woman seemingly are constantly undermining or undercutting other woman. Julie is well educated and talented enough to have a manuscript for a novel in her desk (keep in mind that that is better than 99% of us) but a series of events have left her in a call center fielding calls from family members of 9-11 victims. Her friends seem as though they would pity her if they cared to and Julie seems to create her famous blog as an attempt to get back at her friends (in particular the "less talented" one who has her own successful blog). I am sure with time the movie would have focused on better things but as the story gains steam Julie takes several moments to take pot shots at her less talented "friend." 40 minutes in I was able to determine that I had no interest in this sorta thing.
There is a part of me that believes I should watch the film in it's entirety at some point as I would not put it the same category as a film like Hope Floats based on what I saw. It's closer to a Devil Wears Prada type film that is watchable but is clearly more relateable to woman than men. That's okay with me so long as there is a woman around to watch it with me.
That brings me to Julie and Julia. I am going to try and watch movies from my wife's collection that I have not seen before, but that does not mean I am going to finish watching each one. With Julie and Julia, I made it about 40 minutes trying to watch it by myself while my wife was at work.
That sounds bad, but I am not totally condemning the film. Perhaps someday my wife will want to put it in and we will finish it together. I can at least recognize that while there is not much here for me to enjoy, it is a well made and well acted film.
Two things turned me off to the film early on. The first is Meryl Streep and her portrayal of Julia Childs, the American cooking aficionado who became something of a star in France being a lovable TV cook. I have no doubt that Streep's portrayal of the famed chief is spot on but that doesn't prevent me from finding her character (and her accent) obnoxious as I have very little knowledge of Mrs. Childs or very much appreciation for TV cooks. The question for me in regards to this character quickly became why do I care about someone I would not otherwise watch outside of this film. The answer is that I don't care and I found myself paying very little attention to her while she was on screen.
My other issue has to deal with the character of Julie and I have no doubt that my complaint will seem small and perhaps even stupid, but I lost interest in her character early on when she was at lunch with her friends. Each friend seemed too pre-occupied with there own lives to mentally be in attendance at this lunch and Julie seemed justifiably annoyed by this fact. What stood out to me in this scene was the stereotypical idea of how woman seemingly are constantly undermining or undercutting other woman. Julie is well educated and talented enough to have a manuscript for a novel in her desk (keep in mind that that is better than 99% of us) but a series of events have left her in a call center fielding calls from family members of 9-11 victims. Her friends seem as though they would pity her if they cared to and Julie seems to create her famous blog as an attempt to get back at her friends (in particular the "less talented" one who has her own successful blog). I am sure with time the movie would have focused on better things but as the story gains steam Julie takes several moments to take pot shots at her less talented "friend." 40 minutes in I was able to determine that I had no interest in this sorta thing.
There is a part of me that believes I should watch the film in it's entirety at some point as I would not put it the same category as a film like Hope Floats based on what I saw. It's closer to a Devil Wears Prada type film that is watchable but is clearly more relateable to woman than men. That's okay with me so long as there is a woman around to watch it with me.
Peter Jackson's King Kong
It seems to me that there are two general opinions regarding Peter Jackson's remake of the classic King Kong. The first is that it is an epic of similar quality to Mr. Jackson's Lord of the Rings films and based on the films reviews as well as box office totals I believe this side of the argument is well supported. The other side of the aisle contains people who also recognize the quality of the craftsmanship, but feel that at over 3 hours the film is too long. Add to that a couple of scenes that push the limits of good taste by featuring characters or creatures that are scarier (or just plain disgusting) than a PG-13 audience would typically expect. This side is of the discussion is supported by the fact that most people I talk to about the film seem to fall into this side of the argument and that King Kong has experienced far less fan fare on DVD/BluRay than Mr. Jackson's LOTR films.
This past January I listed King Kong as one of the 20 best films of the past decade so it's safe to say that I fall in line with those who believe this film is of equal quality to the Lord of the Rings films. But I have a slightly different take on why it is I love this film so much while others seem to have mildly enjoyed it, but ultimately dismissed it from conversations about the great films of the past ten years.
What I love about this film is that when I am watching it I feel as though I am watching a grand tribute to everything I love about films. Nothing is taken for granted in the 3 plus hours you spend with this film. Every scene, every shot, and every sound effect is used with exacting precision to produce what I believe is the ultimate example of epic film making.
Before seeing this film I remember seeing and reading about Mr. Jackson's love for the original film, it's influence on his career and why making this film was the equivalent of fulfilling a life long dream. In fulfilling that dream I believe Mr. Jackson gave us everything he always imagined this story could be with such precision and grace that even the LOTR films don't make for fair comparisons. Jackson sacrifices nothing here and provides his audience with romance, light humor, incredible thrills including a jaw dropping Jurassic Park moment, genuine terror and the satisfaction of feeling as though every element of this story was told exactly as it was supposed to be.
Along with Jackson, the film also boosts an incredible cast that includes what I believe to be an incredibly under appreciated performance from Jack Black as the stories Captain Ahab like character Carl Denham. Naomi Watts is mesmerising as the struggling actresses given a chance to star in a film without much of an explanation of what the film will be. She is convinced to give the film a chance because it's being written by Jack Driscoll who is played by Adrien Brody who feels far less out of place as an action hero (albeit a reluctant one) here than he does in the recent Predators film. The rest of the cast fills each one of their roles in such an exacting manor that you easily believe each one of them was meant to play that particular character.
I can't deny that the film requires a huge commitment of time. At one point my wife surprised me with a directors cut special edition of the film that pushed the running time beyond 3 hours and 20 minutes. I ultimately got rid of that version in favor of the theatrical version of the film because I believe it to be a perfect example of epic film making. I have already mentioned the film Predators in this post. I recently saw it and was disappointed by it primarily because the film I had playing in my head was better than what was on the screen. With the theatrical version of King Kong, Mr. Jackson was able to put everything I could imagine from this story on the screen with such remarkable attention to detail that I can honestly say after watching it again I believe it belongs as one of the 20 best films I have seen in the past 10 years. After all, in an era of micro-managing and meddling studio executives, there is something to be said for a story like this giving it's audience everything they can imagine up on the screen. This film truly is a representation of everything I love about films and their ability to take us to places we other wise may never have been able to imagine.
This past January I listed King Kong as one of the 20 best films of the past decade so it's safe to say that I fall in line with those who believe this film is of equal quality to the Lord of the Rings films. But I have a slightly different take on why it is I love this film so much while others seem to have mildly enjoyed it, but ultimately dismissed it from conversations about the great films of the past ten years.
What I love about this film is that when I am watching it I feel as though I am watching a grand tribute to everything I love about films. Nothing is taken for granted in the 3 plus hours you spend with this film. Every scene, every shot, and every sound effect is used with exacting precision to produce what I believe is the ultimate example of epic film making.
Before seeing this film I remember seeing and reading about Mr. Jackson's love for the original film, it's influence on his career and why making this film was the equivalent of fulfilling a life long dream. In fulfilling that dream I believe Mr. Jackson gave us everything he always imagined this story could be with such precision and grace that even the LOTR films don't make for fair comparisons. Jackson sacrifices nothing here and provides his audience with romance, light humor, incredible thrills including a jaw dropping Jurassic Park moment, genuine terror and the satisfaction of feeling as though every element of this story was told exactly as it was supposed to be.
Along with Jackson, the film also boosts an incredible cast that includes what I believe to be an incredibly under appreciated performance from Jack Black as the stories Captain Ahab like character Carl Denham. Naomi Watts is mesmerising as the struggling actresses given a chance to star in a film without much of an explanation of what the film will be. She is convinced to give the film a chance because it's being written by Jack Driscoll who is played by Adrien Brody who feels far less out of place as an action hero (albeit a reluctant one) here than he does in the recent Predators film. The rest of the cast fills each one of their roles in such an exacting manor that you easily believe each one of them was meant to play that particular character.
I can't deny that the film requires a huge commitment of time. At one point my wife surprised me with a directors cut special edition of the film that pushed the running time beyond 3 hours and 20 minutes. I ultimately got rid of that version in favor of the theatrical version of the film because I believe it to be a perfect example of epic film making. I have already mentioned the film Predators in this post. I recently saw it and was disappointed by it primarily because the film I had playing in my head was better than what was on the screen. With the theatrical version of King Kong, Mr. Jackson was able to put everything I could imagine from this story on the screen with such remarkable attention to detail that I can honestly say after watching it again I believe it belongs as one of the 20 best films I have seen in the past 10 years. After all, in an era of micro-managing and meddling studio executives, there is something to be said for a story like this giving it's audience everything they can imagine up on the screen. This film truly is a representation of everything I love about films and their ability to take us to places we other wise may never have been able to imagine.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Catching up post
So, I've taken a break from this for awhile and instead of trying to do a bunch of full posts I am going to do a quick catch up post on everything I've seen since my last post.
Of course, from my collection I did watch one of my all-time favorites in Kill Bill Vol.2. Where Vol. 1 is the ultra-violent ode to a particular style of film making, Vol. 2 is something close to modern Shakespeare. Dialing down on the violence and dialing up some of the most punchy and outstanding dialogue I have ever scene in a film, Vol. 2 requires a viewing of Vol.1 for it to fully work, but it is one of the films that contains certain scenes that I want to rewatch over and over before moving deeper in the film.
Falling in to the same category is Inglorious Bastards which I started the year declaring as the past decades best film. A comment I'm still willing to stand by regardless of the few flaws this film has. What Inglorious does better than any film I have scene is it lingers within a scene and squeezes every drip out of an outstanding script and amazing performances. I remember it's ad campaign focused on the violence and I often wonder what someone who only wanted violence thought of the films talky first 20 minutes set in the quite French country side. That scene convinced my wife to give the film a chance and while I know she did not feel the same way about the film as I do, it speaks volumes to me about how great that opening is.
I also saw Coraline recently which my wife purchased after I had passed the "C" in my collection. It's a quirky and compelling animated film that targets older kids but is also is able to appeal to grown ups as well. Very enjoyable and worth watching.
I have managed to enjoy a few rentals as well. I thought The Crazies was a worthy entry in the zombie/diseased killer genre. I also saw Adam which is a quirky rom/com that relies on it's characters to create and maintain an interest for the audience. To this end the film is extremely successful and worth watching if you can find it.
Finally, in the midst of one of the worst summer movie season I can remember I have made it out to the movies twice. Once for A-Team and a second time for Predators. I am not counting Toy Story 3, which was terrific for what I got to see, because I spent half of my time in the back of the theater chasing my daughter. While the A-Team managed to be entertaining and enjoyable "turn your brain off" fun, Predators was a huge disappointment. Basically, I was not overly impressed with the films opening which included Adrian Brody free falling and trying to get his parachute open and after an interesting scene with predator "dogs" the film steadily got less and less compelling. In the end I think making any Alien, Predator or Terminator films is difficult given the quality of previous ones and the fact that I always feel like there is a better film that could be made using these characters that what we have gotten over the last ten years. Pity.
The coming weeks are going to busy but I intend to start doing full posts again. We shall see of course as the second half of this year is already beginning to look very busy.
Of course, from my collection I did watch one of my all-time favorites in Kill Bill Vol.2. Where Vol. 1 is the ultra-violent ode to a particular style of film making, Vol. 2 is something close to modern Shakespeare. Dialing down on the violence and dialing up some of the most punchy and outstanding dialogue I have ever scene in a film, Vol. 2 requires a viewing of Vol.1 for it to fully work, but it is one of the films that contains certain scenes that I want to rewatch over and over before moving deeper in the film.
Falling in to the same category is Inglorious Bastards which I started the year declaring as the past decades best film. A comment I'm still willing to stand by regardless of the few flaws this film has. What Inglorious does better than any film I have scene is it lingers within a scene and squeezes every drip out of an outstanding script and amazing performances. I remember it's ad campaign focused on the violence and I often wonder what someone who only wanted violence thought of the films talky first 20 minutes set in the quite French country side. That scene convinced my wife to give the film a chance and while I know she did not feel the same way about the film as I do, it speaks volumes to me about how great that opening is.
