Considering the first poster for Bruce Robinson's "The Rum Diary" was just a picture of Johnny Depp in a fedora (probably enough to market a movie), the one above is certainly an improvement, and hopefully visual proof that Robinson's big comeback will play everywhere once it finally opens on Oct. 12.
Why should you care? Well, Robinson, before pretty much disappearing from the face of the Earth, managed to direct at least one perfectly entertaining movie with "Withnail and I," an oddity well worth tracking down if you've never seen it. After about 10 years off from directing any kind of feature films whatsoever, I'm thinking he'll have a winner on his hands with this one, starring Depp as a rather debauched American journalist in Puerto Rico and based on the novel by Hunter S. Thompson.
Can't wait to see how all that turns out, but in the meantime I can tell you, as many critics already have, that this weekend's "Moneyball" is a pretty great little flick and one of a definitely dying breed: The grand baseball movie. It combines enough of a rah-rah story with what's essentially an action movie in which the words are the weapons (thanks to Aaron Sorkin) and a buddy movie in which Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are just extremely funny.
So, why isn't that enough to knock "The Lion King" from the top of the box office? It still might, but the tracking I saw has "Moneyball" coming in a fairly close second. Please, people, just trust me: Even if you're not a baseball geek like me, this movie is just thoroughly entertaining.
And word has come down this weekend that Pitt is now being courted for something else that could be a lot of fun. Doug Liman, who way back in the day directed "Swingers" and much more recently "Fair Game," is set to helm a flick based on the Japanese novel "All You Need is Kill," with Pitt in his sights to play the lead. So, what's it about? Per Comingsoon.net:
There's one thing worse than dying. It's coming back to do it again and again. ... When the alien Gitai invade, Keiji Kiriya is just one of many raw recruits shoved into a suit of battle armor and sent out to kill. Keiji dies on the battlefield, only to find himself reborn each morning to fight and die again and again. On the 158th iteration though, he sees something different, something out of place: the female soldier known as the B*tch of War. Is the B*tch the key to Keiji's escape, or to his final death?
Sounds like pretty trippy stuff, and Pitt hasn't made a bad movie (at least that I'v bothered to see) in quite a while now, so stay tuned.
OK, on to a short clip show, starting with "60 Minutes," which I only bother to watch when I know in advance they have something I'll be interested in, and tonight that should certainly be the case. As you'll see from the clip below, tonight's show will feature "South Park" creators Trey Park and Matt Stone, giving a glimpse of how they put together (and voice just about all the characters for) what is still one of the most scathingly funny shows on TV, now rather amazingly about to enter the second half of its 15th season in early October. Enjoy this preview clip.
Next up, a slew of clips from what should be the silliest movie of this fall season, but hopefully one that will be as fun as any movie apparently based on the Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots game should be, "Real Steel." That alone should tell everyone all they need to know about this, which stars Hugh Jackman and somehow the great Anthony Mackie, too. Enjoy these clips courtesy of Collider, and keep an eye out for the movie, which will definitely dethrone "The Lion King" on Oct. 7, if nothing else has accomplished that feat in the meantime.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Sunday thoughts, of "Moneyball," Katherine Heigl (yes, really) and more
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
A Wednesday clip show, with Fincher, Pulp and even "Star Wars"
Actually, before we jump right into that, there's an intriguing bit of movie news out there today about a reunion of director Noah Baumbach and Jesse Eisenberg.
If you've never seen "The Squid and the Whale," while not the most uplifting of movies, there are few rentals I can recommend higher. Baumbach's directing debut (I believe) was an autobiographical tale of sorts about the divorce of his parents, played by Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels, with Eisenberg playing a character at least loosely based on Baumbach himself.
It was just a sweet little movie, and of course since then, Eisenberg has gone on to become more than a bit of a star. He'll next be seen in August in the Ruben Fleischer ("Zombieland") comedy "30 Minutes or Less" with veryfunnyman Aziz Ansari, and now comes word this morning that he's set to make another movie with Baumbach.
The movie, titled "While We're Young," is apparently about a Brooklynite 20-something couple who inspire an older, uptight documentarian and his wife to loosen up (according to the always reliable The Playlist, at least). If this all comes together, Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts would play the older couple, and Eisenberg and an actress to be named later the younger one.
Sounds like a comedy of manners (or lack thereof) perfect for Baumbach, so here's hoping this all comes together.
And now, because I'm in a bit of a hurry to go swimming before work, let's just jump right into the clips. For about a week or so, a very shaky camera pirated copy of the trailer for David Fincher's thoroughly unnecessary remake of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" has been circulating on the Internet. Well, Sony apparently finally got fed up, and pulled that copy while replacing it with this spiffy official version.
