If you’re a member of facebook, check out this list (compiled by a key contributor to The Digital Bits, my favorite DVD/blu-ray-related web-site) of films that he’s still waiting to be released on DVD.  It’s a hoot.  While I’m discussing the Digital Bits, here’s something cool: In anticipation of the upcoming release of all four Alien films on blu-ray, they have posted an extensive look at the making of Fox’s amazing Alien Quadrilogy DVD box set from a few years back.  This was originally published in the book The Digital Bits: Insider’s Guide to DVD.  Since all of this material will appear on the blu-ray set, this is well-worth a read, if you’re a fan of these films.

The deleted scene from Return of the Jedi that was shown at Star Wars Celebration V has been taken down from youtube, but as of this writing it can still be seen here, so check it out.  It’s a cool moment showing Luke’s constructing his new lightsaber, and Vader trying to speak to his son through the force.

Speaking of Star Wars, I have waxed poetical many times on this site about the magnificence of Adywan’s e-edit/restoration of Star Wars: A New Hope.  (I am sick of referring to it as Episode IV.)  Here is a phenomenal visual guide to over 500 of the changes/fixes that Adywan has made.  If you have any way of getting your hands on this film (and fanedit.org is a good place to start), then do so immediately.

This is an interesting article about a new book about the Bond films: The Man With the Golden Touch: How the Bond Films Conquered the World. This is a book I need to read!  By the way, I don’t agree with the author of the article’s closing thought that the recent films have been entirely without artistic merit.  I was disappointed by Quantum of Solace, but didn’t think it was a complete catastrophe.  I also am not nearly so down as that writer on Pierce Brosnan.  I love Brosnan as Bond.  He was just in some bad Bond films.  (His first two were strong, but his last two — The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day — were TERRIBLE.)  But I don’t blame Brosnan for what went wrong in those films.  It’s a shame that MGM’s financial woes have put a halt to the series for now.  But James Bond Will Return.  Someday, I guess.

There’s a nice defense of Tom Cruise by Nick Nunziata over on CHUD, and I must say I agree wholeheartedly.  Speaking of CHUD, I was very sorry to read of Devin Faraci’s departure from the site!… [continued]

And so at last my little tour through the early films of Albert Brooks  concludes.  (Feel free to check out my reviews of Real Life (1979), Modern Romance (1981), and Lost in America (1985).)  Defending Your Life is probably the Albert Brooks movie that I’ve seen the most — but still, it had been many years since my last viewing, so it was great fun to take another look at the film.

In a brisk opening (a model of efficient story-telling), we’re introduced to Daniel Miller, a mid-level executive who, although he seems to be doing well enough at work that he’s able to buy himself an expensive car to celebrate his birthday, seems to live a fairly lonely life.  While taking his new car out for a spin, Daniel gets distracted and winds up driving directly into a bus.  When he next opens his eyes, he’s in Judgment City, and the movie is off.

Judgment City isn’t heaven or hell, as it’s explained to Daniel — it’s a way-station in which the recently dead are judged to see if they’re ready to move on to the next stage of their existence, or if their souls need to be sent back down to Earth for another go.  Everyone has an opportunity to defend their life in a courtroom-like setting (though Daniel is repeatedly told that it’s not really a trial) before the final decision is made.

The tag-line of Defending Your Life is “the first true story of what happens after you die.”  One of my friends is fond of saying that he fervently hopes that that is true.  There is something appealing, I must agree, to the notion that we’ll all have an opportunity to defend our lives — the actions we took, the choices we made — in the afterlife.  Though he and I aren’t quite sure we agree with Mr. Brooks’ depiction, in this film, that whether one has overcome one’s fear is really the most important question on which one’s life should be judged.  It’s an interesting perspective, and it certainly provides for some fine drama in this film, but I tend to think that there are other, better ways in which one’s merit could be evaluated.  I’m sure there are some quite fearless people out there who are also complete jerks!

It’s a credit to Mr. Brooks’ ambitions that he has created a comedic film that can also prompt such serious questions and thought.  Defending Your Life is certainly a comedic film, though as always Mr. Brooks isn’t afraid to  let several minutes pass without any big punchlines.

