Issue #1
February 5, 2010
A hell of a weekend to be sick and stuck at home, whereupon 3 eagerly awaited 2009 holdovers have finally made it to our non top-50 market in Baton Rouge. Crazy Heart is my top pick, followed closely by A Single Man and An Education. Despite the naysayers, From Paris With Love with Travolta looks to me like over the top brutal fun. A few of the pc-ninny critics are already bitching about his un-pc character, which always draws rather than repels me. I still live for the glory days of 70s action like "Freebie and the Bean" and don't have to have my action anti-heroes ready to host a motivational seminar. Movies are movies, people. We won't be any closer to harmonious tolerance among the races, sexes and cultures without bad behaving types on screen than we will be with them; those bridges get built in real life.
While we're on a sociopolitical path, let's roll around to the freshly minted #1 hit of all time! How is it that Wall-E got conservative backlash against its green message in some circles, but Avatar, with its catalog of left-leaning in-your-faceness, has managed to hypnotize people of literally all walks. Not bashing the left as I admittedly swing far greater in that direction, but it does inspire somewhat of a sense of awe. Anti-war, anti-capitalism, pro-environment, multicultural tolerance, bloodthirsty American military assholes (though covered by being retired and "merc")...if Michael Moore, Oliver Stone or anyone without their noted leanings had made this, O'Reilly and Limbaugh would have agreed to mud wrestle for the rights to burn the negatives. As it is, a few pundits noticed the messaging but the juggernaut continues on. Is James Cameron truly the king of the world as he bellowed upon his (hopefully only) undeserved Oscar win for Titanic? Is he the antichrist or just the luckiest hack director in the history of film? Guess what: the 3D wasn't worth a 12 year wait, and my conspiracy theories started to kick in after the 73 million dollar opening weekend suddenly started to translate to something like those numbers each couple of days. I started to think that they were padding numbers maybe as a reward for the newfound humble act that he managed in the prerelease publicity rounds...suddenly, Mr. Movie had returned to the golly-gee craftsman that he probably hadn't acted like since Piranha 2: The Spawning....he had no idea how the movie would do, we just wanted to make our meek, modest little movie. Everyone loves an underdog, Jim, except an underdog that barks his own praise under your bedroom window all night and then tries to piss on your leg when you stumble your sleepless carcass out to get the morning paper. For a little exercise, Google comparisons of Avatar and Delgo, which at the other end of the spectrum still has the distinction of being the lowest grossing wide release in US history during its December 2008 release. They make for some very interesting reading; not saying that anyone stole anything from the other, but it will make you think a little about what passes for brilliance and what for sub-DVD premiere response.
In addition to haunting the multiplexes (missing the giant old single screens of my youth) and running my own single screen of exactly 8 seats in my converted old living room, I've been a 33 year collector of movie posters. My first collecting interest? Clint Eastwood. Having bought, sold and studied trends in his material for ages, it seems that we can forget the early Westerns and even the couple of 50s horrors: the new record seems to have been set by Magnum Force. Bruce Hershenson has auctioned the 40x60 poster of the first Dirty Harry sequel for upwards of $3500. I can't recall that price being realized on any other Clint material. Can anyone?
In coming days, we'll take a look at why the term "reboot" is beginning to make me want to take hostages when mentioned in terms of anything but restarting a pc; why 3D looks here to stay for better or worse and why the Oscars seem to have accomplished just what they wanted in getting back in touch with "popular entertainment", also for better or worse.
February 10, 2010
Can we officially trace the first person to apply the term "reboot" to a movie franchise and collectively exile them to Mars? The whole thing just cried out to fall prey to overuse in both terminology and practice eventually, and eventually is right friggin' now. Now I have no inherent problem with cutesy computer lingo being used to describe and excuse any number of lazy, cost-cutting, audience-deploring maneuvers that the studios come up with in any given week, but let's call it what it is, at least sometimes.
Batman got a "reboot" that was a dream; Superman got a "reboot" that deserved a boot to its ass; Bond got a "reboot" that was so good that it immediately rendered the term shoulda-been-dead, but no. Here we go again with a series of reboots, some of which are far removed from even the loosest definition of what the overused term was conceived to describe.
Say what you will about the Spider-Man series, even the much-maligned third installment. Think Tobey's Peter Parker was robbed of an Oscar or yearn to slap his doe-eyed, over-earnest face, the series was very much of a piece, true to itself and its fanbase, with clarity and vision even in its weakest moments. So what now that the star and director weren't immediately available for their target date? Let's REBOOT the series! A mere 3 years after the previous installment! Recast it and make it an ORIGIN STORY REBOOT, you know, to give it some youthful appeal! Let's slap 3-D on it and see how Peter Parker, as a young high school student, became Spider-Man in the first place.
Maybe I'm getting foggy, but after my granddaughter's 837th viewing of the original film, I seem to remember that the first one ALREADY COVERED THAT TERRITORY! Does contempt for the fanbase and the intelligence of the movie-going world at large know no bounds from these spin-doctoring studio bozos? If they're too lazy, greedy or out-of-touch to wait for the logical choices to carry on with the enterprise, just toss them out on their ears. People seem to come and go at studios with the turnover rate of a midtown Chick-Fil-A these days anyway.