I have to say, however, that as shiny as it all looks, it seems to be pretty much a shot-for-shot remake of the original Swedish movie, which is already pretty sublime entertainment, so what's the point of all this? Daniel Craig may well turn out to be an upgrade as Blomkvist, but in movies, there will always only be one Lisbeth Salander, because Noomi Rapace took over the role so completely. Having been burned once by what Matt Reeves did to one of my favorite movies with "Let Me In," I'm not ready to give in yet and believe there's any reason for this to be happening. Anyways, after that mini-rant, here's the cleaned-up trailer for you to "enjoy."
Next up, HBO has been on a real roll lately with "Treme" and even more so with "Game of Thrones," which really does get better and better as the weeks go by. And very soon (June 26, to be precise), the fourth season of "True Blood" will premiere. Though I'm not terribly enamored with the sometimes extreme liberties the show takes with Charlaine Harris' already very good Sookie Stackhouse novels, the show still remains a fun and funky brew. And now, through it's HBO Go toy and on to You Tube, HBO has leaked the first three minutes or so of the season 4 premiere, with more chunky bits to come before it's all unveiled. Enjoy, and then stick around for the return of Pulp and even pure, unspiffied up "Star Wars."
When I was supposedly in graduate school (but actually just having a blast in Athens, Ga.), Pulp's "Different Class" was easily one of my favorite albums, and it's one that I still listen to fairly often today. Here, performing I'm not sure where, is Pulp reunited, with Jarvis Cocker clearly just as cheeky as ever, performing "Disco 2000," and sounding great. Enjoy.
And finally today, where can you see the original "Star Wars" (now episode IV, I suppose), without any 3-D, extra footage or any other kind of enhancement? Why here, of course. I couldn't think of anything better to brighten up a Wednesday morning, so here, as promised, is the movie in its blissfully low-tech entirety. Enjoy, and have a perfectly endurable Wednesday. Peace out.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
"Star Wars" in 3D? I'll take half of that, if it ever gets that far
OK, I've never watched "Dancing With the Stars," and have no plans to, but I did see a tidbit about it that left me with a question: With Michael Bolton getting the boot after delivering what someone named Bruno Tonioli called "probably the worst" performance in the show's 11 (really? sheesh) years, does that now officially sanction him as a no-talent assclown? (sorry, there was no way I could resist that.)
After that, it's mostly all good movie news today, so let's get right to it, starting with the biggest of big dogs (in his own mind still, at least), George Lucas, and his plans to gussy up all six of his "Star Wars" movies in 3D (and before anyone who's been here reads on and wonders why, as usual, I'm not just railing against all 3D - for something like "Star Wars" I'll make a rare exception, because this should be thoroughly cool.)
To the "last" three of those, now unfortunately known as episodes IV-VI, I'll certainly say huzzah. They're great movies (yes, even episode VI), and time certainly doesn't change that. And if there's one good thing you can still say about Lucas, he certainly will spend whatever money he can throw at these to make them look spectacular.
There is, however, a real big problem with all of this, and that's that he plans to do these in order, starting with "The Phantom Menace" in 2012 and then releasing one each year after that. Now, I have no intention of seeing that, "Attack of the Clones" or "Revenge of the Sith" ever again, and especially not with any kind of 3D premium attached to the pain of actually sitting through them again.
And the 3D mountain of movie stench emanating from those three releases, if this gets that far, may actually prevent us from seeing the actually good "Star Wars" in 3D, because, at least according to the report I saw at the Hollywood Reporter, the subsequent 3D conversions would depend "on how well the first rerelease does."
My prediction? Jar Jar Binks is gonna kill this enterprise long before it gets to "A New Hope," where it should really start in the first place, which will be a genuine shame.
OK, enough of that, since there's plenty of other, better news out there today, starting with an unlikely but thoroughly deserved kudos for "Anvil! The Story of Anvil," easily the funniest documentary I've seen in the last five years or so and one of the best, too.
Katie Couric, Brian Williams, Bill Moyers and other actual news people may have been the big winners at the 31st annual News and Documentary Emmy Awards this week, but "Anvil!" snuck in too and took home a major award, an Emmy for Outstanding Arts & Culture Programming (it was eligible after airing on VH1).
If you've ever seen this great little film you'll know just how funny that is, but still well deserved, so a hearty huzzah to that. And if you've never seen the movie about Canada's hardest-working heavy metal band, I recommend it extremely highly as a rental.