The best source of laughs in the film is probably Rip Torn, wonderfully cast as Daniel’s defender,… [continued]

Back in May, after watching Albert Brooks’ 1985 film Lost in America, I wrote that I planned on re-watching his 1991 film Defending Your Life the next week.  Well, time got away from me, and I do still hope to find the time to re-watch that great film soon.  But a few weeks ago, when the mood struck me to again sample an Albert Brooks film, I decided instead to hunt down the last remaining film by Mr. Books that I hadn’t yet seen: Real Life, from 1979.

After having written, directed, and starred in several short films for Saturday Night Live during its early years, Mr. Brooks moved to the big screen with his debut film, Real Life.  He plays film director Albert Brooks (not for the last time), who, in the film, has seized upon an amazing idea: the subject of his next movie will be real life.  Rather than filming a movie with fake characters portrayed by actors and actresses acting out a fake story, he will choose one average American family and film their lives for a year.  Out of that footage he’ll be able to craft a movie more exciting and dramatic than any other motion picture, and it will have something that none of them do: it will be REAL.

Needless to say, Brooks’ “perfect” American family soon turns out to be anything but, and the family’s struggles to maintain their normal lives in the face of constant monitoring by film cameras — not to mention Mr. Brooks’ difficulties at avoiding any interference in their lives — lead to things quickly dissolving into chaos.

I always thought that Albert Brooks was a little bit ahead of his time, but this 1979 film is remarkably prescient in predicting today’s American fascination with “reality TV.”  In Real Life, Mr. Brooks was able to portray both the seduction of being constantly on display before others, as well as the inherent horror of such a situation.  He was also able to predict, with pinpoint accuracy, the way the act of filming someone’s actions will, without fail, cause subtle (or gross) alterations in that individual’s behavior.  (Call it the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Reality Television.)

Amongst the cast, the standout is Charles Grodin.  Mr. Grodin is at the top of his game as Warren Yeager, the beleaguered patriarch of Mr. Brooks’ perfect family.  Grodin is able to be sympathetic and rather pitiable all at the same time.

As with most Albert Brooks films, Real Life is a riot.  The sequence in which veterinarian Warren Yeager attempts to save an injured horse is a knock-out.  But, also as with most Albert Brooks films, there’s also an element of American… [continued]

One of the reasons why I wrote in yesterday’s post that I was excited for James L. Brooks’ new film How Do You Know is the great new trailer that launched last week.  Take a look:

In lesser hands that movie could be a bit chick-flicky, but I have great faith in the master Mr. Brooks.  Bonus points to casting Herc from The Wire in a supporting role!  Really looking forward to this one.

Whoof, that might have been the worst summer of movies that I can remember.  Will the fall be any better?  After taking a look through Entertainment Weekly‘s Fall Movie Preview, I actually have high hopes!  Here’s what interests me:

Machete — Somehow Robert Rodriguez has lured an insanely great cast into this loony-looking feature-length version of one of the fake trailers from 2007′s Grindhouse.  I’m in.

The Town — I thought the trailer looked dumb, but I adored Ben Affleck’s directorial debut Gone Baby Gone, so I’m interested in his follow-up, this Boston-based story of a bank robber who somehow gets involved with a woman he once terrorized in one of his heists.  I know, the plot description sounds silly, but I’m interested nonetheless…

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger — Though it’s been a long time since I have unabashedly loved one of his films, Woody Allen always has my ticket money.  This one stars Josh Brolin, Naomi Watts, Antonio Banderas, and Anthony Hopkins.

The American — I don’t know much about this suspense movie starring George Clooney as a spy or an assassin (or both), but it had a great trailer, and Clooney has done some great work in spy/suspense films (Syriana, The Good German, Out of Sight), so I’m interested.

The Social Network — David Fincher + Aaron Sorkin = my ticket money.