When some future diva throws a tantrum and gets recast after shooting starts, let's just say they rebooted the movie. A planned series of the latest kid-lit? Why the second is not a sequel, it's a reboot! The next time that you run to the bathroom during your favorite TV show's commercial break, just tell yourself that they're rebooting it after the break. The generation minimum that should have been required to apply this egregiously overused term has given way to anything goes. Certainly some good projects like last year's "Star Trek" will continue to come our way under this unholy moniker, but please, please, please....let's all elect to give the boot to reboot.
******************
In Crazy Heart, Jeff Bridges' Oscar-favored role is just one of the consistent pleasures of a well-done drama that just misses the mark of the greatness of its acting. The star's Bad Blake is his finest creation in years, and it's great to see him back over the title again in a major piece of acting. A little more of the grit of some of the great road movies of yesteryear would have helped, but Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell (seen too little in an unbilled role) fill in the gaps beautifully. Even the smallest roles shine; the great Beth Grant manages to do more with a wordless couple of minutes near the beginning than many would think possible. A very good movie with some very great performances, this one should hold us Bridges fanatics over nicely til next year's "True Grit" and "Tron Legacy."
*******************
It's one of the few Oscar hopefuls I haven't seen, but can anyone honestly remember way back to November 20 when the reviews broke for "The Blind Side?" Can one person tell me that Sandra Bullock was touted to be anything other than solid and adequate in a movie whose biggest accolades were sure to come from the inspirational crowds secretly glad to have acting of a better caliber than Kirk Cameron's "Fireproof" in the church bulletin's latest recommended flick? Yes, we know the movie has connected with audiences far and wide, but suddenly Sandy's sweeping every major critics award including the SAG, which, unlike Oscar, is not likely to be ratings-pandering and worried about getting back in touch with populist entertainment. Maybe they just all rented "All About Steve" over the Christmas holidays and figured any American Sweetheart that could rebound from something that dire deserved all of the praise she could get.
*******************
3-D is here to stay, and for some that's a good thing, but many have already pointed out how vivid colors are suffering under the process. "Avatar" is not a fair assessment, but "Alice In Wonderland" should be a good side-by-side comparison. Personally, I still enjoy its use better in B-movies. So while everyone else is primed for "Alice", the recently announced for conversion "Clash Of The Titans" and the now onboard Harry Potter final duo, I'll be waiting to enjoy the in-your-face splendor of "Piranha 3D." Until next time, folks.....
March 6, 2010
Shutter Island is here and a solid hit, but the backlash, starting with a very vocal and pleased with itself knock from A.O. Scott in the New York Times. has been significant. It's a stellar piece of work: technically beautiful and very well acted by a rich and diverse cast, many appearing only for a single scene. What has gone right and wrong with the film on critical and commercial levels must be looked at within two key elements:
The Marketing - When Paramount suddenly decided to pull the film from an October 2, 2009 release, they cited lack of financial resource to publicize it as the chief reason. This is a case in which they might have been truthful, as they certainly blitzed the previews for the film in theatres and on television, all increasingly making it seem like the ultimate horror thriller. What appeared on February 9, 2010 was far from that. I theorize that some of the executives, like me, left the screenings feeling more emotionally like they did leaving Leo's last 1950's set venture for the studio, Revolutionary Road, which despite excellent reviews failed to make a boxoffice impression. Figuring a blitz might recoup some of the cost for a couple of weeks, they alienated many of the ticket-buyers, who were disappointed that they hadn't witnessed a thrill-a-minute horror ride.
The Disclosure - Even Marty himself must bear a bit of blame for prattling on about a twist in the pre-release publicity rounds. It's one thing when the critics from an Akron radio station want to get their names on a DVD box by exclaiming "a twist you'll never see coming" but guess what: if you say there's a twist, the audience knows there's a twist and they're looking for it. The result: the less effective said twist becomes.
Neither of these issues take away from the excellence of the movie. It's big and grandiose and foreboding but the emotional payoff is unexpectedly deep and involving. I dreaded a bombastic, over-the-top "Cape Fear" vibe might be present, but there's none of that here. It's not Scorsese at his very best, but really: what much is? Throw your expectations and the opinions of the masses aside and try to experience it with an open mind. The rewards are plentiful.
**********
Cop Out was supposed to be titled "A Couple Of Dicks" but Warners got nervous that the newspapers might balk at running the ads (obviously forgetting the whole Fockers money mint.) This amiable throwback to vintage buddy cop pics has been reviewed roughly to the effect of amateur porn, but it's not that bad and will play better to fans of "Freebie and the Bean," "Beverly Hills Cop," "Midnight Run" and the rest. Harold Faltermeyer came out of retirement to compose the score, which will have you looking within the frame for Fletch or Axel Foley.
**********
Brooklyn's Finest has some top acting talent doing their best with the multiple story arcs that often choppily give way to one another. Of the three cop protagonists, Richard Gere is seven days from retirement; Ethan Hawke is desperate for quick cash from the beginning, leading to dastardly and increasingly stupid deeds and Don Cheadle is living the tortured life of an undercover in too deep, with allegiances migrating toward the charismatic drug kingpin he's supposed to topple (Wesley Snipes, obviously glad to be back in a meaty bigscreen role.) Effective scenes are followed immediately by weaker ones and the segues are often questionable. At its best, the fire is there, but the acting done by most of the cast deserved a more consistent foundation.