In other news, Guy Ritchie's inevitable "Sherlock Holmes" sequel is shaping up to be much better than the first take, at least in terms of cast. Well, that's not really fair, because the real problem with the first flick wasn't its performers, who all clicked well, but the extremely weak story. Here's hoping that gets a whole lot better for "Sherlock Holmes 2."
We now know, however, that the cast will be first rate. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law will of course be returning as Sherlock and Watson, and now comes word that they'll be joined by Jared Harris as archnemesis Professor Moriarty.
This role was originally rumored to be going to Brad Pitt, who would have been just fine, but anyone who's watched Harris as Lane Pryce on "Mad Men" knows he'll be great in this. And if you watched the latest episode, you know his character now has the dubious distinction of both using the term "jungle bunny" and also getting a savage beating in the same episode.
And the good casting news continues beyond those lead roles. Stephen Fry has joined the cast as Sherlock's older brother, Mycroft Holmes, and even better, the original "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," Noomi Rapace, will play a French gypsy and, I'd have to assume, inevitable love interest for Sherlock. Now, if they could only come up with a much better story this time ...
And speaking of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," if you haven't seen the original Swedish version, it's out on DVD now, and it's pretty uniformly great. So great, in fact, that it enticed me to read the 700-plus pages of the late Stieg Larsson's second book in the series, "The Girl Who Played With Fire," and it's a pretty sensational work, too. I'm fairly certain David Fincher, who has a little movie coming out this week you may have heard of called "The Social Network," will do just fine with his American remake of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," but if you can handle it's often-brutal story, the original is excellent viewing.
Now comes word that Niels Arden Opley, director of the original "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo," has signed Tobey Maguire for his next project, "Good People," based on a book I haven't read by Marcus Sakey. The story, about a Chicago couple who find nearly $400,000 and go to extraordinary lengths to try and keep it, seems to follow directly in the footsteps of Sam Raimi's "A Simple Plan" and Danny Boyle's "Shallow Grave" (still probably my favorite of his movies), so it should be right up my alley.
OK, all I have left for the big finish today is just a short video, but since it's our first look at the Dude as Rooster Cogburn, I'd say it's a good place to end up. The Coen brothers' take on "True Grit," starring Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin and newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross, is certainly one of the movies I'm most looking forward to for the rest of this year, so definitely keep an eye out for it on Christmas day, enjoy this teaser trailer, and have a perfectly bearable Wednesday. Peace out.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Three or four things that hopefully bring the funny this morning
You know, I get a lot of movie reviews that cross my desk (well, appear on my computer, anyway), but rarely these days do I get one that surprises me as much what we got re "Date Night."
It was about noon Tuesday, and there were so far no reviews, never a good sign. But then exactly one showed up, from McClatchy Newspapers critic Christopher Kelly, and he gave it three-and-a-half stars. Exaggerating? Surely, but he made a good case, and I still have enough faith in critics that, even though I was on the fence about this one, I'm now gonna give it a couple hours or so of my Saturday afternoon. And later today, courtesy of Collider.com, come eight or so clips that show the movie starring Tina Fey and Steve Carell (and somehow James Franco, J.B. Smoove and even Taraji P. Henson, a definite Reel Fanatic favorite, too) should have more than a little funny going for it.
But before that today, there were a few other things that caught my eye this morning or perhaps yesterday (speed has never been all that important to me.) First up, what has to be the best premise for a movie I've heard in the last few years or so.
Though mi hermano lives in the land of 10,000 (or however many there actually are) lakes, I have never had the pleasure of going to the Minnesota State Fair or any other such Midwestern variant, and so have never experienced firsthand the glory of butter sculpture, but it has always fascinated me. I would not, however, have been clever enough to somehow tie it to the 2008 presidential election, as a screenwriter named Jason Micallef has apparently done.
The movie, "Butter," will star Jennifer Garner as the wife of a reigning butter-sculpting champion who attempts to follow in his footsteps after he steps down, only to have her path to power blocked by a young black girl with prodigious butter-sculpting talents (I'm laughing at that already.) The rival will be played by a young lady named Yara Shahidi, and Kate Hudson and funny guy Rob Corddry will factor into this somehow too.
Genuine political satire, which this certainly seems to be, is a rapidly dying art, so definitely keep your eyes on this flick set to begin filming later this month. (And for a pitch-perfect recent example of the genre, rent "In the Loop" if you somehow haven't seen it yet.)
