I posted a link to this on Friday, but in case you missed it, this is a must-watch:
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story is one of the few films from the past several years that Judd Apatow has had a hand in (he co-wrote the film and was one of its producers), that, despite his involvement, did not receive a lot of love from audiences upon its release. My own recollection of seeing it in theatres was that it was sort of funny but not fantastic. However, upon a second viewing on DVD last month, I must say that I have fallen head-over-heels in love with this film!
Walk Hard is, first and foremost, an evisceration of a very specific type of film: the Oscar-bait musical bio-pic (like Ray, Walk the Line, etc.). In scene after scene after scene, the film mercilessly sends-up every single ridiculous cliche of those types of movies.
We meet young Dewey growing up in a ramshackle farm down South, enjoying an idyllic life. But a day of fun with his brother (“ain’t nothing horrible gonna happen today!” the doomed tyke promises) ends in tragedy after a machete-fighting accident. Out of that grief, Dewey discovers his musical ability, playing the blues (“I got the blues… cut my brother in half…”). A few years later, a nervous Dewey performs at a High School concert. (Starting here, Dewey is played by John C. Reilly, despite the fact that the character is only 14 in this scene. As Apatow and Director/co-writer Jake Kasdan note in their DVD commentary, they were interested in poking fun at ”just how young the lead actor THINKS he can play” in these sorts of movies.) Despite the innocuousness of the pop ballad Dewey performs (entitled “Take My Hand”), the concert erupts into a frenzy of sexualized dancing (as, you know, Rock and Roll is wont to cause). After being condemned by the local priest (“You think we don’t know what you’re talking about when you say take my hand?!”) and his father (“The wrong kid died!”), Dewey decides to leave home and set out on a musical career.
What follows reads like a crazy check-list of the types of scenes one could expect in these sorts of films, charting our hero’s rise and fall and eventual redemption. Dewey gets an opportunity to perform his music for a disinterested record company executive (played brilliantly by John Michael Higgins, who proclaims: “You have failed conclusively! There is nothing that you can do, here in this room, to turn that around!”) but, of course, once Dewey plays one of his own songs (the titular “Walk Hard”), the executive is blown away, as are his Hassidic Jewish backers (Harold Ramis — yes, Harold Ramis — Phil Rosenthal, and Martin Starr in delightfully over-the-top Hassidic get-up… [continued]
Good news, everybody! Futurama lives!!
So Katee Sackhoff (Starbuck) is joining the cast of 24 next season? Time for the Battlestar Galactica actors to learn what the members of the ensemble from The Wire have discovered: they’ll never again be in a TV show as good.
Did you see The Daily Show’s John Hodgman’s uproariously funny speech at the 2009 Radio and TV Correspondents’ Dinner? Not to be missed.
A nice farewell to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles can be found on Composer Bear McCreary’s excellent blog, as he lists his 15 favorite moments from the show. (They are all excellent choices.) This show had its flaws, to be sure, but I am really disappointed that we won’t be getting a third season. (By the way, Bear was also the composer for the reinvented Battlestar Galactica throughout its run.)
Speaking of The Terminator, the fine folks over at filmschoolrejects.com have posted an interesting list of 20 Things We Didn’t Like and 10 Things We Did about Terminator: Salvation.
I don’t play videogames, but I must admit that this trailer for Lucasarts’ new Star Wars: The Old Republic trailer is ridiculously cool. I wish we’d seen half that much bad-assery in the prequels…
Triumph the Insult Comic Dog has made his first appearance on The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien! Watch him make fun of some hippies here.
Have a great weekend, everybody! See you back here on Monday!
One of my earliest posts for this blog last year was a list of a bunch of DVDs on my “to-watch” shelf that I hoped to get to some time in the near future. One item on that list was the first set of DVDs collecting The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones.
Well, it took me quite a while, but I am pleased to report that almost a year later I have made my way through that DVD set! (It’s the first of three sets that collect the entire run of the series.)