I also saw Coraline recently which my wife purchased after I had passed the "C" in my collection. It's a quirky and compelling animated film that targets older kids but is also is able to appeal to grown ups as well. Very enjoyable and worth watching.
I have managed to enjoy a few rentals as well. I thought The Crazies was a worthy entry in the zombie/diseased killer genre. I also saw Adam which is a quirky rom/com that relies on it's characters to create and maintain an interest for the audience. To this end the film is extremely successful and worth watching if you can find it.
Finally, in the midst of one of the worst summer movie season I can remember I have made it out to the movies twice. Once for A-Team and a second time for Predators. I am not counting Toy Story 3, which was terrific for what I got to see, because I spent half of my time in the back of the theater chasing my daughter. While the A-Team managed to be entertaining and enjoyable "turn your brain off" fun, Predators was a huge disappointment. Basically, I was not overly impressed with the films opening which included Adrian Brody free falling and trying to get his parachute open and after an interesting scene with predator "dogs" the film steadily got less and less compelling. In the end I think making any Alien, Predator or Terminator films is difficult given the quality of previous ones and the fact that I always feel like there is a better film that could be made using these characters that what we have gotten over the last ten years. Pity.
The coming weeks are going to busy but I intend to start doing full posts again. We shall see of course as the second half of this year is already beginning to look very busy.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Jurassic Park
In the history of entertainment there are phrases that come out of television and film and become a part of every day language (or at least are understood when used in conversation). A classic example of this would be "jumping the shark." The phrase is used when a television show or film goes beyond the bounds of believability and leaves it's audience disconnected and turned off. The phrase refers to the Fonz jumping a shark in a surfing competition on Happy Days and has sense been used in explaining why shows like Heroes can gain tremendous popularity and just as quickly die.
I seriously doubt this term is as widely known or even accurate but there is something I refer to as "The Jurassic Park moment." It's when a film is able to it's amaze it's audience using a perfectly serene setting. No explosions, gun shots, fire, loud noises or obscenity. It is a moment were the director knows exactly what they have done and is confident that the audience will feel an unparalleled level of excitement just by seeing it. There are moments like that in films like Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, King Kong and so on. In Jurassic Park it's when we first see the dinosaurs on the island and we feel the same level of excitement the characters are feeling. As a kid I remember being awestruck seeing this film in theaters and even today it is one of my all time favorite movie moments.
As for the rest of the film, as much as I do love watching dinosaurs eat people I have to admit that there isn't a lot here. The dialogue is often dry and predictable. The acting is spotty at best with Laura Dern providing some cringe worthy moments, Jeff Goldblum occasionally bordering on insufferable and the child actress who played Lex frequently looking unsure of herself and what to say or do. The film is honestly only at it's best when Spielberg is wowing us with his dinosaurs and there are plenty of great dinosaur moments. There are also some good characters mixed in but I truly do not share the same joy for this film years after I first saw it as I do with a film like Jaws. It has provided me with my "Jurassic Park" moment, but watching it again I have to admit that there is little more here than a several great moments.
I seriously doubt this term is as widely known or even accurate but there is something I refer to as "The Jurassic Park moment." It's when a film is able to it's amaze it's audience using a perfectly serene setting. No explosions, gun shots, fire, loud noises or obscenity. It is a moment were the director knows exactly what they have done and is confident that the audience will feel an unparalleled level of excitement just by seeing it. There are moments like that in films like Lord of the Rings, Braveheart, King Kong and so on. In Jurassic Park it's when we first see the dinosaurs on the island and we feel the same level of excitement the characters are feeling. As a kid I remember being awestruck seeing this film in theaters and even today it is one of my all time favorite movie moments.
As for the rest of the film, as much as I do love watching dinosaurs eat people I have to admit that there isn't a lot here. The dialogue is often dry and predictable. The acting is spotty at best with Laura Dern providing some cringe worthy moments, Jeff Goldblum occasionally bordering on insufferable and the child actress who played Lex frequently looking unsure of herself and what to say or do. The film is honestly only at it's best when Spielberg is wowing us with his dinosaurs and there are plenty of great dinosaur moments. There are also some good characters mixed in but I truly do not share the same joy for this film years after I first saw it as I do with a film like Jaws. It has provided me with my "Jurassic Park" moment, but watching it again I have to admit that there is little more here than a several great moments.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Jaws
What would be the average persons opinion of the film Jaws had there never been any sequels? If your my age then you likely grew up watching bits and pieces of all 4 Jaws films on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, ultimately concluding that you don't see what the big deal is. In fact, you probably feel like you have seen the movie a dozen times without ever watching it from start to finish. So, what is the big deal with Jaws?
To answer that question you must begin by clearing your mind of every part of the Jaws sequels. The equivalent to Jaws in our generation is The Matrix, a film that was tremendously well crafted and left you dieing to get back in line to see it again as soon as it was over only to be let down by it's sequels. Could you argue the sequels weren't that bad? Sure, but in no way do they live up to what the first film started. With Jaws, the sequels are far worse (Jaws in Sea World, really?) and therefore have done more to make people dismiss the first one. That would be a mistake.
For those who are not fully aware of Jaws place in film history it was nominated for best picture in 1975 and is presently ranked 56th on the American Film Institutes list of the 100 greatest films of all time. It is also considered to be the original summer blockbuster film and the first film to ever gross over $100 million dollars. Oh yeah, and it also introduced the world to Steven Spielberg who is has directed more of the films I own than any other director. In short, Jaws is freaking awesome!
What most people talk about with Jaws is the shark and to that end Spielberg and his team did an incredible job making the shark as terrifying as possible. How did Spielberg do it? He didn't bother trying to over do it with a ridiculous body count or any over the top stunts. What makes the shark in Jaws so terrifying is Spielberg's use of scale and the incredible shots he gets of the Shark along side the boat. The shark is able to provide the image of something terrifying simply by being there. There is also a sense terror developed in the juxtaposition of hunter and hunted we see as the shark seemingly is the one hunting his potential slayers.
Those slayers of course are not Captain Ahab. Well, one of them kind of fills that role, but the three of them together provide a unique and extraordinarily human perspective to the hunt. In particular, I love watching Roy Scheider's Chief Brody character learning about Sharks adds tremendously to the sense of curiosity the film has for it's antagonist. Richard Dreyfuss brings even more shark knowledge and respect for their foe while Robert Shaw gives us a bit of the Captain Ahab. All three characters have great chemistry together as they fight to save a town that doesn't want to admit it has a problem. Much of the first hour of the film focuses on Chief Brody's attempts to ensure his beaches are safe while those around him focus on keeping the beaches open in order to turn on profit during the summer tourist season.
The second hour of the film sees the action move to the sea as our 3 heroes set out to capture the great white. Here Spielberg shows influence's from directors like Hitchcock as he takes these men out in there boat and manages to continually make that boat feel smaller and smaller until the very end. If your claustrophobic this will really make you feel queezy.
To be fair, I too was once some one who had written off the Jaws films as cheezy. Then I found the film in a Walmart $5 dollar bin and thought to myself that I should give it a try. I had no idea this film was so good which of course has lead me to conclude that the sequels must be some of the worst sequels in movie history. While she didn't finish it with me because we both struggle to finish movies in our old age, my wife admitted while we watched it that it was better than she was expecting. Your darn right it is honey.
To answer that question you must begin by clearing your mind of every part of the Jaws sequels. The equivalent to Jaws in our generation is The Matrix, a film that was tremendously well crafted and left you dieing to get back in line to see it again as soon as it was over only to be let down by it's sequels. Could you argue the sequels weren't that bad? Sure, but in no way do they live up to what the first film started. With Jaws, the sequels are far worse (Jaws in Sea World, really?) and therefore have done more to make people dismiss the first one. That would be a mistake.
For those who are not fully aware of Jaws place in film history it was nominated for best picture in 1975 and is presently ranked 56th on the American Film Institutes list of the 100 greatest films of all time. It is also considered to be the original summer blockbuster film and the first film to ever gross over $100 million dollars. Oh yeah, and it also introduced the world to Steven Spielberg who is has directed more of the films I own than any other director. In short, Jaws is freaking awesome!
What most people talk about with Jaws is the shark and to that end Spielberg and his team did an incredible job making the shark as terrifying as possible. How did Spielberg do it? He didn't bother trying to over do it with a ridiculous body count or any over the top stunts. What makes the shark in Jaws so terrifying is Spielberg's use of scale and the incredible shots he gets of the Shark along side the boat. The shark is able to provide the image of something terrifying simply by being there. There is also a sense terror developed in the juxtaposition of hunter and hunted we see as the shark seemingly is the one hunting his potential slayers.
Those slayers of course are not Captain Ahab. Well, one of them kind of fills that role, but the three of them together provide a unique and extraordinarily human perspective to the hunt. In particular, I love watching Roy Scheider's Chief Brody character learning about Sharks adds tremendously to the sense of curiosity the film has for it's antagonist. Richard Dreyfuss brings even more shark knowledge and respect for their foe while Robert Shaw gives us a bit of the Captain Ahab. All three characters have great chemistry together as they fight to save a town that doesn't want to admit it has a problem. Much of the first hour of the film focuses on Chief Brody's attempts to ensure his beaches are safe while those around him focus on keeping the beaches open in order to turn on profit during the summer tourist season.
The second hour of the film sees the action move to the sea as our 3 heroes set out to capture the great white. Here Spielberg shows influence's from directors like Hitchcock as he takes these men out in there boat and manages to continually make that boat feel smaller and smaller until the very end. If your claustrophobic this will really make you feel queezy.
To be fair, I too was once some one who had written off the Jaws films as cheezy. Then I found the film in a Walmart $5 dollar bin and thought to myself that I should give it a try. I had no idea this film was so good which of course has lead me to conclude that the sequels must be some of the worst sequels in movie history. While she didn't finish it with me because we both struggle to finish movies in our old age, my wife admitted while we watched it that it was better than she was expecting. Your darn right it is honey.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
From what I can gather I owe an awful lot of thanks to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. My two favorite television shows are 30 Rock and The Office, I love Will Ferrell movies and growing up I enjoyed Mel Brooks movies like Robin Hood Men in Tights and Spaceballs. What do they have in common? In my humble opinion, they are all a result of entertainers whose work represents a desire to entertain themselves as much as they entertain there audience.
Please don't take the above as a knock, because I honestly I find this film very funny. But, unlike your run of the mill romantic comedies or television shows such as Two and a Half Men that use formulas to appeal to a lost common denominator audience, Monty Python works because it's goal of entertaining itself resonates with people like me. I have no idea what this movie is about, but I know there are countless scenes that leave me cracking up. In fact, we have an ice cream that goes around our neighborhood ringing a bell instead of playing music and every time I hear it (whether at home or at the park down the street) I shout out "Bring out your dead."
So, whether you are fearlessly guarding a bridge, randomly killing historians or a Frenchman taunting King Arthur you have something to enjoy here.
Please don't take the above as a knock, because I honestly I find this film very funny. But, unlike your run of the mill romantic comedies or television shows such as Two and a Half Men that use formulas to appeal to a lost common denominator audience, Monty Python works because it's goal of entertaining itself resonates with people like me. I have no idea what this movie is about, but I know there are countless scenes that leave me cracking up. In fact, we have an ice cream that goes around our neighborhood ringing a bell instead of playing music and every time I hear it (whether at home or at the park down the street) I shout out "Bring out your dead."
So, whether you are fearlessly guarding a bridge, randomly killing historians or a Frenchman taunting King Arthur you have something to enjoy here.
Indiana Jones
I did this once already with The Godfather Saga and I'm going to do this again with the Indiana Jones Trilogy. No, you need not misread that, I am writing about the Indiana Jones Trilogy. That's Raider's of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom and the Last Crusade. I don't care what Sheapet Lebouffy thinks, there are only three Indiana Jones films in my collection and that's likely how it will stay.
With that spot of business out of the way I think I should say that my primary reason for doing all three films in one entry versus separate entries is because the individual films pale in comparison to the character of Indiana Jones. Like James Bond, the character of Indiana Jones and his place in film history is more significant than any of the films on there own. The hat, the whip, and the dry sense of humor have combined to make Indiana Jones the sort of film icon that 10 year old boys pretend to be any chance they get and grown men waste idle hours wishing they could be.
