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.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