The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones was a TV series that ran, somewhat sporadically, from 1992-1996. Alternating episodes would follow the adventures of 10 year-old Indy (played by Corey Carrier), and teen-aged Indy (played by Sean Patrick Flanery). In each episode, Indy would find himself in adventures in varying parts of the globe, each time running into many real-life historical figures, Forest Gump style. ABC cancelled the series after its second season in 1993, but the USA network picked it up and aired a number of new episodes in two-hour mini-movie formats until 1996.
For the 1999 release of the series on VHS, the entire series was re-edited chronologically, with each episode paired with the next one in sequence to form a two-hour mini-movie (similar to the way the episodes were aired on USA). In so doing, all of the framing device scenes with a very Old Indy (93 year-old Indy was played by George Hall) that used to start and end each episode were completely removed. These are the versions that have been released on DVD. Also in 1999, Lucas, ever one to re-name his work (Star Wars eventually becomes Episode IV: A New Hope; Raiders of the Lost Ark eventually becomes Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark), at this point also changed the name of the series from The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles to The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. (And thank heaven for wikipedia for that little tidbit. Writing this whole review I kept writing The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, but I could see that the title on the DVDs was The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. I had no idea why I kept getting the title wrong! Well, it’s because I always knew this show as The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles! Sheesh!)
(By the way, here’s another amusing tidbit. Does anyone but me remember how, when this series was released on VHS in 1999 in the form of 22 mini-movies, each labeled “chapter 1″ through “chapter 22,” Lucas also re-released the Indy movie trilogy, labeling the movies “chapter 23″ through” chapter 25″?? This got me so worked up at the… [continued]
The series may be over, but Galactica lives on!
Some tantalizing clips from the two-hour Battlestar Galactica TV-movie “The Plan” have made their way onto the interwebs, courtesy of the fine folks over at Galactiaca Sitrep. Check ‘em out!
I can’t wait…
As with Charlie Wilson’s War (which I wrote about on Wednesday), The Departed is a movie whose DVD has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, waiting for me to revisit it (after really enjoying my first viewing when I saw it in theatres). I am pleased to say I enjoyed the film during its second viewing as much as I did during its first.
The Departed is a sprawling film that focuses on two young men who are, in many ways, the mirror opposites of one another. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan, a state cop assigned to infiltrate the mob run by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson), while Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, one of Costello’s men who is assigned to infiltrate the state police. The film deftly follows their two stories, as each one works to make a name for himself in his new world, all the while scrambling to stay one step ahead of discovery. William Monahan’s script is taut and smart, giving DiCaprio and Damon plenty of great character material to work with, while also fashioning a throughly entertaining, twisty narrative. (I am becoming an enormous fan of Mr. Monahan’s writing, by the way. In addition to his work in The Departed, I thoroughly enjoyed his script for Ridley Scott’s criminally-underrated Kingdom of Heaven.)
As good as Damon and DiCaprio are, though, they almost have the movie stolen right out from under them by Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg, who are both absolutely magnificent playing two gleefully profane Boston detectives. Martin Sheen is a great father figure as Police Captain Queenan, and Jack Nicholson — well, he’s Jack! Completely over-the-top but somehow still believable as the dangerous Costello.
Having lived in both Providence and Boston, I really enjoyed the film’s focus on the distinct flavors of those two great cities. I love movies that dig into a particular subculture, whether that’s a documentary such as Spellbound or Wordplay, or a movie like Adventureland (which I reviewed here) that captures the life of kids working a summer job at an amusement park. So it’s no great surprise that I was tickled by The Departed‘s focus on life in Providence and Boston, two cities that are both quite different than, say, New York. Now, I can’t really vouch for the veracity of the depiction of the crime families of those two towns, but I can say that I think Mr. Scorsese and his collaborators really captured the unique FEEL of those two cities.
This is a big story being told, taking place over many years and with a lot of characters and a lot of narrative twists and turns. It is all held together… [continued]
Picked this up off the DVD shelf recently, and I must say I enjoyed it as thoroughly as I did when I saw it in theatres last year. In his review of the film for the New York Times, A.O. Scott described Charlie Wilson’s War as “more of a hoot than any picture dealing with the bloody, protracted fight between the Soviet Army and the Afghan mujahedeen has any right to be.” I must say that I entirely agree!
Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson, a representative from Texas’ Second Congressional District to the U.S. House of Representatives. Hanks imbues this good ol’ boy with an inordinate amount of charm, whether he’s flirting with women in a hot-tub or debating the intricacies of Constitutional law with a constituent. Charlie quickly finds common purpose with short-fused, take-no-nonsense C.I.A. operative Gust Avrakotos, played with great vigor by Philip Seymour Hoffman. (His opening scene, in which he viciously tells off his boss at the C.I.A., is an absolute riot.) Hoffman’s Gust is the polar opposite of Charlie — ornery, blunt, and poorly-dressed. But the two find a strange sort of kinship in their realization of the importance of defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan.
While Hanks and Hoffman get most of the fun (and most of the film’s best lines), the supporting cast is superb as well. Julia Roberts is beautiful and imposing as the wealthy Joanne Herring; Amy Adams is sassy and smart as Charlie’s assistant Bonnie Bach (though I do wish she had a bit more to do in the film); and I don’t want to forget the delightful Ned Beatty (forever known to my generation as Lex Luthor’s oafish henchman Otis from the Richard Donner Superman movies).
But the real stars of the film are writer Aaron Sorkin and director Mike Nichols. These two gentlemen know comedy, and they know drama, and they know how to combine the two. Sorkin’s script is filled with memorable lines (my favorite being Charlie’s response to Joanne’s question as to why Congress is saying one thing and doing nothing: “tradition, mostly”) and the rat-tat-tat dialogue exchanges that he is famous for, but not in a way that overwhelms the story being told. And Nichols’ direction gives the film a light, enjoyable tone, while not shying away from some difficult questions that any look at the U.S.’s actions during this period must lead to. This is a film with a clear point to make about today’s political realities, but the filmmakers are confident enough not to hit you over the head with it. Most importantly, Nichols and the skilled actors with whom he is working are able to create fully-realized characters to populate the film, not… [continued]
I love talking about movies.
I don’t think that’s a terrible surprise to any visitor to this site. Whether I loved a movie or loathed it, I love picking movies apart and analyzing the acting, the directing, the visual effects, the score, the editing, the ins-and-outs of the plot, etc. etc.
Take J.J. Abrams’ recent Star Trek movie, for example. I really enjoyed the flick, but I also had a lot of problems with the script, problems that I discussed in my review and also in many conversations with friends. I just love getting into a discussion with other fans about plot points such as “is it plausible or ridiculous that Spock would be able to see the destruction of Vulcan by looking up with the naked eye from another planet.” But nothing makes me crazier than when someone responds by saying something like “well, it’s just a (sci-fi/comic-book/etc.) movie so you can’t really think about those things.” AARGH. That happens to me all the time (and certainly did in the context of discussions of the latest Trek flick).
Drew McWeeny, in his blog over at HitFix.com, gives a response to that sort of attitude better than any I could have ever come up with on my own. This comes from his review of the Night at The Museum sequel (which, no shock, he rakes over the coals). After listing several inane plot points in the movie, he writes this paragraph:
“Oh, it’s just a movie for kids.” Screw you, and screw that answer. That’s insulting and lazy and, honestly, seems to me to suggest that anyone who says it is disqualified from ever criticizing any story or logic point in any film ever made. If you’re willing to just concede that anything that happens in any film is fine because it’s “just a movie,” then there is no common ground for us in discussing what works or what doesn’t. I love seeing movies where the fantastic happens. That’s one of the reasons I go to films… to see things that could never occur in the real world. But it has to make SOME SORT of sense, even if it’s just internal logic. And the rules seem to change from scene to scene here, and beyond that, they just don’t explain so much that after a while, all you can do is either surrender to the idiocy or reject it outright.
Amen, brother. I could not have asked for a better summary of my attitude about movies (whether I’m watching them, talking about them, or writing about them). Amen.