I for one have been guilty of both in my lifetime. As a kid I would explore the woods in our neighborhood picking up various sticks, leaves and rocks and treating them as lost artifacts and as I grown up I can admit that I really wish I owned a cool hat or a whip. If I were to attend Halloween parties I think Indiana Jones would be one of my top choices for a costume.
Okay, enough with the Indiana Jones man crush, the films themselves fulfill every boys dream of adventuring around the world in search of the sorts of treasure that are more valuable then anything else one can imagine. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, we get introduced to Dr. Jones in search of ancient treasures in South America before being recruited by the U.S. Government to search for the Ark of the Covenant which is believed to hold the ten commandments. Shockingly Indy agrees and the search is on.
I wonder what it would have been like to see this film in theaters when it was first released. In the thirty years since it's release we have had 3 sequels and dozens of rip offs (National Treasure my butt). But at the time it was a radical enough improvement on the action/adventure/comedy genre that it garnered an Academy Award nomination for best picture. Such a thing today would be inconceivable given the Academies hatred for movies whose only purpose is to entertain. Still, the film no doubt earned it's nomination by managing to keep audience's brains turned on and butts on the edge of their seats.
The sequel is not as bad as some may think but it is not without it's flaws. On a DVD chronicling the three films Steven Spielberg refers to Temple of Doom as his least favorite and writer George Lucas says that writing the script during a dark period in his life likely resulted in the films darker tone and the idiocy of the films lone female character. It also spawned the PG-13 rating as audience's were a bit disturbed by the fact that people were ripping hearts of mens chest and showing it to them before dieing in a PG movie. Still, the films adventure is undeniable and as sequels go it helped reaffirm Indy's place as a major film character.
The third in some ways is actually my favorite. Sean Connery joins Harrison Ford (I didn't need to mention Harrison Ford's name, did I?) and the banter between these two as father and son Jones is terrific. The adventure is endlessly entertaining and brings the story back to biblical pursuits and everyones sworn enemy: the Nazi's. By all accounts, any and all Indiana Jones films should be this good because the character is this good. While I can't argue that the Last Crusade is the best of the films, it is my favorite.
After this one we had a long hiatus between adventures. I remember being in high school and thinking to myself that the purpose of the Internet in 1996 was to keep me up to date on the rumors for a long awaited 4th adventure. That adventure came about 10 years to late in my opinion and all I can say about it is that I remember feeling excited about seeing Indy on the big screen and while I tried turning my brain off and walking out happy I must say that every time I have looked back on the film in my memory it has gotten worse. I still believe in the Indiana Jones character and I would likely see another one even with Lebouffy in the Jones role. If I owned the rights to the character I would probably scrap the direction that the fourth film went and just recast Jones and keep up the late 1930's early 1940's setting with the Nazi's as the enemy and any number of interesting historical relics as the target. Regardless, the name Indiana Jones will always evoke the imagine of tough guys with sharp wit that I look forward to sharing with my son one day.
With that spot of business out of the way I think I should say that my primary reason for doing all three films in one entry versus separate entries is because the individual films pale in comparison to the character of Indiana Jones. Like James Bond, the character of Indiana Jones and his place in film history is more significant than any of the films on there own. The hat, the whip, and the dry sense of humor have combined to make Indiana Jones the sort of film icon that 10 year old boys pretend to be any chance they get and grown men waste idle hours wishing they could be.
I for one have been guilty of both in my lifetime. As a kid I would explore the woods in our neighborhood picking up various sticks, leaves and rocks and treating them as lost artifacts and as I grown up I can admit that I really wish I owned a cool hat or a whip. If I were to attend Halloween parties I think Indiana Jones would be one of my top choices for a costume.
Okay, enough with the Indiana Jones man crush, the films themselves fulfill every boys dream of adventuring around the world in search of the sorts of treasure that are more valuable then anything else one can imagine. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, we get introduced to Dr. Jones in search of ancient treasures in South America before being recruited by the U.S. Government to search for the Ark of the Covenant which is believed to hold the ten commandments. Shockingly Indy agrees and the search is on.
I wonder what it would have been like to see this film in theaters when it was first released. In the thirty years since it's release we have had 3 sequels and dozens of rip offs (National Treasure my butt). But at the time it was a radical enough improvement on the action/adventure/comedy genre that it garnered an Academy Award nomination for best picture. Such a thing today would be inconceivable given the Academies hatred for movies whose only purpose is to entertain. Still, the film no doubt earned it's nomination by managing to keep audience's brains turned on and butts on the edge of their seats.
The sequel is not as bad as some may think but it is not without it's flaws. On a DVD chronicling the three films Steven Spielberg refers to Temple of Doom as his least favorite and writer George Lucas says that writing the script during a dark period in his life likely resulted in the films darker tone and the idiocy of the films lone female character. It also spawned the PG-13 rating as audience's were a bit disturbed by the fact that people were ripping hearts of mens chest and showing it to them before dieing in a PG movie. Still, the films adventure is undeniable and as sequels go it helped reaffirm Indy's place as a major film character.
The third in some ways is actually my favorite. Sean Connery joins Harrison Ford (I didn't need to mention Harrison Ford's name, did I?) and the banter between these two as father and son Jones is terrific. The adventure is endlessly entertaining and brings the story back to biblical pursuits and everyones sworn enemy: the Nazi's. By all accounts, any and all Indiana Jones films should be this good because the character is this good. While I can't argue that the Last Crusade is the best of the films, it is my favorite.
After this one we had a long hiatus between adventures. I remember being in high school and thinking to myself that the purpose of the Internet in 1996 was to keep me up to date on the rumors for a long awaited 4th adventure. That adventure came about 10 years to late in my opinion and all I can say about it is that I remember feeling excited about seeing Indy on the big screen and while I tried turning my brain off and walking out happy I must say that every time I have looked back on the film in my memory it has gotten worse. I still believe in the Indiana Jones character and I would likely see another one even with Lebouffy in the Jones role. If I owned the rights to the character I would probably scrap the direction that the fourth film went and just recast Jones and keep up the late 1930's early 1940's setting with the Nazi's as the enemy and any number of interesting historical relics as the target. Regardless, the name Indiana Jones will always evoke the imagine of tough guys with sharp wit that I look forward to sharing with my son one day.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Hot Fuzz
While there have been times that I have used this blog to give off an odor of movie critic/movie snob I have tried to refrain from begging people to watch a film. The way things have developed with this blog has lead me to finding a personal satisfaction through having a forum to share my movie thoughts without trying to sell anyone on a film.
However, I am begging anyone who clicks on this entry to please see Hot Fuzz!!! Seriously, Every time I watch this film it gets better and to be honest it's quickly finding a way into my desert island films. And for those who may be concerned that the film is offensive please keep in mind that my wife was able to tolerate it when she saw it. And YOU CAN TO!
Okay, that was lame, but I do not apologize. No, this simply is a must see that I fear too few have seen. To give you some background, the film is directed by Edgar Wright and stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. These three had previously worked on the equally brilliant Shaun of the Dead and like Shaun, Hot Fuzz rises above the level of parody by taking a genre and making a great film within in that genre that is one part spoof and one part great entry into that genre.
The film itself centers around super cop Nicholas Angel who is being transferred out of London to a small country town because he is making everyone else look bad. Once he arrives he gets to work immediately but also finds that there may not be much work to do beyond busting local youths for underage drinking.
As the films continues it becomes apparent that bad things are happening in this sleepy town and Sergeant Angel must convince those around him that they have a murderer in their town.
That's enough plot talk as even the film takes shots at itself for being ridiculous. What is important to know is that the film plays out as three hilarious in one. First, you have the police procedural portion of the film in which we learn just how dedicated Angel is to doing his job correctly. Next comes the murder mystery which takes a Scream type feel as Angel is the only one who believes something bad is going on. Finally, and perhaps best of all, the film unravels into a high octane actioneer in the same vane as Bad Boys 2 or Point Break (both of which the film takes special time to poke fun at). What I love about this and especially in the films third act is that the film manages to be a better entry into the buddy cop action genre than the movies it's spoofing. The action is shot better and the film manages to make jokes and blow stuff up in exciting ways in a virtually seamless way. This isn't scary movie where things just happen out of no where for the sake of some crazy bit. Every joke is brought in as a part of the film and never takes anything away from it. Honestly, it blows my mind just thinking about it.
Now, as I started out begging you to see it if you haven't, I will provide fair warning that the film does get pretty gory at times. I remember my in-laws coming over to baby sit once and my father in law put this in. We walked in just at one of the goriest parts and my mother in law did not seem impressed. Still, this is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen and probably the best buddy cop film I have ever seen so whether you are a fan of comedies or buddy cop action films, this one is a must see. And if you hate buddy cop movies like Bad Boys 2 (which is still on my list of the 5 worst films I have ever seen) then trust me when I say this film is a must see. So go, now, I mean it. Put it on your netflix, try and find it in a Redbox or run to best buy and get a copy. Seriously, I'm not kidding, shut the computer off and go. NOW!
However, I am begging anyone who clicks on this entry to please see Hot Fuzz!!! Seriously, Every time I watch this film it gets better and to be honest it's quickly finding a way into my desert island films. And for those who may be concerned that the film is offensive please keep in mind that my wife was able to tolerate it when she saw it. And YOU CAN TO!
Okay, that was lame, but I do not apologize. No, this simply is a must see that I fear too few have seen. To give you some background, the film is directed by Edgar Wright and stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. These three had previously worked on the equally brilliant Shaun of the Dead and like Shaun, Hot Fuzz rises above the level of parody by taking a genre and making a great film within in that genre that is one part spoof and one part great entry into that genre.
The film itself centers around super cop Nicholas Angel who is being transferred out of London to a small country town because he is making everyone else look bad. Once he arrives he gets to work immediately but also finds that there may not be much work to do beyond busting local youths for underage drinking.
As the films continues it becomes apparent that bad things are happening in this sleepy town and Sergeant Angel must convince those around him that they have a murderer in their town.
That's enough plot talk as even the film takes shots at itself for being ridiculous. What is important to know is that the film plays out as three hilarious in one. First, you have the police procedural portion of the film in which we learn just how dedicated Angel is to doing his job correctly. Next comes the murder mystery which takes a Scream type feel as Angel is the only one who believes something bad is going on. Finally, and perhaps best of all, the film unravels into a high octane actioneer in the same vane as Bad Boys 2 or Point Break (both of which the film takes special time to poke fun at). What I love about this and especially in the films third act is that the film manages to be a better entry into the buddy cop action genre than the movies it's spoofing. The action is shot better and the film manages to make jokes and blow stuff up in exciting ways in a virtually seamless way. This isn't scary movie where things just happen out of no where for the sake of some crazy bit. Every joke is brought in as a part of the film and never takes anything away from it. Honestly, it blows my mind just thinking about it.
Now, as I started out begging you to see it if you haven't, I will provide fair warning that the film does get pretty gory at times. I remember my in-laws coming over to baby sit once and my father in law put this in. We walked in just at one of the goriest parts and my mother in law did not seem impressed. Still, this is easily one of the funniest films I have ever seen and probably the best buddy cop film I have ever seen so whether you are a fan of comedies or buddy cop action films, this one is a must see. And if you hate buddy cop movies like Bad Boys 2 (which is still on my list of the 5 worst films I have ever seen) then trust me when I say this film is a must see. So go, now, I mean it. Put it on your netflix, try and find it in a Redbox or run to best buy and get a copy. Seriously, I'm not kidding, shut the computer off and go. NOW!
Ocean's 11
After invoking her right to choose any movie she wishes and in the process picking In Her Shoes, my wife next attempted to strike with Marie Antoinette. I politely informed her that she was not required to use her picks on movies that would make me want to claw my eyes out and she kindly changed her pick to Ocean's 11. I love her.
This of course is the George Clooney version of the Ocean's 11 film as I have only once attempted to watch the Sinatra version and I only made it about 10 minutes through the film before shutting it off. The Clooney version of the Ocean's 11 plays sort of like what a superfriends film would be like if their super power was being cool.