And next up today comes up the first trailer I know of for "Dinner for Schmucks," which, given the Steve Carell connection, I have to presume will debut this weekend before "Date Night." The French movie it's based on "Le Diner De Cons," has sat near the top of my netflix queue for many months now, and having just checked, I find it's now actually No. 1, so I'm gonna return something today in hopes of getting it back in time for that to arrive in my mailbox Saturday afternoon. In the meantime, the remake starring Carell and Paul Rudd is set to drop in July, and judging from the trailer, the Jay Roach flick should deliver some pretty serious funny. Enjoy the trailer.
And coincidentally enough, George Lucas has apparently given Seth Green and Matthew Senreich, creators of "Robot Chicken," the green light to pen some further "Star Wars" adventures with a comic touch. That's pretty amazing news given that I just assumed Lucas had no sense of humor at all (or rather the kind that found Jar Jar to be funny), but in the meantime, I laughed right out loud at this "Star Wars"/"Arrested Development" mashup, and hopefully you will too. The best thing about this poster created four years ago or so to promote the Fox show when it was actually still on the air instead of just a constant reunion rumor has to be David Cross, but it's all pretty darn funny. Enjoy.
To wrap things up today, why not something from a movie that actually comes out this week, rather than a show that sadly died quite a while ago? As promised, here are about 7 minutes or so of "Date Night," which will be getting my $6.50 or so Saturday afternoon. Enjoy, and have a perfectly pain-free Wednesday. Peace out.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The weird, often wonderful, world of "Avatar"
I don't really think its possible, but given the weather on the east coast this weekend, should we feel sorry for James Cameron? (I feel much more sorry for my poor friends in D.C. who got buried in snow - which I know from personal experience is pretty much a mini-apocalypse for the nation's capital.)
Thanks at least in part to the storms, his "Avatar" only took in $73 million domestic in its first weekend, finishing second for a December opening to Will Smith's "I am Legend," which opened to more than $77 million (you just don't mess with the Fresh Prince.) Cameron's movie did, however, take in a rather impressive $159 million overseas, so I suppose he just might eventually break even in a few weeks.
But, much more importantly, is the movie any good? The short answer: Yes, often magically so. It's also hokey, bloated and all the other things you might have feared going in, but if you give into it, he really has managed to make a genuine sci-fi epic the likes of which we haven't seen on the big screen for many years (I've heard "Star Wars" mentioned so many times this week that it makes me sick, so you won't hear it again from me.)
What he hasn't done is "revolutionize moviemaking," or at least I hope not, because as much as I liked visiting his world of Pandora, I really hope there isn't even more of a rush to embrace 3-D. (Yes, I'm well aware that there's nothing I can do to stop it, much as I might try.) He really needs to take some lessons from W. in the expectations game, because if he could just keep his big mouth shut for a bit, people would find that what he's actually crafted is a flick that would have been much more comfortable in the '80s, in spite of all its technological prowess.
That's not entirely an insult, because the often-cheesy dialogue fits the very familiar story just fine, but, as Nell Minow also pointed out, with all the brains behind this, couldn't they come up with a better name for the coveted mineral the humans are hunting for than "unobtainium"? Sheesh.
But of course, we don't go to a James Cameron movie for the story, and he doesn't waste much time at all on the setup. I was, in fact, more than a little confused at first about how or why exactly our hero, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is taking over the Na'vi avatar inhabited by his late brother. The Na'vi, as I'm sure you know by now even if you haven't seen this, look like extremely fit blue horsecats, which would make Napoleon Dynamite smile but can be seriously distracting from the world that Cameron has created here.
And what a world it is. Once the action moves to Pandora, a planet prized by we humans for the aforementioned mineral and because - as is apparently the assumption for any movie set 100 years in the future or so - we've laid waste to our own living space. Jake infiltrates the Na'vi in his avatar for the mining company but his allegiances start to shift to the natives, thanks in large part to his love for one Na'vi in particular, Neytiri, played by Zoe Saldana. And, given Cameron's infatuation with the scantily clad Na'vi form, who can blame him, even if they are blue horsecats?
It's when Jake and Neytiri start to explore Cameron's brave new world that the movie finally takes off, and it really is amazing to behold. The realm of Pandora is essentially a rain forest at its roots, but Cameron has filled it with all kinds of wonders, from flying mountains to glowing trees, and we (or at least I) feel the thrill of discovery along with the two of them.