Hamlet 2 tells the story of frustrated actor-turned-high school drama teacher Dana Marschz (a nearly-unpronounceable last name, for which I was eager to learn the correct spelling by watching the film’s end credits) played by Steve Coogan (so funny this past summer in Tropic Thunder). Dana is not-dissimilar to Christopher Guest’s Corky St. Clair (from the terrific film Waiting For Guffman) although rather more pathetic (and more prone to accidentally flashing his genitals). Even in teaching, Dana is struggling to find success. He only has two loyal students, and the school plays that he supervises (such as a recent stage version of Erin Brockovich) are continually savaged by the school paper’s young drama critic.
Things go from bad to worse when the school decides to cut most of its electives, filling Dana’s drama class with an unruly mob of kids who have no desire to be there. But Dana is inspired to write a new play — a musical sequel to Hamlet that will correct that play’s downer ending — and sets out to get all of his kids involved. What follows is a sort-of-insane mish-mash of inspiring-teacher movies (Dead Poets Society, Mr. Holland’s Opus, Dangerous Minds) with kids-coming-together-to-create-a-musical films.
The movie is all over the place. It’s at its best when it allows Mr. Coogan to depict his slow-burn desperation to connect with the kids in his class. There are also a number of amusing digressions, such as Dana’s encounter with Elisabeth Shue (playing herself), who has decided to give up acting in favor of life as a nurse; explorations of his home-life with his bitter wife Brie (the very funny Catherine Keener) and their new tenant Gary (David Arquette, who is hysterical in his nearly-silent role); and the appearance of civil liberties lawyer Cricket Feldstein (a fast-talking Amy Poehler).
There are also some stretches of the movie that don’t quite work, and a lot of jokes that are weird but not necessarily all that funny. More problematically, there were times when, even in a ridiculous movie like this, I wished the characters had been fleshed out a little bit more. There wasn’t that much depth given to most of the new students in Dana’s class, and I didn’t really believe that they would ever willingly decide to participate in Dana’s play. That’s a key transition that the film needs to make, both for the plot and for all the character story-lines, and the fact that I don’t think it worked hurt the film for me.
But in the end, a film called Hamlet 2 lives or dies on the ultimate performance of the titular play itself — and let me tell you, those moments are gold. You’ll be… [continued]
Writer/director Guy Ritchie’s films Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch rank among my favorite movies. Both are incredibly clever, unique movies characterized by hysterical rat-a-tat dialogue and complex, interweaving plots filled to the brim with bizarre, violent, charismatic characters (most of whom are rather shady in nature). And yet, despite my love for those two movies, it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen a Guy Ritchie film. Swept Away (2002), starring his then-wife Madonna, didn’t interest me, and the critical drubbing it received didn’t inspire me to rush out and see it. I was interested in seeing Revolver (2005), but I missed in in theatres, and the negative reviews that that film also received have contributed to my always choosing other movies to rent when visiting the video store. But I was very pleased to recently have a chance to watch RocknRolla (released last year, in 2008).
RocknRolla has an incredibly complex plot that I’m not even going to begin to try to explain. I’ll just tell you that it follows the intersecting lives and capers of figures at a variety of levels in the London underworld, from minor thieves like One Two (Gerard Butler, from 300), Mumbles (Idris Elba from The Wire), and Handsome Bob (Tom Hardy, much more entertaining here than he was in Star Trek: Nemesis), boss Lenny (Tom Wilkinson, from Batman Begins, Michael Clayton, In the Bedroom, and a lot of other great films) and his loyal right-hand man Archie (played by Mark Strong, who I’d never believe, if not for imdb, is the same actor who played Jordanian intelligence official Hani Salaam in Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies), rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), music promoters Roman (Jeremy Piven) and Mickey (Ludacris), foreign mobster Uri (Karel Roden) and his accountant Stella (Thandie Newton) and many, many other characters.
As with Lock, Stock and Snatch, the fun of the movie comes from listening to the terrific, joke-a-minute dialogue, and watching the talented ensemble of actors bringing all of their wonderful characters, each of whom could have a movie all their own, to life.