Of the 3 Ocean's films that Clooney and company have stared in this is arguably the only one that starts with the intention of being a great film. The other two play out like an excuse for these guys to hang out and the audience's enjoyment hangs on whether or not you like seeing these guys have fun. Thankfully, Ocean's 11 is better than that.
The film centers around the recently paroled Danny Ocean who is looking to make the score of a lifetime. He begins recruiting his super friends starting with Bernie Mac and Brad Pitt and eventually adding Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck and so on. The plan is to steal $160 million from a Vegas casino on the night of a heavyweight boxing fight.
But that's not all Danny wants. The casino he plans on hitting just happens to be run by the man who is dating his ex-wife (Julia Roberts) and of course, he wants her back. Is Danny there for the money or the girl?
The film contains plot points that are so absurd there is no point in questioning them (like how did Julia Roberts go from living in New York to dating a casino owner in Vegas anyway), but that doesn't matter. What matters is that these guys have a plan that makes rewatching this film worth it and the execution is so cool that you still have fun every time. I remember seeing this one for the first time with buddies from college and immediately afterwards thinking which one among us is Clooney or Damon (I was Pitt since, you know, he was constantly eating through out). Directed by Steven Soderbergh who was intentionally taking a break from more serious work, the film is a throwback of sorts to movies and movie characters that you wanted to be like after leaving the theater. It is undeniably fun and gives your brain a low grade work out at the same time. It's funny to think that even when there not trying to this group of actors and director can still make one of the best films of their respected careers.
This of course is the George Clooney version of the Ocean's 11 film as I have only once attempted to watch the Sinatra version and I only made it about 10 minutes through the film before shutting it off. The Clooney version of the Ocean's 11 plays sort of like what a superfriends film would be like if their super power was being cool.
Of the 3 Ocean's films that Clooney and company have stared in this is arguably the only one that starts with the intention of being a great film. The other two play out like an excuse for these guys to hang out and the audience's enjoyment hangs on whether or not you like seeing these guys have fun. Thankfully, Ocean's 11 is better than that.
The film centers around the recently paroled Danny Ocean who is looking to make the score of a lifetime. He begins recruiting his super friends starting with Bernie Mac and Brad Pitt and eventually adding Don Cheadle, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck and so on. The plan is to steal $160 million from a Vegas casino on the night of a heavyweight boxing fight.
But that's not all Danny wants. The casino he plans on hitting just happens to be run by the man who is dating his ex-wife (Julia Roberts) and of course, he wants her back. Is Danny there for the money or the girl?
The film contains plot points that are so absurd there is no point in questioning them (like how did Julia Roberts go from living in New York to dating a casino owner in Vegas anyway), but that doesn't matter. What matters is that these guys have a plan that makes rewatching this film worth it and the execution is so cool that you still have fun every time. I remember seeing this one for the first time with buddies from college and immediately afterwards thinking which one among us is Clooney or Damon (I was Pitt since, you know, he was constantly eating through out). Directed by Steven Soderbergh who was intentionally taking a break from more serious work, the film is a throwback of sorts to movies and movie characters that you wanted to be like after leaving the theater. It is undeniably fun and gives your brain a low grade work out at the same time. It's funny to think that even when there not trying to this group of actors and director can still make one of the best films of their respected careers.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Hoosiers
Boaz Yakim, Phil Alden Robinson, Gavin O'Connor, David M. Evans. All virtually unrecognizable names and all responsible for some of my favorite sports movies of all time. You can add David Anspaugh to that list who coincidentally is responsible for two of my favorite sports movies of all time Rudy and Hoosiers.
While watching Hoosiers again and tearing up again when the little guy hit his granny shots I began to wonder if there is something about sports films that are just easier to make. By there very nature, sports are capable of providing some of the greatest drama there is so when you put that on film it seems like a fairly easy task to condense the action into just the most exciting moments.
But, on the flip side of this question is the fact that there are so truly terrible sports movies out there as well. Or, if not terrible, they certainly are not on the level of these great sports films. I am thinking of films like Varsity Blues, Glory Road, and We Are Marshall. Films that try to inspire but ultimately fall flat when compared with better entries into this genre.
I can't pin point what it is about the sports films I don't like beyond just feeling underwhelmed by them. I can say that for the ones I do like, they all involve moments that get me to tear up every time I watch them. Why do I tear up? I think it's because when they are done right a good sports film will play like a tribute to what it takes to win with integrity and dignity. In the case of Hoosiers, that's exactly what you get.
The films primary focus is on head coach Norman Dale played flawlessly by Gene Hackman. He comes to the small town of Hickory with a dark past and a desire to be involved in the game he loves. The town expects to convince Dale to follow their approach to the game but Coach Dale has his own ideas. Dale begins teaching the kids the fundamentals of the game while focusing his practices on basics and conditioning. The kids are used to just scrimmaging and it takes some time for them to adjust to coach Dale's methods.
The beauty is that as an audience we never doubt Dale's methods or that he knows best and we are able to see his players begin to fall in line. Eventually the rest of the town falls in line too as these kids make an improbable run towards the state championship. Even better is the fact that we believe it was hard work and a sense of playing the game the right way that brought the team to the championship. Seeing the hard work and love for the game that this movie portrays in it's characters is what makes me tear up every time.
Like In Her Shoes which I recently wrote about, I can't sit here and say that this is a compromise film. I think I have watched it with my wife and while I don't remember hating it, I don't remember her liking it either. Still, for a sports fan it's must watch and to be honest, if you haven't seen it you probably shouldn't call yourself a sports fan.
I suppose it would be unfair to suggest that sports films are easy to direct. Sure, by their very nature they have drama built in and they have an audience waiting to consume them. Still, I think it would be unfair not to recognize that this film is incredibly effective and has earned it's place amongst the greatest sports films of all time.
While watching Hoosiers again and tearing up again when the little guy hit his granny shots I began to wonder if there is something about sports films that are just easier to make. By there very nature, sports are capable of providing some of the greatest drama there is so when you put that on film it seems like a fairly easy task to condense the action into just the most exciting moments.
But, on the flip side of this question is the fact that there are so truly terrible sports movies out there as well. Or, if not terrible, they certainly are not on the level of these great sports films. I am thinking of films like Varsity Blues, Glory Road, and We Are Marshall. Films that try to inspire but ultimately fall flat when compared with better entries into this genre.
I can't pin point what it is about the sports films I don't like beyond just feeling underwhelmed by them. I can say that for the ones I do like, they all involve moments that get me to tear up every time I watch them. Why do I tear up? I think it's because when they are done right a good sports film will play like a tribute to what it takes to win with integrity and dignity. In the case of Hoosiers, that's exactly what you get.
The films primary focus is on head coach Norman Dale played flawlessly by Gene Hackman. He comes to the small town of Hickory with a dark past and a desire to be involved in the game he loves. The town expects to convince Dale to follow their approach to the game but Coach Dale has his own ideas. Dale begins teaching the kids the fundamentals of the game while focusing his practices on basics and conditioning. The kids are used to just scrimmaging and it takes some time for them to adjust to coach Dale's methods.
The beauty is that as an audience we never doubt Dale's methods or that he knows best and we are able to see his players begin to fall in line. Eventually the rest of the town falls in line too as these kids make an improbable run towards the state championship. Even better is the fact that we believe it was hard work and a sense of playing the game the right way that brought the team to the championship. Seeing the hard work and love for the game that this movie portrays in it's characters is what makes me tear up every time.
Like In Her Shoes which I recently wrote about, I can't sit here and say that this is a compromise film. I think I have watched it with my wife and while I don't remember hating it, I don't remember her liking it either. Still, for a sports fan it's must watch and to be honest, if you haven't seen it you probably shouldn't call yourself a sports fan.
I suppose it would be unfair to suggest that sports films are easy to direct. Sure, by their very nature they have drama built in and they have an audience waiting to consume them. Still, I think it would be unfair not to recognize that this film is incredibly effective and has earned it's place amongst the greatest sports films of all time.
In Her Shoes
My wife Heidi decided to invoke her right to pick any unwatched movie for the first time with In Her Shoes. I had no idea giving her this power would be so painful for me.
As always I am trying to go into each movie with the intention of giving them a fair shot and to be fair I knew that this film had been directed by Curtis Hanson who directed two other films that I liked; L.A. Confidential and Wonder Boys. Since both of those films catered to male audience's I was curious to see how he would handle material targeted for a predominately female audience.
Having seen the film I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Hanson believes making a female drama means lots of close-ups on shoes. Sure, it's probably a play on the films title, but it quickly became of the films more obnoxious qualities.
As for the story, it seems that the title is a play on the phrase "walk a mile in your shoes." It pits two sisters who lost their mother at a young age at opposite ends of the life spectrum. One is a lawyer who spends more time worrying about others than taking care of herself. The other is a perpetually jobless, semi illiterate who lives with whoever she can guilt into taking care of her. Oh yeah, and there best friends! Oh yeah, and they never get along.
So there's a big fight and the slacker sister discovers that their estranged grandmother is still alive and decides that she is the perfect person to con into taking care of her for awhile. You know, because the grandmother had only sent birthday cards that her father had hid for years and now it's time for grandma to pay.
As the two sisters are separated their lives seem to improve. The responsible one starts dating and gets engaged while the other one starts working in the retirement community where she starts to learn to respect herself and the meaning of a good days work. Of course the film doesn't want to dwell on how there lives are improving while separated so eventually they both start to miss each other and when they are reunited everything is all okay.
The sisters are played by Toni Collette who I like, Cameron Diaz who I loath and Shirley MacLaine who have no feelings for one way or another. The supporting characters in the retirement community seem to be used primarily for comic relief except for the one dieing man who helps Diaz believe in herself. The fiance provides a mildly like able male character and there is enough here to keep me awake which is mildly surprising since I rarely can stay awake past 9pm anymore. While I don't consider this a compromise movie I can recommend as a get me out of the dog house movie primarily because when Hanson is focusing on shoes he is able to keep the film moving at a brisk pace and doesn't linger in unlikeable moments. And, if your wondering, I also think this film is better than the two other films of Curtis Hanson's I have seen, most notably, it is definitely better than 8 Mile.
As always I am trying to go into each movie with the intention of giving them a fair shot and to be fair I knew that this film had been directed by Curtis Hanson who directed two other films that I liked; L.A. Confidential and Wonder Boys. Since both of those films catered to male audience's I was curious to see how he would handle material targeted for a predominately female audience.
Having seen the film I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Hanson believes making a female drama means lots of close-ups on shoes. Sure, it's probably a play on the films title, but it quickly became of the films more obnoxious qualities.
As for the story, it seems that the title is a play on the phrase "walk a mile in your shoes." It pits two sisters who lost their mother at a young age at opposite ends of the life spectrum. One is a lawyer who spends more time worrying about others than taking care of herself. The other is a perpetually jobless, semi illiterate who lives with whoever she can guilt into taking care of her. Oh yeah, and there best friends! Oh yeah, and they never get along.
So there's a big fight and the slacker sister discovers that their estranged grandmother is still alive and decides that she is the perfect person to con into taking care of her for awhile. You know, because the grandmother had only sent birthday cards that her father had hid for years and now it's time for grandma to pay.
As the two sisters are separated their lives seem to improve. The responsible one starts dating and gets engaged while the other one starts working in the retirement community where she starts to learn to respect herself and the meaning of a good days work. Of course the film doesn't want to dwell on how there lives are improving while separated so eventually they both start to miss each other and when they are reunited everything is all okay.
The sisters are played by Toni Collette who I like, Cameron Diaz who I loath and Shirley MacLaine who have no feelings for one way or another. The supporting characters in the retirement community seem to be used primarily for comic relief except for the one dieing man who helps Diaz believe in herself. The fiance provides a mildly like able male character and there is enough here to keep me awake which is mildly surprising since I rarely can stay awake past 9pm anymore. While I don't consider this a compromise movie I can recommend as a get me out of the dog house movie primarily because when Hanson is focusing on shoes he is able to keep the film moving at a brisk pace and doesn't linger in unlikeable moments. And, if your wondering, I also think this film is better than the two other films of Curtis Hanson's I have seen, most notably, it is definitely better than 8 Mile.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Good Grief!!! Why on earth do I own six Harry Potter films? What am I? Twelve! And an even better question would be why do I own them when I so clearly believe the books are better. And to that end, I've tried to avoid beating this to death, but I the tiny chance that someone is reading these and has not read the Harry Potter books or seen the films or just seen the films and not read the books please pick up the books and enjoy. They are so much better and rewatching these last few films has been a painful reminder of how much better the books are.