In fact, I know this is a reach, but in this middle stretch it often feels almost like a Terrence Malick movie - granted, a Terrence Malick movie on some seriously psychedelic drugs and with the volume turned up to 11. I'm still a 3-D skeptic, but for the first time since Henry Selick's "Coraline" I didn't mind wearing a second set of glasses just to watch this, and after a while I was so sucked in that I often forgot I was wearing them.
But, of course, we dastardly humans are there to ruin it all, and Cameron has found the perfect weapon of mass destruction in Stephen Lang. He hams it up throughout as Col. Quaritch, the muscle behind the hunt for "unobtainium" (just typing that makes me still giggle), and certainly brings to mind another Cameron hero who somehow managed to become the governor of California (it certainly helps that, in the inevitable battle royale, he inhabits a giant robot suit a la a Terminator.)
With a nifty transition involving Jake's mentor with the company, played with resolve and empathy by Sigourney Weaver, Cameron indeed shifts to unleash as much energy as he put into creating this beautiful place in an attempt to destroy it, which takes up most of the last 45 minutes or so. And the battle itself is electrifying. It's actually a good thing you have the 3-D glasses on at this point, which kind of keeps your head captive, because if it were to escape for just a second and think too much you might not be able to give in to just how ridiculously fun it is to watch blue horsecats on what appear to be neon pterodactyls and armed only with bows and arrows take on a force with considerably more firepower.
We know who's going to win this battle, but Cameron has imbued the movie with enough of his mythology in a surprisingly brisk two hours and 40 minutes or so that we actually care about the outcome. I'm still not sold on Sam Worthington as an actor, even in purely buttery popcorn fare like this, but that's not enough to take away from what Cameron has accomplished here.
Has he revolutionized moviemaking? Nah, but for $500 million or so he did at least manage to craft an extremely fun movie and just the sweetest kind of eye candy.
And that's about all I have to say about that. If you've seen "Avatar" and want to disagree with me, please feel free, and have a perfectly pleasant Monday. Peace out.
Friday, May 08, 2009
"Star Trek": Not bold, but still brilliant
As I was waiting for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" to start last night (I showed up plenty early, expecting, frankly, a much bigger crowd), I was trying to remember the last time I had even bothered to watch a movie based on an old TV show, and I really couldn't think of one.
"Bewitched"? Why bother? And despite the presence of both adorable Anna Friel and veryfunnyman Danny McBride, I really can't see myself getting into Will Ferrell's upcoming "Land of the Lost."
In most cases, even if its called a "reimagining," it usually just means adding tired jokes about all the anachronisms. What Abrams has accomplished with "Star Trek," however, is something entirely different. By embracing the best elements of the original animal but adding a fresh and almost uniformly appealing cast and enough of his own touches to give the series a big jolt of new blood (and adrenaline), he's created something so entertaining that it should relaunch the series and have it thriving (or, if you must, prospering) for a long time to come.
Though our 7 p.m. showing was only a little more than half full, I could tell from the crowd that we were in for something thoroughly fun. Despite the absurdity of a local country station giving out Trek t-shirts (to the only two people who bothered to come in costume), all the good-natured "Star Wars" jokes ("I should have come dressed as Vader") just set the stage perfectly.
So, what about the movie itself? Well, after a superb opening sequence that simultaneously features the birth of Kirk and introduces the movie's big bad, the Romulan Nero (Eric Bana, not really all that menacing except for the fact that - with all the Romulan facial tattoos - he looks a lot like Mike Tyson), Abrams and screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman wisely spend a lot of time introducing the new members of the Enterprise crew-to-be.
And though the types are already well set in stone, the new players are all just about perfectly cast (with the glaring exception of Simon Pegg, but more on that later.) The only thing I could remember seeing Chris Pine in was the mildly disappointing "Bottle Shock," but here he captures the combustible mix of anger and potential that makes the young Kirk intriguing, and though I gave up on "Heroes" during the disastrous second season, Zachary Quinto finds the soul of Spock rather than making him the cartoon it would have been easier to become. 
Among the supporting crew, Zoe Saldana smolders just enough as Uhura, and gives the movie its most tender moment along with Quinto. Karl Urban's McCoy (a truly eerie dead ringer) and Anton Yelchin's Chekhov are mostly there for very effective comic relief, but my favorite crew member of all was John Cho's Hikaru Sulu, perhaps mostly just because it was so much fun to see him do something besides get incredibly stoned.
The main (and just about only) beef I had heard from the minority of critics who at least kind of panned this was that the story was lacking, but I have to disagree. Though it is indeed a fairly standard revenge tale with enough wrinkles thrown in to keep it interesting until the end, I have to wonder, just how intricate could you really expect what amounts to the first mission of Kirk's Enterprise crew to be?