Unfortunately, I didn’t feel that RocknRolla hung together as a complete film as well as those other two movies did. As much as I enjoyed the enormous ensemble, I felt at times that there were too many characters, with too much going on. RocknRolla doesn’t really have a main character, and I think that is the crux of the problem. The closest thing would be Gerard Butler as One Two, and Butler is really terrific as the charismatic but slightly dim criminal. But his character drops out of the movie for long stretches of time, and has almost no role to play whatsoever in… [continued]
Click here for a terrific three-essay series that delves into the first three Indiana Jones films. These are all really well-written pieces, filled to the brim with love for the cinematic adventures of Dr. Jones.
Clever tourists wrecking the world one monument at a time. Don’t think — just follow that link. You won’t regret it.
Click here for a fascinating list of the twenty best non-fiction books for people who think they hate to read non-fiction. I need to get on this, having only read two of the items on this list!
I’m not exactly recommending this lengthy essay, because I disagree with it wildly, but it’s sort of bizarrely fascinating two see two individuals who really don’t seem to like Star Trek at all go on an enormous length about it as they revisit the first six Trek films. (Well, one of the two authors seems to be a fan, but he doesn’t seem to put up much of a fight whenever the other one bashes the series.)
Speaking of Trek, here is a link to a lengthy, fascinating Q & A that’s been going on over at Trekmovie.com between Star Trek screenwriters Bob Orci & Alex Kurtzman and a number of fans who, like me, had lots of questions about elements of the new movie’s plots. I really respect Mr. Orci for engaging with the fans in this way — though I feel most of his responses are pretty flimsy. Check it out and see what you think. (UPDATE: Still MORE Q & A with Mr. Orci & Mr. Kurtzman can be found here!)
It’s pretty obvious that the new Star Trek movie was pretty heavily influenced by the action and dynamism of Star Wars. But have you considered just how deep those similarities run? Shocking! (And hysterical.)
Let’s close with three intriguing trailers: Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Junior, the bizarre-looking Nine and (can you believe it?) Toy Story 3.
That should keep you all good and busy until tomorrow! See you back here then!
It is the distant future of the DC Universe. Beings with super-human abilities have spread across the globe, and ever-more powerful violent heroes and villains wreak untold havoc with their escalating conflicts. Meanwhile, the heroes of old are gone. Green Lantern has abandoned Earth for the solitude of space. Wonder Woman has returned to Themyscira. Batman, his body broken after years of pushing himself beyond the limits of human endurance, maintains order over Gotham City through the use of menacing robotic sentries. And Superman has lived alone in his Fortress of Solitude for the past ten years, ever since the Joker’s brutal attack on the Daily Planet resulted in the deaths of ninety-two men. And one woman.
This is the world of Kingdom Come, a dazzling tale of the future of the DC Universe by Mark Waid and Alex Ross. Originally published in four parts in 1996, one of the initial core ideas of the story was a comment on the increasingly violent anti-heroes that were very popular in comic books of the nineties. The brutal Magog, with his scarred eye, his enormous shoulder-pads, and his vicious weaponry was a clear comment on Marvel Comics’ character of Cable. The specificity of that reference has faded over the years, but the power of Kingdom Come has not.
I can think of few stories that have captured the grandeur of DC’s pantheon of heroes as well as Kingdom Come. This may be a story of an alternate, possible future, but it remains oen of the most iconic tales of Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman that I have ever read. The dynamic between the three of them is at the heart of the story. Kingdom Come focuses our attention on the way their differing backgrounds have lead them to view the world from vastly different points of view. Those differences drive deep wedges between the characters, and lead to much of the drama of the story. Mark Waid’s script is filled with powerful moments and wonderful characterization. Having read the tale countless times, I am still struck by the moments like Wonder Woman’s first visit to Superman in his isolation, when she throws his oft-repeated commitment to truth and justice in his face. Then there is my very favorite moment in the series (and frankly, one of my favorite moments in any comic book ever), which comes in Chapter Three when a furious Superman flies out of the Batcave at super-sonic speed, basically disappearing from sight he’s moving so fast, leaving a solitary Batman to remark “so that’s what that feels like.” Brilliant!
Which brings me to Alex Ross’ remarkable painted artwork. I have been an enormous fan of this great talent ever… [continued]
In 2006, documentary film-maker Nanette Burstein and her team followed several teenagers through the course of their Senior Year of High School in Warsaw, Indiana. While a number of students applied to participate, the final film focuses on five kids, who seem to fit into typical Breakfast-Club style stereotypes. (”I grew up watching John Hughes movies, and the inspiration I had for this movie was to find these fictional teen narratives in real life,” Burstein said in an interview with Entertainment Weekly.)