Of course the Half Blood Prince leaves out huge chunks of the books, but it also boasts a unique quality as well. Along with dropping the battle sequence at Hogwarts and Dumbledore's funeral(oops, spoiler alert!) director David Yates decides to throw in some additional sequences that I don't recall the books having. The film opens with a visually impressive sequence that shows death eaters menacing muggles and destroying a bridge which the book did refer to attacks on muggles but I don't remember anything that specific. Then, who the heck is that girl in the ice cream shop ... who thought that was a good idea. And finally, it's been awhile since I read this book but I don't recall Bellatrix and Co. burning down the Weasley home in the book. Seriously, it's one thing to leave parts out, but adding sequences which ultimately add nothing to the story is kinda ridiculous.
I do think the film does a nice job with Professor Slughorn and there is a level of humor in this one that is better than any of the other Potter films. For Potter nerds like my self I see some hope in director David Yates ability to close the series out considering that book seven will be divided into 2 films in order to include as much of the book as possible. But really who cares when the point of rewatching these films again seems to be that they have only reminded me of how good the books are by comparison.
Of course the Half Blood Prince leaves out huge chunks of the books, but it also boasts a unique quality as well. Along with dropping the battle sequence at Hogwarts and Dumbledore's funeral(oops, spoiler alert!) director David Yates decides to throw in some additional sequences that I don't recall the books having. The film opens with a visually impressive sequence that shows death eaters menacing muggles and destroying a bridge which the book did refer to attacks on muggles but I don't remember anything that specific. Then, who the heck is that girl in the ice cream shop ... who thought that was a good idea. And finally, it's been awhile since I read this book but I don't recall Bellatrix and Co. burning down the Weasley home in the book. Seriously, it's one thing to leave parts out, but adding sequences which ultimately add nothing to the story is kinda ridiculous.
I do think the film does a nice job with Professor Slughorn and there is a level of humor in this one that is better than any of the other Potter films. For Potter nerds like my self I see some hope in director David Yates ability to close the series out considering that book seven will be divided into 2 films in order to include as much of the book as possible. But really who cares when the point of rewatching these films again seems to be that they have only reminded me of how good the books are by comparison.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Blah Blah Blah, Book is better, Blah Blah Blah, nice visual effects Blah Blah Blah, Harry kissed a girl.
And with that you now know everything there is to know about the film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean or give a negative impression of the film. In truth, it is very watchable, but realistically what am I supposed to say when the longest of the Harry Potter books is turned into the shortest of the Harry Potter films.
This installment was directed by David Yates who has been given the task of seeing the Potter saga through to the end and with this film he has elected to stream line the books content by cutting down on many of the books bratty Harry moments. I also like Yates choice to give the Ministry of Magic a big brother presence and Professor Umbridge stands out as the series greatest villain who is not a Voldemort supporter.
Still, it's been several years since I last read this book and watching the movie again only makes me think about all the moments I loved in the book that were left out. I wonder sometimes how people who only watch the movies are able to connect all of the dots when it comes to the events taking place. In particular, the events that happen to the stories peripheral characters like the Weasley twins leaving Hogwarts comes about without warning or explanation. I suppose that's okay since the focus of the films seems to be to reach as wide of an audience as possible. For a fan of the books though it's just blah blah blah.
And with that you now know everything there is to know about the film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I'm not intentionally trying to be mean or give a negative impression of the film. In truth, it is very watchable, but realistically what am I supposed to say when the longest of the Harry Potter books is turned into the shortest of the Harry Potter films.
This installment was directed by David Yates who has been given the task of seeing the Potter saga through to the end and with this film he has elected to stream line the books content by cutting down on many of the books bratty Harry moments. I also like Yates choice to give the Ministry of Magic a big brother presence and Professor Umbridge stands out as the series greatest villain who is not a Voldemort supporter.
Still, it's been several years since I last read this book and watching the movie again only makes me think about all the moments I loved in the book that were left out. I wonder sometimes how people who only watch the movies are able to connect all of the dots when it comes to the events taking place. In particular, the events that happen to the stories peripheral characters like the Weasley twins leaving Hogwarts comes about without warning or explanation. I suppose that's okay since the focus of the films seems to be to reach as wide of an audience as possible. For a fan of the books though it's just blah blah blah.
Friday, May 28, 2010
The Terminator
Too much Harry Potter so I'm mixing it up again with another recent addition that I think is another reflection of my unhealthy man crush for James Cameron.
Prior to The Terminator, Cameron's directorial resume included Xenogensis and Piranha Part II. Needless to say I have ever seen either film and I doubt you have either. But, I can see why The Terminator was considered a sleeper hit back in 1984 even though the character of the Terminator has sense become a part of pop-culture.
The film itself is a cross between '80's slasher film in which a soul-less killer lays waste to everyone in his path in pursuit of one woman who doesn't understand why they are connected and sci-fi film. I wonder if people originally heard the premise for this film and simply let out a collective grown.
Now, according to wikipedia, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Not bad for a sci-fi film with a budget below $7 million dollars.
The film centers around Sarah Connor (played by Linda Hamilton), a bad waitress with bad '80's hair who is just trying to have some fun when her life is put in jeopardy by a time traveling robot from the year 2029. Her savior also comes from the year 2029 and despite the acting of Michael Biehn, I can assure you the character of Kyle Reese is human. Both time travelers head straight for the phone book and The Terminator begins to systematically eliminate everyone named Sarah Connor. Thankfully our heroine is the last one listed and the first one Reese finds. There is a shoot out in a night club and a chase scene and from that point on the film goes back and forth between chase scenes and shoot outs as Reese tries to explain to Sarah how there is a nuclear war in the near future and the surviving humans are at war with machines for survival. He also must explain to her that the her son will be the one to lead the human resistance against the machines which is why the terminator is after her.
While this film doesn't feel like Cameron's own in the same way that films like Avatar, Aliens and T2 do, it does show him establishing a knack for constructing huge action sequences that are there for more than just the noise. The film also made Schwarzenegger a bigger star and cemented him as the top action star of the '80's. For Linda Hamilton, she plays the role well but it's strange watching her play Sarah Connor as so weak when you contrast that with her performance in T2. Of the 4 Cameron films I own this is my least favorite, but that is more of a credit to the other 3 than a knock on this one. When you factor in the time for which it was made, the budget and the experience Cameron brought to the film it's amazing to think that it was able to reach and maintain it's status in pop culture for so many years. I still enjoy watching this, but ultimately it only makes me want to watch T2 even more as I believe that one completely blows this one out of the water.
Prior to The Terminator, Cameron's directorial resume included Xenogensis and Piranha Part II. Needless to say I have ever seen either film and I doubt you have either. But, I can see why The Terminator was considered a sleeper hit back in 1984 even though the character of the Terminator has sense become a part of pop-culture.
The film itself is a cross between '80's slasher film in which a soul-less killer lays waste to everyone in his path in pursuit of one woman who doesn't understand why they are connected and sci-fi film. I wonder if people originally heard the premise for this film and simply let out a collective grown.
Now, according to wikipedia, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." Not bad for a sci-fi film with a budget below $7 million dollars.
The film centers around Sarah Connor (played by Linda Hamilton), a bad waitress with bad '80's hair who is just trying to have some fun when her life is put in jeopardy by a time traveling robot from the year 2029. Her savior also comes from the year 2029 and despite the acting of Michael Biehn, I can assure you the character of Kyle Reese is human. Both time travelers head straight for the phone book and The Terminator begins to systematically eliminate everyone named Sarah Connor. Thankfully our heroine is the last one listed and the first one Reese finds. There is a shoot out in a night club and a chase scene and from that point on the film goes back and forth between chase scenes and shoot outs as Reese tries to explain to Sarah how there is a nuclear war in the near future and the surviving humans are at war with machines for survival. He also must explain to her that the her son will be the one to lead the human resistance against the machines which is why the terminator is after her.
While this film doesn't feel like Cameron's own in the same way that films like Avatar, Aliens and T2 do, it does show him establishing a knack for constructing huge action sequences that are there for more than just the noise. The film also made Schwarzenegger a bigger star and cemented him as the top action star of the '80's. For Linda Hamilton, she plays the role well but it's strange watching her play Sarah Connor as so weak when you contrast that with her performance in T2. Of the 4 Cameron films I own this is my least favorite, but that is more of a credit to the other 3 than a knock on this one. When you factor in the time for which it was made, the budget and the experience Cameron brought to the film it's amazing to think that it was able to reach and maintain it's status in pop culture for so many years. I still enjoy watching this, but ultimately it only makes me want to watch T2 even more as I believe that one completely blows this one out of the water.
Robin Hood
I remember hearing the premise for the film Hancock and thinking 'WOW, that sounds like it'll be a lot of fun.' Then I remember hearing about all the rewrites the film went through and re-edits in order to get a PG-13 ratings and it's no wonder that when I finally rented I was only able to make through 45 minutes before turning it off and sending it back.
Which brings me to Robin Hood, the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett that aims to give Robin Hood a proper origin story. Great idea especially for me sense I grew up a huge fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and let's be honest, Russell Crowe should easily be a better Robin Hood.
Sadly, all I can say about this Robin Hood is coulda shoulda woulda. The main problem the film seems to run into is that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood the filmmakers try and over load the story by creating a war between France and England and disparaging virtually everyone who has achieved anything above the standing of commoner along the way.
It should be mentioned that this film is not completely without it's merit. Kevin Durand (Keamy from Lost) is great fun to watch and in truth the performance's of Crowe, Blanchett, John Hurt, Mark Strong and the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Likewise, Scott's visual style particularly in the battle scenes is also top notch. My problem remains the fact that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood, the film makers here have tried to do too much. I'm still not sure why Crowe is not playing Robin of Locksley and when he returns from the crusades to Nottingham there is something creepy about who easily Robin of Locksley's father and wife take in the new Robin even when they know it's not him. There is also side stories of how Robin had blocked out memories of his father who was martyred when Robin was a boy for fighting for universal rights for all people.
The film spends much of the first hour and a half juggling all of it's various story lines and then hastily tries to tie everything together in order to come in with a run time under 2 and a half hours. I tried hard while watching this not to compare it the Kevin Costner version of I grew up with but in truth there are some major difference's between the films that I could not ignore. For one, the Costner Robin Hood is a man seeking redemption from a child hood of immaturity. Another difference comes in the character of Marian. In both films she is strong, but in the Scott version they take it to the level in which she might as well be Joan of Arc. And while I love Cate Blanchett as an actress she never has a chance to grow in this character to a point where I could believe the Crowe's Robin Hood could fall in love with her as easily as he does. A final note worthy comparison comes in the fact that while all the 'bad characters' are portrayed well none of them standout as thee bad guy. In the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood Alan Rickman is tremendous as the evil sheriff. There is no point in this in which any character is seemingly Robin Hoods arch nemesis until the very end when the film begins to set up for a continuation of the Robin Hood story. Perhaps with an opportunity to tell a more focused story a sequel would be able to breath some life into the Robin Hood story. This one however just feels like a missed opportunity.
Which brings me to Robin Hood, the Ridley Scott directed film starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett that aims to give Robin Hood a proper origin story. Great idea especially for me sense I grew up a huge fan of the Kevin Costner Robin Hood and let's be honest, Russell Crowe should easily be a better Robin Hood.
Sadly, all I can say about this Robin Hood is coulda shoulda woulda. The main problem the film seems to run into is that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood the filmmakers try and over load the story by creating a war between France and England and disparaging virtually everyone who has achieved anything above the standing of commoner along the way.