As it is, Abrams keeps the tale moving at a very fast but fluid pace, enough so that - for once - I really didn't mind the occasionally shaky camera work because it really does set up some simply stunning set pieces. Kirk and Sulu get the best one of all, as they dive from the Enterprise to take out a crazy giant drill that Nero is using to assault the Vulcan planet. I guarantee it will be the best action sequence you'll see this summer (or at least I welcome the challenge from "Terminator: Salvation" trying to top it in two weeks or so.)
My only quibble (and I hesitate even to bring it up, because the movie really was just about perfect summer fare) was that, after producing a script that set up the natural dynamic of the young Enterprise crew, it really felt like they went back at the end and crammed in the catchphrases that any Trek fan (and even a casual admirer like me) expect to hear. They're very funny at first, but exceedingly just a little annoying as it feels like Abrams and crew are working from a checklist.
And the introduction of Pegg's Scotty unfortunately feels right in this vein too. You know going in that he can't be a member of the Star Fleet Academy class with Kirk and company, but he just feels tacked on when he's finally brought in, and it doesn't help matters that Pegg - shockingly - just doesn't seem to fit the part at all. It's the first time on the big screen that I just really haven't much liked him at all.
But all that said, the bottom line is that this is a thoroughly fun flick that will thrill "Star Trek" devotees and newcomers alike. And with that, I have to go pay $70 to keep from having my power cut off and then to the job that pays me just enough to put me in that admittedly rather sorry position. Peace out.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Oscars on the brain, and Watchmen, Watchmen everywhere!
I guess the biggest non-Oscar news out there today is that Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro and Owen Wilson are set to star in "Little Fockers," which will of course revolve around the youngins. Hardly a high-brow movie, but I always at least give it a chance when De Niro goes for comedy.
But here today, it's all about the Oscars, a return to lists and - of course - "Watchmen"! Please feel free to stick around until the end for what I think are the first three clips of actual footage from the movie.
I'm set to record an Oscars video presentation (are those "vodcasts"? I have no idea) with my co-worker Phillip Ramati this afternoon, so they're definitely on my brain, and over my morning coffee I was perusing Wikipedia's list of all the Best Picture winners and nominees (and hoping it's accurate), which prompted these few brief thoughts:
Biggest snub
This is, of course, completely subjective, and for my purposes I restricted it to movies that actually were nominated rather than the almost infinitely broader category of worthy movies that didn't even get the nod.
In the former set, three jumped out at me, with the last one being the most amazing slight in my book. First up is "Dances With Wolves" over "Goodfellas" in 1990. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not sure I've ever seen Kevin Costner's film in its entirety, but I did try at least once. I have, however, probably seen Scorsese's gangster epic at least 10 times on DVD, so I think I can say with authority that this was just the definition of a dis.
Next up is "Forrest Gump" over "Pulp Fiction" in 1994, probably the biggest gap in quality between a winner and a nominee I can think of. I've made my hatred for "Forrest Gump" crystal clear here before, and while I know in my heart that, say, "Norbit" or "The Hottie or the Nottie" are probably worse movies, I still think "Gump" stands the test of time as the worst "good" movie of all. Along with the love of Zemeckis' flick, this vote just showed that the Oscars really weren't ready for something as innovative as Quentin Tarantino's breakthrough flick.
But the biggest goof in my mind goes back much further, all the way to 1939. Now, I have seen "Gone With the Wind," albeit not until it was re-released in theaters sometime in the 1990s. I really liked the overall experience, complete with intermission, so I can't knock anyone who is a devoted fan of the adaptation of Margaret Mitchell's grand Southern saga, but I still have to ask how in the world could this have beaten out "The Wizard of Oz"? Like most American kids of my era, there were two movies that we all gathered around the TV for year after year as events: "The Wizard of Oz" and "The Sound of Music." The former is still the one movie that I think would cause me to resort to actual rather than just threatened violence if I ever heard of plans for a big-screen remake, and for flicks that combine wild storytelling with sheer artistry and innovation, they just don't get much better at all. Hence, the winner in this category for me, but please feel free to add any others that jump out at you.