Nowhere Boy — I’m not sure about this one, it certainly has potential to suck — but I’m intrigued by what I’ve read about this film.  Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) stars as a young John Lennon.  The film apparently focuses on his difficult relationships with his mother, and with the aunt who raised him.  Could be a soap-opera, but I’m hoping for some interesting pre-Beatles Lennon material here.

Megamind — Will Ferrell voices a super-villain who succeeds in vanquishing his arch-nemesis Metro Man (Brad Pitt).  Has potential.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I — As I’ve written here before, it wasn’t until the fourth film that I really started to dig this film series (I’ve still never read the books).  It was film five that made me fall in love with the story and the characters, and film six was pretty solid as well.  I’m very excited for part one of the final chapter.

The Tempest — It’s my second-favorite Shakespeare play (after Macbeth), so I’m eager to see what sort of zaniness Julie Taymor has brought to this adaptation.

Tron: Legacy — I was totally won over by the amazing trailer that appeared over the summer.  Can’t wait.

How Do You Know — James L. Brooks has made another movie!  This comedy genius is the master of films that… [continued]

I’ve written before about Rifftrax, the on-line enterprise from Michael J. Nelson, Bill Corbett, and Kevin Murphy (formerly of Mystery Science Theatre 3000).  Rifftrax continues the familiar MST3K model of making fun of terrible movies, via downloadable podcasts that you can play along with DVDs of the films being riffed.  It’s a clever concept, and I’ve found the hit-miss ratio of the tracks to be very high.

Last year the Rifftrax gang broadcast a live riff of the sci-fi classic-in-its-awfulness Plan 9 From Outer Space to theatres nationwide, and I was lucky enough to catch the showing at a theatre here in Boston.  It was a hoot, and I guess successful enough that the Rifftrax team is continuing to occasionally broadcast live shows.  I missed the show in the spring, but I was able to attend Thursday night’s screening of a riff on Reefer Madness, the 1936 anti-marijuana (or marihuana, as it’s spelled in the film) screed.

As always, Nelson, Corbett, and Murphy did not disappoint — the event was hilarious.

The evening began with the screening of two old shorts.  As they always do, Nelson, Corbett and Murphy made jokes over the broadcast.  (Usually we’d see the film shown in the main part of the screen, with the heads of the 3 Rifftrax members in little boxes on the right-hand side.)  The first short dealt with the epidemic that was apparently sweeping the nation back in the ’30s of housewives washing their laundry in gasoline (you read that right) and then blowing themselves up.  According to this film, that’s a bad thing.  The second short was from the ’70s, and dealt with all the sorts of fun art projects one could make from grass (the stuff that grows in your lawn, not marihuana).  This second short was the highlight of the event for me — the short was absurd all on its own, and the riffs were priceless.  I was practically crying from laughter.

After two quick animated shorts by Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka of Something Awful, we were treated to our third short of the evening — an acid-trip of a black-and-white animated cartoon from the ’30s.  Despite being titled as an Aesop’s Fable, the cartoon depicted a menagerie of bizarre animals living in the North Pole skating through the snow, getting haircuts, and bouncing happily… then fighting with one another and eating one another.  So weird.

Then we got to the main event: Reefer Madness.  Made back in 1936, the film is an absolutely loony look at how marijuana would destroy teenagers, turning them into manic, wild-eyed murders.  The whole thing seems to have been made by a bunch of adults who had never met an actual teenager… [continued]

Why has The Daily Show topped my Best TV of 2009 and Best TV of 2008 lists?  Clips like this one:

It’s funny all the way through, but Lewis Black’s final line had me in stitches.  Genius.

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.

So opens book one of Stephen King’s Dark Tower series, The Gunslinger. It’s a terrific opening line, and the rest of the story that follows ain’t too shabby, either.

The titular gunslinger is Roland Deschain, the last gunslinger in a world that has moved on. When we meet him, he has been on the trail of the mysterious man in black for many years. We don’t know who exactly this man in black is, or what exactly he did that caused Roland to begin his lengthy pursuit, or just what happened to Roland’s former and the rest of the gunslingers that left him the last. (Those answers, one hopes, lie in the later books in the series.)