It should be mentioned that this film is not completely without it's merit. Kevin Durand (Keamy from Lost) is great fun to watch and in truth the performance's of Crowe, Blanchett, John Hurt, Mark Strong and the rest of the cast are all top-notch. Likewise, Scott's visual style particularly in the battle scenes is also top notch. My problem remains the fact that in creating an origin story for Robin Hood, the film makers here have tried to do too much. I'm still not sure why Crowe is not playing Robin of Locksley and when he returns from the crusades to Nottingham there is something creepy about who easily Robin of Locksley's father and wife take in the new Robin even when they know it's not him. There is also side stories of how Robin had blocked out memories of his father who was martyred when Robin was a boy for fighting for universal rights for all people.
The film spends much of the first hour and a half juggling all of it's various story lines and then hastily tries to tie everything together in order to come in with a run time under 2 and a half hours. I tried hard while watching this not to compare it the Kevin Costner version of I grew up with but in truth there are some major difference's between the films that I could not ignore. For one, the Costner Robin Hood is a man seeking redemption from a child hood of immaturity. Another difference comes in the character of Marian. In both films she is strong, but in the Scott version they take it to the level in which she might as well be Joan of Arc. And while I love Cate Blanchett as an actress she never has a chance to grow in this character to a point where I could believe the Crowe's Robin Hood could fall in love with her as easily as he does. A final note worthy comparison comes in the fact that while all the 'bad characters' are portrayed well none of them standout as thee bad guy. In the Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood Alan Rickman is tremendous as the evil sheriff. There is no point in this in which any character is seemingly Robin Hoods arch nemesis until the very end when the film begins to set up for a continuation of the Robin Hood story. Perhaps with an opportunity to tell a more focused story a sequel would be able to breath some life into the Robin Hood story. This one however just feels like a missed opportunity.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Thank you Mike Newell ... for handing over the directing reigns after your one turn as director. Thank you because while there are good moments here you were able to take my favorite of the Harry Potter books and turn it into my least favorite of the films.
Now I don't want to beat this to death because I know it's obnoxious to see someone push their glasses up on their noses and stuffily assert "the book is better than the movie!" To this point I have tried avoiding that with the Potter films for two reasons. First, it essentially goes with out saying. Second, because the films for the most part are still very watchable.
So, perhaps it's the fact that this one is my favorite and I believe it's ending is the best of the book, but seeing the entire thing including the ending butchered in order to keep the run time down is very disappointing. The book is 250+ pages longer than Azkaban and even after Azakban was released there was some hope the Newell and Warner Bros. would divide the book into two films. No such like though. Instead we get 18 minutes of Yule Ball materiall and less than 5 minutes inside the maze near the end. We also drop the Dursleys, delete an entire character and on a positive note Dobby and the entire house elf sub plot is dropped.
Of all the things to complain about though I think my biggest complaint surrounds the character of Dumbledore. Between the 2nd and 3rd film the role of Dumbledore had to be recast as the original Dumbledore actor, Richard Harris, had passed away. I think most Potter fans prefer Harris's Dumbledore versus the Michael Gambon portrayal. In my opinion, I feel like Harris portrayed Dumbledore like a loving and wise grandfather while Gambon brings a stronger presence to the Dumbledore character. However, as director, it's my opinion that Mike Newell has little to no sense of the character of Dumbledore. In Goblet of Fire we see Dumbledore as foreboding and even somewhat maniacal. Sure the Tri-wizard tournament has grave elements to it and should be taken seriously, but Gambon's performance here would lead me to believe that Dumbledore is looking forward to seeing someone get hurt. Furthermore, there is a scene right after the school champions are announced that has Dumbledore grabbing and pushing Harry in an aggresive fashion. No where in the books or films is Dumbledore scene as such a cold individual and watching it again I just kept thinking to myself this is bordering on being ridiculous.
So, Newell moved on and will hopefully focus on making romantic comedies which is what made him famous and avoid big adventure films. Of course, with Prince of Persia being released to underwhelming reviews it seems that perhaps Mr. Newell needed one more reminder that this genre is not for him.
Now I don't want to beat this to death because I know it's obnoxious to see someone push their glasses up on their noses and stuffily assert "the book is better than the movie!" To this point I have tried avoiding that with the Potter films for two reasons. First, it essentially goes with out saying. Second, because the films for the most part are still very watchable.
So, perhaps it's the fact that this one is my favorite and I believe it's ending is the best of the book, but seeing the entire thing including the ending butchered in order to keep the run time down is very disappointing. The book is 250+ pages longer than Azkaban and even after Azakban was released there was some hope the Newell and Warner Bros. would divide the book into two films. No such like though. Instead we get 18 minutes of Yule Ball materiall and less than 5 minutes inside the maze near the end. We also drop the Dursleys, delete an entire character and on a positive note Dobby and the entire house elf sub plot is dropped.
Of all the things to complain about though I think my biggest complaint surrounds the character of Dumbledore. Between the 2nd and 3rd film the role of Dumbledore had to be recast as the original Dumbledore actor, Richard Harris, had passed away. I think most Potter fans prefer Harris's Dumbledore versus the Michael Gambon portrayal. In my opinion, I feel like Harris portrayed Dumbledore like a loving and wise grandfather while Gambon brings a stronger presence to the Dumbledore character. However, as director, it's my opinion that Mike Newell has little to no sense of the character of Dumbledore. In Goblet of Fire we see Dumbledore as foreboding and even somewhat maniacal. Sure the Tri-wizard tournament has grave elements to it and should be taken seriously, but Gambon's performance here would lead me to believe that Dumbledore is looking forward to seeing someone get hurt. Furthermore, there is a scene right after the school champions are announced that has Dumbledore grabbing and pushing Harry in an aggresive fashion. No where in the books or films is Dumbledore scene as such a cold individual and watching it again I just kept thinking to myself this is bordering on being ridiculous.
So, Newell moved on and will hopefully focus on making romantic comedies which is what made him famous and avoid big adventure films. Of course, with Prince of Persia being released to underwhelming reviews it seems that perhaps Mr. Newell needed one more reminder that this genre is not for him.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
This is perhaps my favorite of the Harry Potter films to date. Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, the film immediately sheds much of the child like charm the first two films had in favor of giving the characters a 21st century feel and there is no question that the overall quality of the film benefits from Cuaron's visual style.
It is also considered to be somewhat controversial in the Harry Potter uni-nerd-verse. I remember speaking with fellow Potter fans when this film was released. Most of our time was spent running through all the details and events that the film leaves out. The films run time is comparable to the first two despite the fact that the source material was roughly 150 pages longer than the previous two so it was no surprise that there were tons of things left out.
The film itself centers around the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban prison. Since no one had ever escaped before the entire wizarding world is shocked by the news that this deranged murder managed to do it. It also doesn't help that he is regarded as one of Lord Voldemort's most loyal supports.
Azkaban is a huge turning point in the Potter series. No longer is Harry wandering around wondering to himself "what's going on" only to find out it's another scheme by Voldemort to get him. Instead, we begin to see the unraveling of the greater story that is taking place outside of Hogwarts. There is a sense of intrigue throughout the book and film that the previous entries had not established and the sequence in the shrieking shack (particularly the book version) is jaw dropping.
It's been several years since I read the 3rd instalment in the Harry Potter series and the fact of the matter is that subsequent films have done far more damage while butchering their source material. The question that will forever linger of this film among Potter fans is whether or not it opened the door for remaining films to essentially provide cliff notes versions of the books. I don't have an answer to that but I can say that at this point it is worth watching on the merits of some slick film making and the growth of the main characters. Despite the fact that we may never get the full adaptation of the books we may want, I can still appreciate this entry as an example of great film making.
It is also considered to be somewhat controversial in the Harry Potter uni-nerd-verse. I remember speaking with fellow Potter fans when this film was released. Most of our time was spent running through all the details and events that the film leaves out. The films run time is comparable to the first two despite the fact that the source material was roughly 150 pages longer than the previous two so it was no surprise that there were tons of things left out.
The film itself centers around the escape of Sirius Black from Azkaban prison. Since no one had ever escaped before the entire wizarding world is shocked by the news that this deranged murder managed to do it. It also doesn't help that he is regarded as one of Lord Voldemort's most loyal supports.
Azkaban is a huge turning point in the Potter series. No longer is Harry wandering around wondering to himself "what's going on" only to find out it's another scheme by Voldemort to get him. Instead, we begin to see the unraveling of the greater story that is taking place outside of Hogwarts. There is a sense of intrigue throughout the book and film that the previous entries had not established and the sequence in the shrieking shack (particularly the book version) is jaw dropping.
It's been several years since I read the 3rd instalment in the Harry Potter series and the fact of the matter is that subsequent films have done far more damage while butchering their source material. The question that will forever linger of this film among Potter fans is whether or not it opened the door for remaining films to essentially provide cliff notes versions of the books. I don't have an answer to that but I can say that at this point it is worth watching on the merits of some slick film making and the growth of the main characters. Despite the fact that we may never get the full adaptation of the books we may want, I can still appreciate this entry as an example of great film making.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Kill Bill Vol. 1
I've hit a rough spot in the movie collection. As it stands right now I have skipped Hardball until I can watch that one with my wife (why should I suffer alone), I've completed 2 Potter films and have 4 to go and when the Potter films are done I have The Holiday and Hope Floats waiting for me. So, in order to survive I am going to jump around a bit and watch some films that I have purchased since starting this. I think it's for the best.
Which leads me to Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's not a whole lot that I can say about this film that isn't conveyed in the title. It's an ultra violent revenge film that ultimately does not see anyone (knowingly) named Bill get killed since it is only Vol. 1.
What I love about this film though is that Quentin Tarantino is such a master of this medium that the film rarely ever feels like it's being ultra violent. Instead, it flows at such a brisk pace that the audience becomes engulfed in Tarantino's homage to Japanese samurai revenge films and immune to the carnage.
The story itself centers around 'the bride' a survivor of a horrific assassination attempt in which eight others were killed and the then pregenant bride is left in a 4 and a half year coma. The bride eventually awakens and is filled with a singular purpose of hunting down the people who destroyed her life. To this end, she will allow no one to stand in her way.
Told in a typical Tarantino disjointed fashion, Vol. 1 covers 5 chapters of the Brides story as we see her take revenge on Vernita Green and O-Ren Ishii. Along with paying tribute to those who have made this genre great in Japan, Tarantino brings his typical punch-out power to the films dialogue. It's hard to put into words how effective Tarantino's dialogue is because it is so much better than everyone else's out there and as director he knows how to get his characters to deliver it to perfection. The best I could offer for a comparrison is something that stands as the direct opposite to Tarantino and that would be remembering George Costanza frustration with not being able to have a snappy come back. Hours later after he felt like a store clerk had been rude to him he comes up with "YEAH, well the JERK store called and their running out of YOU!" That's funny and pathetic all at once and fits the character of George perfectly. With Tarantino his character's are able to deliver lines like "Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids" with more power and punch than this page can ever adequately describe.
While the dialogue softens the ultra violent acts taking place on screen the film also succeeds by creating amazing set pieces. In particular the showdown at the house of blue leaves is breath taking in all of it's gruesome wonder. Ultimately, I feel I still feel like Vol.2 is more of the masterpiece and Vol.1 is Tarantino paying homage to a style of filmmaking that is unique to Japan and is typically done poorly in American films. Still, don't let it sound like I am selling this film short as it's the kind of film that you watch without blinking the enter time and by the end you just find yourself saying "WOW." At least, that was my experience.
Which leads me to Kill Bill Vol. 1. There's not a whole lot that I can say about this film that isn't conveyed in the title. It's an ultra violent revenge film that ultimately does not see anyone (knowingly) named Bill get killed since it is only Vol. 1.
What I love about this film though is that Quentin Tarantino is such a master of this medium that the film rarely ever feels like it's being ultra violent. Instead, it flows at such a brisk pace that the audience becomes engulfed in Tarantino's homage to Japanese samurai revenge films and immune to the carnage.
The story itself centers around 'the bride' a survivor of a horrific assassination attempt in which eight others were killed and the then pregenant bride is left in a 4 and a half year coma. The bride eventually awakens and is filled with a singular purpose of hunting down the people who destroyed her life. To this end, she will allow no one to stand in her way.