Favorite Best Picture winners
Nothing terribly surprising here, especially in the confirmation that the mid-1970s were indeed the golden age of American cinema, but just thought I'd share my 10 favorites anyway, arranged only by order:
1949: "All the King's Men"
1954: "On the Waterfront"
1965: "The Sound of Music"
1972: "The Godfather"
1974: "The Godfather Part II"
1975: "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
1976: "Rocky"
1977: "Annie Hall"
1987: "The Last Emperor"
And, finally, 2007: "No Country for Old Men"
Favorite Best Picture losers
This, of course, took a bit longer, but it's always better to complain about who got hosed rather than congratulate the winner, right? I was gonna try to keep this to 10 also, but it soon became clear that would be impossible. So, here goes, my favorite nominees who failed to take home the big prize:
1939: "The Wizard of Oz"
1956: "The King and I"
1961: "The Hustler"
1962: "To Kill a Mockingbird" (probably my favorite movie of all time, but I suppose you can't gripe too much, since it lost out to "Lawrence of Arabia")
1964: "Dr. Strangelove"
1967: "Bonnie and Clyde" and "The Graduate"
1970: "MASH"
1971: "The Last Picture Show"
1976: "All the President's Men" and "Taxi Driver"
1979 (truly a banner year): "Apocalypse Now," "Breaking Away" and "Norma Rae," with "Kramer Vs. Kramer" somehow beating all of those
1980: "Raging Bull"
1984: "A Soldier's Story"
1987: "Hope and Glory"
1990: "Goodfellas"
1991: "Beauty and the Beast"
1992: "The Crying Game"
1994: "Pulp Fiction"
1995: "Babe"
1996: "Fargo"
2000: "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon"
2001: "Gosford Park"
And, finally, 2006: "Little Miss Sunshine"
Were the Oscars always so "snobby"?
I put that in quotes because I'm not thoroughly convinced they are now, but the backers of "The Dark Knight" (and you can count me firmly among them) could certainly make that case.
So, were the Oscars always so averse to rewarding movies that combine artistry with extreme box-office appeal? The biggest example that proves they weren't would have to be "Titanic," which took home the big prize and 9 other statues, among 13 nominations.
There are other instances, however, that better show that the Oscars once (and fairly recently) took the wishes of fans and real geeks to heart. Here goes, with some Best Picture nominees:
1975: "Jaws"
1977: "Star Wars"
1981: "Raiders of the Lost Ark"
1982: "E.T. the Extra Terrestrial"
and 2001-2003: "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy
And, finally, "Watchmen"!
Anyone who actually made it through all that certainly deserves a reward, so here it is: As far as I can tell, the first three clips of actual footage from the movie "Watchmen," for which you can count me just thoroughly geeked up.
First up is a clip of Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) talking with Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode) about the Comedian's murder:
Next up is a snippet of that great scene in which Nite Owl (Wilson) and Laurie Jupiter (Malin Ackerman) take the Owl ship out for a spin and rescue some folks trapped in a burning building.
And finally, my favorite of the three, which features an unmasked Nite Owl and Rohrschach (Jackie Earle Haley). I think this is the first time I've heard Rohrschach speak, and it's just nothing but cool.
So, there you have it. Our Oscars video should be up some time tonight, so please feel free to check back, and have a perfectly pleasant Thursday. Peace out.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wall-E is a wonder to behold - and to love
As corny as this certainly sounds, if you've seen Pixar's "Wall-E" (and if you haven't, why the heck not?), can you think of any movie in any genre for the last 20 years or so that had more to say about the power of love?
Well, robot love, of course, but the story of Wall-E and Eve still just grabs you faster and keeps you fully attached longer than almost any love story that I can think of (some might mention "The Notebook," but for simple entertainment value and much more, "Wall-E" just blows that away.)
And at least as important as the robo-love is the love and adoration that director Andrew Stanton clearly has for great sci-fi, which he shows in almost every frame of "Wall-E." If even a sliver of the kids who managed to sit through the quieter stretches of "Wall-E" and later grows up to seek out the classics that inspired it - most clearly "Blade Runner" and "2001: A Space Odyssey," but also "Star Wars" - then mission accomplished.
Stanton's respect for "Blade Runner," in particular, is clear from the moment we see our hero roll on to the screen and into a trashscape that I guarantee - no matter how many times you've seen the Earth destroyed in apocalyptic fashion on the big screen - will look like nothing you've ever seen in movies before (and how many times nowadays can you really say that?)
And, even better, it's in this deliriously inventive opening third or so that Stanton makes the more subtle of his points about the numbing nature of our work-a-day routine. Even with the cute jokes about the amazingly fresh Twinkie and the spork, were there any adults out there who didn't just cringe a little when Wall-E comes home and immediately pops in a video tape, then struggles to put on his rollers the next morning before he's had that first jolt of coffee? (Or, in his case of course, sun.)