We are given many hints – small fragments of information as Roland recounts moments from his youth. Here is where I really appreciated having read Marvel Comics’ Dark Tower prequel comic book series (which began with The Gunslinger Born), before beginning this novel. I got to know the world of Roland’s youth through those mini-series, so when he refers to Cort or to Alain in the novel, those references have great weight and meaning to me, and I’m able to place images (Jae Lee’s beautifully illustrated images) to those names, names which wouldn’t have meant nearly as much to me had I been reading this novel cold. These glimpses into Roland’s past were some of my favorite parts of the novel, and I found myself eagerly anticipating the later installments that will further flesh out Roland’s back-story (particularly, from what I’ve heard, book four: Wizard and Glass). It will be interesting to see how well what we learn in those later books matches with the comic book series.

The Gunslinger is a very short book – by far the shortest of the Dark Tower series. It’s a quick, engaging read. The story, while entertaining, is pretty slight. Many intriguing characters are introduced and questions are raised, but we’re given precious few answers. The back-story that we’re given to the situations and characters in the novel is sketchy at best. Those hints, scattered like crumbs throughout the narrative, are extremely intriguing, and the sense of mystery that pervades the story definitely draws the reader into the tale and makes one want to read more. But The Gunslinger is barely a story. It reminds me of one of the cliffhanger episodes of The X-Files, when in part one we’d see all sorts of intriguing and mysterious goings-on that would definitely capture an audience’s interest.Yet it would be near-impossible to figure out what was actually happening, because we didn’t yet have any context for the events being witnessed. We’d see mysterious characters doing mysterious things,… [continued]

A few days ago, at the Star Wars Celebration V convention in Orlando, FL, it was announced that the Star Wars films will be released on Blu-Ray in the fall of 2011.  Click here for more details.

I should be overcome with excitement at the propsect of seeing the Star Wars films presented in the crystal-clear quality of Blu-Ray, but I really can’t muster up much enthusiasm for this announcement.

Back in 2004 I spent a lot of money to purchase the Original Trilogy on DVD, and I felt that the presentation of those films was so catastrophically bad that, after watching the trilogy in the week after I bought the set, I have not once gone back to re-watch those DVDs, and I can’t imagine that I ever will.  George Lucas has a long history of fiddling with the Star Wars films, and in theory I don’t object to that concept.  It’s just that so many of the changes that he has made to the Original Trilogy in recent years have, in my opinion, really been to the detriment of the films.

There were all sorts of problems with the 2004 DVD of A New Hope.  For some reason the Star Wars main title had been changed so that it receeded into the distance at a super-fast speed.  The color-timing was off in countless scenes, so that often Luke’s blue light-saber seemed green, and Vader’s red saber seemed pink.  In the climactic Battle of Yavin at the end of the film, the audio was poorly balanced so that, in one instance, John Williams’ score was totally buried under the sound effects.  The Han-Greedo scene was further altered and, even more annoyingly to me, the timing of Greedo’s subtitles were messed up.  Now the subtitles for Greedo’s first line of dialogue appear on screen a beat before he startles Han, ruining the surprise of his entrance.  I could go on and on.  Perhaps none of these changes seem particularly egregious to you, and taken on their own I admit that none of them are that huge a deal.  But all together, when scene after scene in the movie was altered — and not for the better — I was incredibly frustrated and disappointed by what had been done to the film.

Empire and Jedi were similarly mangled.  In Empire, all of Boba Fett’s dialogue had been re-recorded by Temuera Morrison, who played Jango Fett in the prequel trilogy.  I understand the idea behind that change — Boba is a clone of Jango so would surely sound just like him when he grew up.  But the few lines of dialogue spoken by Boba Fett in Empire have all attained iconic status, and I found… [continued]

Back in 2007, Marvel Comics released the first of a series of comic books based on Stephen King’s The Dark Tower novels.  Called The Gunslinger Born, that first seven-issue mini-series chronicled the back-story of the Dark Tower novels: specifically, the youth of Roland Deschain, the titular gunslinger.  From what I have read, the events of the comic book series were pieced together from various hints and references throughout the Dark Tower novels, especially from information in the fourth novel, Wizard and Glass.