There is The Jock: Colin Clemens, the star of Warsaw High’s basketball team who is hoping to receive a basketball scholarship and afraid that, without the money to pay for college, he’ll have to enter the Army if he doesn’t receive one. There is The Princess: Megan Krizmanich, a pretty, popular girl who is at the head of the pack of the social life at Warsaw High. There is The Geek: Jake Tusing, a nerd with bad acne and a bad haircut, who loves video-games and is desperately looking to get a girlfriend. There is The Heartthrob: Mitch Reinholt, who is popular and good-looking; he’s friends with Megan and plays on the basketball team with Colin. Finally there is The Rebel: Hannah Bailey, who dreams of being an artist and a film-maker, who plays in a band and openly despises life in Warsaw and hopes to move out to California after graduation.
What is most fascinating about American Teen (and what prompted a flurry of articles upon the film’s release last year), are the questions it raises about the degree to which the kids do or don’t perform for the cameras that they must know are recording them, and what that says about the lives of teenagers today in the world of facebook, myspace, youtube, and reality television. There are a number of times during the film when you can see clearly that the kids are wearing microphones. And yet, they seem to behave as if they are entirely unaware that the cameras are observing them. I have no doubt the kids were coached about not looking into the cameras, but there are moments in the film when we see the cameras capture very intimate moments (an almost-hookup, a breakup, etc.) as well as moments of teenage cruelty (such as Megan and her friends planning and executing a vicious prank). This of course raises the question of whether the kids altered their behavior for the cameras. On the one hand, it seemed that they didn’t — that the cameras quickly became a ubiquitous part of their lives, and that they carried on behaving the way they ordinarily would. As the New York Times observed (in the… [continued]
Bottom line on Terminator: Salvation — It’s not as good a Terminator movie as I would have hoped for, but don’t believe the reviews, it’s not nearly the catastrophe you’ve been lead to believe it is.
Ever since James Cameron’s original masterpiece The Terminator (made in 1984, can you believe it??), we’ve been teased by glimpses of the post-Judgment Day future war against the machines. With Terminator: Salvation, we’re finally being given a movie that is set entirely (except for a short prologue) in this post-apocalyptic world.
The year is 2018, and things are looking pretty grim for mankind. Most surviving humans are just focused on their own survival, but several small, rag-tag groups of resistance fighters are attempting to fight back against the machines. John Connor is amongst them, but while his mother’s messages to him have provided him with valuable guidance, this John Connor has not yet become the leader of the resistance (nor has he sent his buddy Kyle Reese back in time). Reese, meanwhile, is not yet a member of the resistance — he’s just a tough teenager trying to survive. While Connor and Reese get a lot of screen-time, surprisingly, neither one of them is really the main character of the film. That would be death-row inmate Marcus Wright, who signs his body over to Cyberdyne systems in 2003 and then wakes up in 2018 in a Skynet lab.
The way I see it, the film has three major weaknesses:
1. Clearly this is a film written with the intention of focusing on a new character (Marcus Wright). But when Christian Bale signed on to play John Connor, his role was significantly expanded. The result is a movie that is split rather unevenly between those two characters and their storylines. The film aspires to be an epic war-movie, telling multiple interweaving stories… but instead winds up losing the audience’s focus by not giving us a clear character in whose story we can emotionally invest. Similarly to the way I can watch J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie and see clearly the way the character of old Spock was shoe-horned into the movie (Imagine that movie’s plot without old Spock — it would be NO DIFFERENT. Kirk gets ejected onto the ice planet, finds Scotty, and utilizes Scotty’s engineering expertise to get himself beamed back to the Enterprise), I can clearly see how this film was not originally intended to focus on John Connor. That explains why, despite Connor being in a lot of action scenes, he doesn’t have any real story-line in the film. This isn’t a movie about his rise to the leadership of the rebellion, or about him running away from or… [continued]