But as amazingly entertaining as this dialogue-free opening stretch is, it just gets more and more charming when Eve arrives on the scene to scan for signs of life in the barren wasteland. Just about equal credit for this rather ridiculous love story working so well goes to writer/director Stanton and robot voice specialist Ben Burtt.
Kudos to Stanton for making Eve at least as likable as Wall-E (yes, I realize she's tempermental, more than a little crazy and even more insecure, but I guess that's just my type.) But Burtt - who not only voiced Wall-E but also conceived all the robot sounds (Elissa Knight provides the voice of Eve) - manages to eke more emotion out of the two simple words "Ev-a" and "Wall-E" than comes from the entire script of most of the much-lesser fare that clutters our multiplexes. (And, luckily I was seated near the front with no-one next to me, so nobody was too disturbed when I couldn't help mimicking them out loud more than few times; no, I don't think I'll ever completely grow up.)
The enchanting story of Eve and Wall-E is more than enough to sustain the flick as it gets more conventional and less subtle aboard the Axiom where the Earthlings live out their days in extreme comfort. This is where the flick lost me for a few moments before Eve and Wall-E made their simply blissful pas-de-deux through space and brought the movie back to life.
I know I've talked an awful about only the first third or so of the movie, but as with the entire "Lord of the Rings" - which I still think was at its best in the opening sequence in the Shire - that was definitely the best part. But there's more than enough to love about "Wall-E" to keep it going through and beyond the magical moment when Wall-E emerges from the trash compactor ("Star Wars" again, but it still works tremendously well) and make it easily among Pixar's best flicks to date.
Not as good as "Ratatouille" in my mind, but that's just because I put that movie on a pedestal all by itself. The bottom line: Just go see "Wall-E" and get ready to fall hard for the little robot with a huge heart.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Robot dialogue coach?!?! How do I get that job?
In case anyone who's never been here before doesn't know it, I - like many people in the world - am simply a sucker for Pixar movies, so be warned you're gonna hear a whole lot about "Wall-E" here this week until and possibly after I get to see it, probably Saturday morning.
Sunday's Arts & Leisure section of the New York Times had a very interesting interview with "Wall-E" director Andrew Stanton, which you can still read here. Why in the world it didn't make the cover I'll never know, but people who make a lot more money than I do make those decisions.
Here are some of the highlights:
* Although I've seen a figure of $120 million listed, the Times article pegs the cost of "Wall-E" at $180 million, which must include marketing and various costs. No matter how you add it up, though, that's a lot of cheese for a relatively silent movie about robot love.
* Stanton, ever the film geek at heart, says he drew on films from science fiction’s golden age - “1968 to ’81” he said. The second half or so of "Wall-E" promised to be an epicly fun space journey, and I just can't wait to see it.
* And, in my favorite nugget of all, Stanton answers the question: What do you do when you need robot dialogue for a flick with very little of the human variety? Well, you get the guy who did the dialogue for R2D2 in "Star Wars" (and less excitingly, E.T. too), Ben Burtt. Stanton said he wrote a conventional script — “Hi, I’m Wall-E” — and Mr. Burtt essentially translated the dialogue into robot, something he calls “audio puppeteering.” How in the world can I get that job?
The headline of the article itself sums up the big storyline for "Wall-E": "Pixar Gambles on a Robot in Love." Following up "the rat movie" (my favorite movie of all of 2007, of course, "Ratatouille") with this endearing oddity may be a bit of a "gamble," but here's hoping the Disney-owned Pixar continues to take chances.
One thing I found surprising in the NYT article was that "the rat movie" actually made substantially more worldwide than "Cars," definitely not one of my favorite Pixar flicks. Here are the Box Office Mojo numbers:
“Finding Nemo”: $340 million domestic, $865 total.
"The Incredibles": $261 million domestic, $631 total.
"Cars": $244 million domestic, $462 million total.
"Ratatouille": $206 million domestic, $621 million total.
None of those numbers, of course, would show a studio that's really hurting in anyway, and I suspect that by the time you add in worldwide numbers for "Wall-E" it will be back around "Nemo" territory. Judging from the response of all the tots who laughed throughout the "Wall-E" trailer that preceded "Kung Fu Panda," the kids are certainly ready to embrace the little robot, and I am too. Peace out.
About Me
- Reel Fanatic
- When I was very young, my father brought home a little movie called "Spinal Tap," and I have never been the same since. Along with being a movie junkie and a devoted fan of the hapless Baltimore Orioles, I have recently returned to the town I grew up in, Salisbury, MD., to work for The Daily Times newspaper.