I had never read any of Mr. King’s Dark Tower novels, though lord knows I’d heard about them.  I knew many people who considered the series Stephen King’s magnum opus.  I also knew some who had loved the series but who felt let-down by the later books in the saga.

Despite my having not already been a Dark Tower devotee, I was intrigued enough by the idea behind the comic book series to purchase the early issues.  I was immediately hooked.  Jae Lee’s artwork (ably assisted by the digital coloring of Richard Isanove) was jaw-dropping, and the story was powerfully gripping.  I am a sucker for GREAT BIG epics (be they in movies, novels, comic books, etc.), and this story looked epic indeed.  Having never read any of the Dark Tower novels, I wasn’t sure where the work of Stephen King ended and where the work of plotter Robin Furth and scripter Peter David began, but I was instantly taken by the scope of the fully-realized fantasy world into which the reader was thrust.

After that first mini-series, The Gunslinger Born, ended, I immediately went out and purchased the first three Dark Tower novels.  I had relished my taste of some of the back-story of this world, and now I wanted to dig into the main course.

But the books sat unread on my bookshelf.  Hard to say why, exactly.  Mostly I guess the time never seemed quite right to start such a lengthy series of novels.  I didn’t want to begin until I could be reasonably sure that I’d have the time to make my way through the series without any lengthy interruptions, and that magic moment never quite arrived.

In the meanwhile, though, I continued to follow Marvel’s continuing Dark Tower comics.  Four more mini-series were published: The Long Road Home, Treachery, The Battle of Jericho… [continued]

Have you heard that they’re making new Looney Tunes cartoons to show theatrically?  Check out this glimpse of the first new Road Runner cartoon in far too many years:

Battlestar Galactica lives on!  Rumors are that SyFy are working on an on-line BSG spin-off, tentatively titled “Blood and Chrome” that would depict a young Bill Adama during the first Cylon War.  I LOVED the glimpse at a young “Husker” Adama that we got in Razor, and would LOVE to see more.  I hope this comes to pass!

I’ve been reading for years about the Alamo Drafthouse’s Rolling Roadshow film series, in which famous films are screened in a location connected in some way with the film.  It’s always sounded like a cool idea, and these special posters for the upcoming tour are just phenomenal.  I love movie posters, and these are about the coolest posters I’ve seen in a long, long while.

If there’s one sliver of a silver lining from MGM’s financial woes forcing Guillermo del Toro to leave the in-development Hobbit films, its the announcement that he’ll next be directing an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s Mountains of Madness, a project that del Toro has been talking about for years.  Should be awesome.

As readers of the site are probably well aware, I am one of the few people on Earth who unabashedly loved Superman Returns.  So I wholeheartedly second this plea from CHUD that Brandon Routh be allowed to reprise his role as Clark Kent/Superman in the next Superman film.  I thought Routh was pretty much perfect, and I would be thrilled to see him continue.

Speaking of superheroes, I’m sure you’ve all heard about the official announcement of The Avengers‘ cast and line-up at Comic-Con last week.  Here are some more details from the panel.  Pretty astounding cast, if you ask me, and I think Joss Whedon is a perfect choice as director.  Now please please please don’t screw this up, gang!!

Here are some fascinating reports from the Thor panel & footage from Comic-Con, as well as the Captain America panel.  I cannot wait to see some actual footage from these two films.  I really hope Marvel is able to pull these movies off.

Behold The Infinity Gauntlet!!  Awesome.

OK, enough Marvel, let’s talk DC!  I was very underwhelmed by our first look at Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern, but I love this peek at Sinestro.

Lost‘s Damon Lindeloff is re-writing the Alien prequel that Ridley Scott is directing? Pretty cool.

If they ever actually make another Judge Dredd movie, I love the idea of Karl Urban under… [continued]

Hoo boy, this one was disappointing.