Told in a typical Tarantino disjointed fashion, Vol. 1 covers 5 chapters of the Brides story as we see her take revenge on Vernita Green and O-Ren Ishii. Along with paying tribute to those who have made this genre great in Japan, Tarantino brings his typical punch-out power to the films dialogue. It's hard to put into words how effective Tarantino's dialogue is because it is so much better than everyone else's out there and as director he knows how to get his characters to deliver it to perfection. The best I could offer for a comparrison is something that stands as the direct opposite to Tarantino and that would be remembering George Costanza frustration with not being able to have a snappy come back. Hours later after he felt like a store clerk had been rude to him he comes up with "YEAH, well the JERK store called and their running out of YOU!" That's funny and pathetic all at once and fits the character of George perfectly. With Tarantino his character's are able to deliver lines like "Silly rabbit, tricks are for kids" with more power and punch than this page can ever adequately describe.
While the dialogue softens the ultra violent acts taking place on screen the film also succeeds by creating amazing set pieces. In particular the showdown at the house of blue leaves is breath taking in all of it's gruesome wonder. Ultimately, I feel I still feel like Vol.2 is more of the masterpiece and Vol.1 is Tarantino paying homage to a style of filmmaking that is unique to Japan and is typically done poorly in American films. Still, don't let it sound like I am selling this film short as it's the kind of film that you watch without blinking the enter time and by the end you just find yourself saying "WOW." At least, that was my experience.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Let the great debate begin! Who is the worst CGI character in film history; JarJar or Dobby? In JarJar we see a character created for the singular purpose of being an idiot in a failed attempt to inject humor into the greatest Sci-Fi series of all time. With Dobby we have a masochistic elf/slave who is not so much funny but just creepy and unsettling. Sadly, there is no winner here because the films these characters exist in are most see for fans of the genre.
That's right, Chamber of Secrets may be my least favorite of the Harry Potter books (and second least favorite of the films), but it remains required viewing/reading for anyone looking to dive into the world of Harry Potter.
I suppose what bothers me most in Chamber of Secrets is that in both mediums it seems to follow much of the formula involved in the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry sees even more of the wizarding world but with less sense of wide eyed wonder. We also see Harry face similar problems as, along with Ron and Hermoine, he sets out to solve another "whodunit." All in all, whether it's the book or the film, Chamber of Secrets carries with it an overwhelming feeling of "haven't we done this before?"
With that being said I should point out that the film has several redeeming qualities. Kenneth Branagh is terrific as Professor Lockhart, the dueling scene with Harry and Draco is great fun, the introduction of Draco's father Lucius Malfoy is effective and the scene's at the Weasley home are also great. Outside of that though this film gives us much of the same and often the scenes that are supposed to provide a big pay off (the whomping willow, the car/train chase and the spiders) actually provide surprisingly little excitement. A final criticism of the film centers around the horribly misguided choice of not re shooting any of the scenes in which Ron's voice is cracking. We all get that these kids are going through puberty but it's death for the audience to have to listen to it and when it undermines any sense of tension that's been created when it happens.
Ultimately this film provides little more than material for debating the worst characters in movie history. In the case of Dobby, he was meet with such disdain in the film version of Chamber of Secrets that he was left out of other the other films. That's a strong vote against him, but for my money no character in film history is more regrettable than JarJar. Still, we all lose sense both the Star Wars and Harry Potter films should be viewed in their entirety.
That's right, Chamber of Secrets may be my least favorite of the Harry Potter books (and second least favorite of the films), but it remains required viewing/reading for anyone looking to dive into the world of Harry Potter.
I suppose what bothers me most in Chamber of Secrets is that in both mediums it seems to follow much of the formula involved in the Sorcerer's Stone. Harry sees even more of the wizarding world but with less sense of wide eyed wonder. We also see Harry face similar problems as, along with Ron and Hermoine, he sets out to solve another "whodunit." All in all, whether it's the book or the film, Chamber of Secrets carries with it an overwhelming feeling of "haven't we done this before?"
With that being said I should point out that the film has several redeeming qualities. Kenneth Branagh is terrific as Professor Lockhart, the dueling scene with Harry and Draco is great fun, the introduction of Draco's father Lucius Malfoy is effective and the scene's at the Weasley home are also great. Outside of that though this film gives us much of the same and often the scenes that are supposed to provide a big pay off (the whomping willow, the car/train chase and the spiders) actually provide surprisingly little excitement. A final criticism of the film centers around the horribly misguided choice of not re shooting any of the scenes in which Ron's voice is cracking. We all get that these kids are going through puberty but it's death for the audience to have to listen to it and when it undermines any sense of tension that's been created when it happens.
Ultimately this film provides little more than material for debating the worst characters in movie history. In the case of Dobby, he was meet with such disdain in the film version of Chamber of Secrets that he was left out of other the other films. That's a strong vote against him, but for my money no character in film history is more regrettable than JarJar. Still, we all lose sense both the Star Wars and Harry Potter films should be viewed in their entirety.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Harry Potter and The Sorcerers Stone
I own all six Harry Potter films so forgive me if the Harry Potter related entries seem short in comparison to past entries. While I do enjoy the Potter films (the books of course are infinitely better) I am at a point were I believe my reason for owning them is to one day be able to watch them with my children as opposed to pulling off the shelf and watching for my own entertainment.
Of course, I didn't always feel that way. In fact, when the Sorcerers Stone was released in theaters I saw it 5 times and subsequently upon it's release on DVD I watched several more times. But since reading the seventh book my passion for the Harry Potter world has dimmed as there are no more mysteries to solve.
This first film is the truest representation of the books in film format. Not everything is included but the little bit that is left out is seemingly inconsequential to the story or future films. It also is the most magical of the films and the most innocent. It carries the unique quality of being able to introduce the wizarding world to Harry at the same time this world is being introduced to the audience.
I can't say that The Sorcerers Stone is the best of the Harry Potter films since it is ham stringed by the fact that there is only so much the film can cover. The book and film serve as introductions to the wizarding world and fail to tie in the overarching intrigue that surrounds the wizarding world at this time. Still, I think this may be my favorite of the films. There is a sense of joy represented in here for the wizarding world and the character of Harry Potter. I still choke up when the film reaches it's end and it's time for Harry to return home to the Dursleys. There is very little in this film that hints at the troubles to come. Instead, it just focuses on an 11 year old boy who is finally given a chance to understand who he is and what potential he holds.
Of course, I didn't always feel that way. In fact, when the Sorcerers Stone was released in theaters I saw it 5 times and subsequently upon it's release on DVD I watched several more times. But since reading the seventh book my passion for the Harry Potter world has dimmed as there are no more mysteries to solve.
This first film is the truest representation of the books in film format. Not everything is included but the little bit that is left out is seemingly inconsequential to the story or future films. It also is the most magical of the films and the most innocent. It carries the unique quality of being able to introduce the wizarding world to Harry at the same time this world is being introduced to the audience.
I can't say that The Sorcerers Stone is the best of the Harry Potter films since it is ham stringed by the fact that there is only so much the film can cover. The book and film serve as introductions to the wizarding world and fail to tie in the overarching intrigue that surrounds the wizarding world at this time. Still, I think this may be my favorite of the films. There is a sense of joy represented in here for the wizarding world and the character of Harry Potter. I still choke up when the film reaches it's end and it's time for Harry to return home to the Dursleys. There is very little in this film that hints at the troubles to come. Instead, it just focuses on an 11 year old boy who is finally given a chance to understand who he is and what potential he holds.
Friday, May 21, 2010
The Godfather Saga
Guess who has two thumbs and is phoning this post in? That's right, this guy. I have spent the last week rewatching the Godfather saga in all of it's glory and I have decided that this post will be dedicated to all three instead of doing individual posts for each one. Why? Because if you need my opinion on the Godfather Saga to determine whether or not your interested in watching it then your probably better off not watching it.
What I do intend to do with each one is attempt to briefly give my opinions about each after watching them again and how they work together. The first film in the saga in my opinion is the masterpiece. It is cemented in my list of five desert island films and honestly it is in my opinion the greatest film I have ever seen. It is presently ranked second on the American Film Institutes list of greatest films that was compiled back in 2007. It has been referenced and parodied in so many ways over the years that if you haven't seen it you would recognize huge chunks of this film from the way it's been represented in various media over the past 30 years. From the films opening scene to it's bitter end every scene and character breathes with a life that is rarely scene on film. We meet the Corleone family on the day of daughter Connie's wedding and we see the families matriarch Vito meeting with various people in his home office while the reception continues on the families estate. From the moment we meet Vito he is a calm yet imposing figure. His son Santino (Sunny) and adopted son Tom are in with him and are seemingly taking notes so that when Don Vito retires Sunny can take over.
We meet other family members too including Michael, the one son who is not being groomed to aid in the family business. Michael arrives with Kay and assures her that he is not like his family. However, weeks later when the Don is nearly murdered Michael finds his love for his father and family thrusting him into a situation in which he is forced to help in the family business.
The compelling elements of the first Godfather are Vito's unflinching ability to run his business without emotional influence and Michael's assimilation to that business along the resulting corruption of character that Michael succumbs too. I can remember taking the Godfather over to a friends house once and starting it at midnight thinking we would watch half that night and the next night we would finish. In the back of my head I think I knew we would be up until 3 am because that's the kind of film the Godfather is. Once it begins it is virtually impossible to look a way.
Which brings us to The Godfather Part 2. I have seen many times were critics will refer to the second one as being the greatest sequel of all time and there are those who would argue that it is better than the original. I would not. It's worth noting that part 2 is presently ranked 32nd on AFI's top one hundred list and is the only sequel on the list (I am not counting Star Wars Episode IV because when it was released it was not presented as a sequel).
The films takes the two central characters from the original and breaks the film into 2 stories. The first is an origin story that follows Vito from Sicily to New York and his rise to underworld power as a young man struggling to take care of his family. The second story follows Michael seven years after the first film ended as he continues to rule over the Corleone family and it's interests. By the end of the first film I believe director Francis Ford Coppola laid out the depths to which Michael had sunk by splicing together a sequence in which he stood Godfather to his nephew while hits that he ordered were being carried out across New York and Las Vegas. By the time the second film opens Michael seems to be wallowing in his inability to control the monster he has created. He has set a goal to move his family into a legitimate business world and yet the closer he gets to that the further he gets. His singular motivation appears to be the protection of his family but he is so blinded by his own immorality that he can't see how his actions are destroying his marriage and family. He still manages to be slick enough to avoid inquisition from a senate panel and the film also includes a compelling sequence in Cuba as Michael looks to move his business there but is indirectly stopped by the revolution in 1960. This is the darkest content area of the saga and by it's end we see Michael a shell of the man he was when he arrived at his sisters wedding seemingly taking out his anger on those he feels are responsible for the failure of his marriage without ever looking at his own errors. Had this been the film only focus it would have been very difficult to get through.
Of course, the film also includes Vito's origin story as I mentioned and that is a thoroughly compelling and entertaining tale. Told mostly in Italian and lacking the vulgarity of Goodfellas it manages to make Vito a sympathetic character who is willing to work hard to take care of his family in an unjust world. We see why Vito was tragically forced to leave Sicily and how some chance encounters lead to him being in a position to go from taking orders to delivering them. It's this part of the film that is most entertaining and exhibits some of the best film making of the series. Without the Vito origin story I think this film ultimately would not have lived up to the expectations set by it's predecessor, but with it The Godfather Part 2 is a great film.
The Godfather Part 3 however, not so much. This film has been much maligned over the 20 years since it's release as not being worthy of the first two films and I must admit that I have long been an apologist for the third film. After all, it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1990 and it's hard to live up to the standards the first two had built.
Watching it again though I can still sight a few good things including Michael giving his confessions to a priest and his pursuit of Kay's forgiveness. The confession scene in particular I find to be compelling as we see a man come face to face with the horrible things he has done and break down because of it.
But, other than that the film plays too much like a tribute to the first two by consistently throwing in reminders of them through out. There is also a sense that the film most over compensate for how evil Michael had become by setting itself nearly twenty years after the second had ended and showing Michael as an extraordinarily charitable man still seeking a way out of the family business.