I’m a big fan of both Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, and I thought Dinner For Schmucks had a premise that was so weird it seemed to promise good comedy.  Rudd plays Tim, who is trying desperately to climb the ladder at the private equity firm at which he works.  When one of his ideas sparks the attention of his boss (the always-great Bruce Greenwood), Tim gets an invite to his boss’ annual dinner.  But this isn’t just any dinner: each guest must bring, as their guest, the biggest idiot they can possibly find.  The purpose, simply, is for the rich hosts to mock the unfortunate souls gathered for the meal.  When Tim accidentally hits the socially awkward, dead-mice-collecting taxidermist Barry (Steve Carell) with his car, he seems to have found the perfect guest to bring along.

I’ve got to hand it to the filmmakers for having the guts to go with Dinner For Schmucks as their title.  (I’m not quite sure how that one got approved by the MPAA while Kevin Smith’s buddy cop film A Pair of Dicks had to be re-titled Cop Out — do the suits not know what the word schmuck means?)  But that title is about the only edgy element to be found in this broad, obvious comedy.

There aren’t any real, human characters to be found in this film.  Despite being one of the two male leads, I didn’t feel like we really got to know Rudd’s character Tim at all.  He likes his girlfriend and wants to get ahead in business.  What else did we learn over the course of the film?  Tim is painfully middle-of-the-road — not nice enough of a person to be someone we really sympathize with while watching the film, nor enough of a jerk to have any sort of character arc in the movie.  Then there is Carell’s Barry, who’s a big giant goofy cartoon, full of all sorts of bizarre manners and idiosyncracies.  I guess it’s all supposed to be funny, but it didn’t really tickle my funny-bone.

Director Jay Roach has been involved in some very funny movies (such as Austin Powers films), but it seems that lately he’s tended to make overly simplistic, broad comedies (such as the Meet the Parents films), and Dinner For Schmucks exacerbates that trend.  The set-ups for the gags are tired and obvious.  Hey, two characters have the same phone, I wonder if they’re going to get mixed up?  Hey, Tim has an important lunch, I wonder if Barry is going to screw that up?  Hey, now would be the worst moment for Tim’s girlfriend Julie (the beautiful Stephanie Szostak) to show up,… [continued]

A Few Good Men is one of those movies that I saw countless times in the nineties, to the point that I knew the film so well that it bored me. But then I stopped watching it, and when I decided to pop the film into my DVD player earlier this month, it had been many years since I’d last seen it.

While there are a few moments that haven’t aged well, overall I found A Few Good Men to still be a powerhouse of a film – just phenomenally entertaining.

This film is part of Rob Reiner’s astounding run of films – This is Spinal Tap (1984), The Sure Thing (1985), Stand By Me (1986), The Princess Bride (1987), When Harry Met Sally (1989). Has any other director had such a run of such phenomenal films, one after another? And what’s really astounding is how different they all are from one another – different genres, different styles. It’s unbelievable how good all of those films are (and how well they all hold up to this day).

Take a director at the top of his game, and mix him with a screenplay by the brilliant Aaron Sorkin (adapting his own play), and you have a recipe for an amazing film. As with much of the work of Mr. Reiner and Mr. Sorkin, the story has a strong dramatic core – but it is also filled with a lot of humor.

It’s fun to watch this movie now and to see just how young Tom Cruise and Demi Moore are in this film. Cruise is just great – you can see his star-power shining through, bright and strong, in his protrayal of hot-shot young lawyer Daniel Kaffee. Moore is a little flatter, but still does well in the role of the stiff Lt. Cdr. Joe Galloway. I think this is one of her best performances. I feel the same way about Kevin Bacon. I tend to think that he’s a much better actor than Demi Moore, and there are certainly plenty of other films in which I’ve really enjoyed his performance. But still, I would argue that his role in A Few Good Men is one of his very best. I love the way he plays his relationship with Cruise’s Kaffee. There’s deep friendship, but also some rivalry and antagonism, between the two young men. In the hands of less-skilled actors, the relationship could have so easily tipped over to one side or the other – but Cruise and Bacon walk that fine line perfectly. I find their characters’ interplay to be endlessly fascinating, and one of the secret treasures of this film.

The great… [continued]