Yet the film is brought down by a sense of obligation to follow the same formulas the first two films established and while the first one seemingly gave these characters life this one seems to being trying to choke the life out of it's characters. Kay has been reduced to quips about Michael's past while Michael is played boorishly by Al Pacino in the same way that he has been over acting almost every role he has had for the past twenty years. I should also point out the unfortunate casting of Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter, but considering she left acting after this to be a director I would suggest that even she was smart enough to realize acting was not for her. Also, I guess the film makers did not get the memo regarding how audiences are still not comfortable with cousin love stories (are you listening George Michael?).
The third film does give the saga proper closure. There is no happy ending when one lives this life. Vito was never happy that Michael had taken over the family business and Michael was never able to have the family he wanted. The saga at it's best represents the very best that film making can be and despite the flaws of the third film the saga should be viewed by everyone at least once. Unless of course you consider all the references you have seen through the Simpsons as enough.
What I do intend to do with each one is attempt to briefly give my opinions about each after watching them again and how they work together. The first film in the saga in my opinion is the masterpiece. It is cemented in my list of five desert island films and honestly it is in my opinion the greatest film I have ever seen. It is presently ranked second on the American Film Institutes list of greatest films that was compiled back in 2007. It has been referenced and parodied in so many ways over the years that if you haven't seen it you would recognize huge chunks of this film from the way it's been represented in various media over the past 30 years. From the films opening scene to it's bitter end every scene and character breathes with a life that is rarely scene on film. We meet the Corleone family on the day of daughter Connie's wedding and we see the families matriarch Vito meeting with various people in his home office while the reception continues on the families estate. From the moment we meet Vito he is a calm yet imposing figure. His son Santino (Sunny) and adopted son Tom are in with him and are seemingly taking notes so that when Don Vito retires Sunny can take over.
We meet other family members too including Michael, the one son who is not being groomed to aid in the family business. Michael arrives with Kay and assures her that he is not like his family. However, weeks later when the Don is nearly murdered Michael finds his love for his father and family thrusting him into a situation in which he is forced to help in the family business.
The compelling elements of the first Godfather are Vito's unflinching ability to run his business without emotional influence and Michael's assimilation to that business along the resulting corruption of character that Michael succumbs too. I can remember taking the Godfather over to a friends house once and starting it at midnight thinking we would watch half that night and the next night we would finish. In the back of my head I think I knew we would be up until 3 am because that's the kind of film the Godfather is. Once it begins it is virtually impossible to look a way.
Which brings us to The Godfather Part 2. I have seen many times were critics will refer to the second one as being the greatest sequel of all time and there are those who would argue that it is better than the original. I would not. It's worth noting that part 2 is presently ranked 32nd on AFI's top one hundred list and is the only sequel on the list (I am not counting Star Wars Episode IV because when it was released it was not presented as a sequel).
The films takes the two central characters from the original and breaks the film into 2 stories. The first is an origin story that follows Vito from Sicily to New York and his rise to underworld power as a young man struggling to take care of his family. The second story follows Michael seven years after the first film ended as he continues to rule over the Corleone family and it's interests. By the end of the first film I believe director Francis Ford Coppola laid out the depths to which Michael had sunk by splicing together a sequence in which he stood Godfather to his nephew while hits that he ordered were being carried out across New York and Las Vegas. By the time the second film opens Michael seems to be wallowing in his inability to control the monster he has created. He has set a goal to move his family into a legitimate business world and yet the closer he gets to that the further he gets. His singular motivation appears to be the protection of his family but he is so blinded by his own immorality that he can't see how his actions are destroying his marriage and family. He still manages to be slick enough to avoid inquisition from a senate panel and the film also includes a compelling sequence in Cuba as Michael looks to move his business there but is indirectly stopped by the revolution in 1960. This is the darkest content area of the saga and by it's end we see Michael a shell of the man he was when he arrived at his sisters wedding seemingly taking out his anger on those he feels are responsible for the failure of his marriage without ever looking at his own errors. Had this been the film only focus it would have been very difficult to get through.
Of course, the film also includes Vito's origin story as I mentioned and that is a thoroughly compelling and entertaining tale. Told mostly in Italian and lacking the vulgarity of Goodfellas it manages to make Vito a sympathetic character who is willing to work hard to take care of his family in an unjust world. We see why Vito was tragically forced to leave Sicily and how some chance encounters lead to him being in a position to go from taking orders to delivering them. It's this part of the film that is most entertaining and exhibits some of the best film making of the series. Without the Vito origin story I think this film ultimately would not have lived up to the expectations set by it's predecessor, but with it The Godfather Part 2 is a great film.
The Godfather Part 3 however, not so much. This film has been much maligned over the 20 years since it's release as not being worthy of the first two films and I must admit that I have long been an apologist for the third film. After all, it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar in 1990 and it's hard to live up to the standards the first two had built.
Watching it again though I can still sight a few good things including Michael giving his confessions to a priest and his pursuit of Kay's forgiveness. The confession scene in particular I find to be compelling as we see a man come face to face with the horrible things he has done and break down because of it.
But, other than that the film plays too much like a tribute to the first two by consistently throwing in reminders of them through out. There is also a sense that the film most over compensate for how evil Michael had become by setting itself nearly twenty years after the second had ended and showing Michael as an extraordinarily charitable man still seeking a way out of the family business.
Yet the film is brought down by a sense of obligation to follow the same formulas the first two films established and while the first one seemingly gave these characters life this one seems to being trying to choke the life out of it's characters. Kay has been reduced to quips about Michael's past while Michael is played boorishly by Al Pacino in the same way that he has been over acting almost every role he has had for the past twenty years. I should also point out the unfortunate casting of Sophia Coppola as Michael's daughter, but considering she left acting after this to be a director I would suggest that even she was smart enough to realize acting was not for her. Also, I guess the film makers did not get the memo regarding how audiences are still not comfortable with cousin love stories (are you listening George Michael?).
The third film does give the saga proper closure. There is no happy ending when one lives this life. Vito was never happy that Michael had taken over the family business and Michael was never able to have the family he wanted. The saga at it's best represents the very best that film making can be and despite the flaws of the third film the saga should be viewed by everyone at least once. Unless of course you consider all the references you have seen through the Simpsons as enough.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Ghostbusters
I have found that there are some movies that stay great over time like the Princess Bride and others that you watch again years later and wonder how did I ever enjoy this film in the first place (Top Gun comes to mind). Then there is a film like Ghostbusters. When I was 8 I remember watching this and thinking that it was a little scary and really exciting. Twenty years later I still enjoy watching this film even though it's not nearly as scary or exciting for me now.
Instead Ghostbusters has become one of my favorite comedies of all time. There is a dry sarcastic sense of humor that is carried out throughout the film and is done with the exceptional talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.
I hope there is little need for to explain the premise here, but in short the three stars are scientist pursuing supernatural activity in New York City when their grants are revoked and they are forced to enter the private sector. They begin advertising and slowly build up a client base as well as media attention. Eventually they hire Ernie Hudson, get arrested and are asked by the mayor to save the city. Sigourney Weaver provides a love interest for Bill Murray and everyone is in top comedic form. This film deserves more attention but all I can think of adding is just my favorite quotes. On the small chance that you are reading this and haven't seen Ghostbusters I strongly recommend placing it at the top of your Netflix list. I love this film but I should also confess that my motivation for writing is diminished by the fact that I am trying to watch the Godfather right now. Sorry.
Instead Ghostbusters has become one of my favorite comedies of all time. There is a dry sarcastic sense of humor that is carried out throughout the film and is done with the exceptional talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.
I hope there is little need for to explain the premise here, but in short the three stars are scientist pursuing supernatural activity in New York City when their grants are revoked and they are forced to enter the private sector. They begin advertising and slowly build up a client base as well as media attention. Eventually they hire Ernie Hudson, get arrested and are asked by the mayor to save the city. Sigourney Weaver provides a love interest for Bill Murray and everyone is in top comedic form. This film deserves more attention but all I can think of adding is just my favorite quotes. On the small chance that you are reading this and haven't seen Ghostbusters I strongly recommend placing it at the top of your Netflix list. I love this film but I should also confess that my motivation for writing is diminished by the fact that I am trying to watch the Godfather right now. Sorry.
The Fugitive
On the DVD for season 2 of The Office of the special features is various cast members doing fake public service announcements ranging in topics from what to do if your attacked by a bear to not calling a bride on the day of the wedding to ask for directions. One of the fake PSA's provided by Jim was regarding the film The Fugitive and how it is a really good movie. I mean really really good.
Essentially that is exactly how I feel about this film. It is really really good. I am not a fan of the police procedural genre, but this film stands out because of it's unique premise and strong cast. At the center of the story is Harrison Ford's character Dr. Richard Kimble. From the beginning of the film we see Dr. Kimble convicted of the murder of his wife and in transit on his way to prison when he becomes part of escape attempt orchestrated by the other prison. The prison bus crashes is hit by a train in a sequence that remember seeing as kid and being completely blown away by. To this day I still consider one of the better action sequences I have seen in my life.
In comes Wyatt Earp, I mean Samuel Gerard played by Tommy Lee Jones. He has been placed in charge of apprehending the escaped felons including Dr. Kimble. Jones won an Oscar for his role here as the leader of his team and plays the role with an unflinching sense that his character's one goal is to do what's right by the law and by his team. Because of this he manages to avoid becoming the villain as he pursues Dr. Kimble.
His pursuit of Dr. Kimble is made easier by the fact that the good doctor is determined to prove he is innocent. You see it was the one armed man that did it and Kimble is filling to masquerade as a janitor at the local hospital and visit a prisoner locked up in the police station in his pursuit of the truth. Those are big risks given the fact that every police officer in Chicago is looking for him.
There are parts of the film that have become ripe for parody over time which is only natural. The film was directed by Andrew Davis whose previous work had included Steven Segal films (I do think Under Siege was pretty good) and his best work since was arguably Holes. Not exactly a stellar resume and yet this film has very few real flaws. The supporting cast provides an appropriate level of humor as they trade barbs with Jones and Ford handles being able to juggle feelings of dread as he slips past police officers with determination for clearing his name. It's not Indiana Jones or Han Solo, but he still plays the hero very well and in this case very sympathetically. Overall, I think Jim was right, this is a really really good film.
Essentially that is exactly how I feel about this film. It is really really good. I am not a fan of the police procedural genre, but this film stands out because of it's unique premise and strong cast. At the center of the story is Harrison Ford's character Dr. Richard Kimble. From the beginning of the film we see Dr. Kimble convicted of the murder of his wife and in transit on his way to prison when he becomes part of escape attempt orchestrated by the other prison. The prison bus crashes is hit by a train in a sequence that remember seeing as kid and being completely blown away by. To this day I still consider one of the better action sequences I have seen in my life.
In comes Wyatt Earp, I mean Samuel Gerard played by Tommy Lee Jones. He has been placed in charge of apprehending the escaped felons including Dr. Kimble. Jones won an Oscar for his role here as the leader of his team and plays the role with an unflinching sense that his character's one goal is to do what's right by the law and by his team. Because of this he manages to avoid becoming the villain as he pursues Dr. Kimble.
His pursuit of Dr. Kimble is made easier by the fact that the good doctor is determined to prove he is innocent. You see it was the one armed man that did it and Kimble is filling to masquerade as a janitor at the local hospital and visit a prisoner locked up in the police station in his pursuit of the truth. Those are big risks given the fact that every police officer in Chicago is looking for him.
There are parts of the film that have become ripe for parody over time which is only natural. The film was directed by Andrew Davis whose previous work had included Steven Segal films (I do think Under Siege was pretty good) and his best work since was arguably Holes. Not exactly a stellar resume and yet this film has very few real flaws. The supporting cast provides an appropriate level of humor as they trade barbs with Jones and Ford handles being able to juggle feelings of dread as he slips past police officers with determination for clearing his name. It's not Indiana Jones or Han Solo, but he still plays the hero very well and in this case very sympathetically. Overall, I think Jim was right, this is a really really good film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
