Monthly Archives: April 2013

Movies

The Five-Year Engagement (2012) a (mildly) belated review

I’m not a big fan of “romantic comedies”.  It seems just about all of them follow the same basic formula:  Guy meets girl and often they are attracted immediately (in which case they are often involved with other girl/boyfriends) or initially hate/despise each other.  Over the course of the movie, they realize they are meant for each other, but then in the later acts comes the “big split” and the couple go their separate ways and it seems love will lose out.  But in the movie’s climax, something makes them realize they were meant for each other regardless of whatever problems they just went through, and the movie ends with the two in each other’s arms or at the altar and on their way to living happily ever after.

In the case of The Five-Year Engagement, much of that first section of of the story is truncated (though it does appear in flashbacks) as the movie starts with the proposal between Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) and Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt).  She accepts, of course, and the film then proceeds to pull the couple through many obstacles on their way to the altar, including the inevitable split up and equally inevitable reconciliation and (believe it or not he says with more than a hint of sarcasm) climax at the altar.

Despite finding the whole romantic comedy formula rather obvious and not being a big fan of it, I don’t necessarily hate romantic comedies either.  When the formula is really subverted, as in the case of the razor sharp Grosse Point Blank, it can be quite delightful.

But despite some genuinely hilarious bits (and there are quite a few) in The Five-Year Engagement, what ultimately does the film in is its waaaaaaay too long run time.  Incredibly, the movie clocks in at just over two hours (124 minutes, according to IMDB) in length and, frankly, the screenplay by Jason Segel and director Nicholas Stoller needed a thorough going over and -yes- paring down.  If not in the screenplay stage, then certainly in the editing phase.  There were several scenes and sequences that could have easily been cut from the film without impacting the story in any noticeable way.  Two of the more egregious ones involved Tom’s near-infidelity with a fellow worker which resulted in him losing a toe (don’t ask, but it was neither funny or pushed the plot forward in any big way) and Tom’s subsequent relationship with a much younger woman (ditto).  No offense to either of the actresses involved in those sequences, but the film would have been perfectly fine without those -and a few other- scenes at all.

The bottom line is that there’s a perfectly good one and a half hour (at most!) romantic comedy hiding in the bloated two hour-plus The Five-Year Engagement.

Movies

Zero Dark Thirty (2012) a (mildly) belated review

Given the popularity of the film and the many, many reviews of the same out there, I thought hard about whether it was worth it to offer my own spin on Zero Dark Thirty, perhaps one of the more controversial films of the past year.

After all, what more could I add to the myriad of opinions regarding the film, both good and bad?  Perhaps there was…we’ll see.

Briefly, Zero Dark Thirty is a film very much worth watching.  It is a steely account of the manhunt of Osama Bin Laden for the ten years from 9/11 to his killing by U.S. forces in 2011.

The movie’s main controversy centers around some early scenes depicting U.S. “enhanced interrogation” techniques, ie torture.  While the film does show that some information is extracted from one such use of the technique, in the end the film also shows that it is detective work and persistence that ultimately pays off in the manhunt.

Having said that, I can’t help but wonder what the critics were so bothered by.  Had director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal completely avoided the topic of torture -something that was sadly very much a part of the early days of the “war on terror”- they would have rightly been accused of whitewashing a reality of those early days.  Also, this ignores what I found most intriguing about the later part of the film, how the many sins of the Bush administration wound up coming back to bite the protagonists in their quest to find Bin Laden.

For example, when our protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) pieces together the clues that lead U.S. intelligence to what they suspect is the Bin Laden compound, there winds up being great hesitancy (and 120 plus days of delay) before the order is given to assault the place.  In some of the film’s best moments (IMHO) we find that may of the higher ups in government are leery of committing any actions against the compound because of the dark specter of Weapons of Mass Destruction never found in Iraq.  In other words, the absolutist bluster of the Bush administration in that there were WMDs in Iraq and which led to the war in Iraq wound up causing the next administration to make damn sure they weren’t about to go down that rabbit hole again and assault a compound that certainly housed some high level figure (though they couldn’t be certain if they were terrorists or simply drug dealers) but one they could not verify was Osama Bin Laden himself.

If the film fails in any way it is that Ms. Bigelow chose to present her work in a very neutral, almost completely unemotional tone.  There are few ups or downs, with the notable exception being the tension from the raid on the Bin Laden compound.  For most of the rest of the film we “see” things through Maya’s eyes but because she’s presented throughout the film as an emotional cypher with no family nor lover and seemingly no friends, the film adopts her perspectives.

Which brings me to this:  In many ways, Zero Dark Thirty is not unlike another politically charged film, specifically All The President’s Men.  It is my feeling that All The President’s Men was a far more successful attempt to bring “real life” events to the big screen.  Both films shared a similar plot structure in that both sets of protagonists were hunting information.  In All The President’s Men, the information revolved around possible corruption in the White House while in Zero Dark Thirty, obviously, it was information leading to Bin Laden.

But what worked better in All The President’s Men was the fact that as a viewer I found myself far more engaged, emotionally, in what was going on.  Because of this emotional engagement as a viewer I was far more invested in the unfolding mystery and the very real fear that something sinister was going on here.  In Zero Dark Thirty, unfortunately, what I mentioned above regarding Maya’s lack of emotions winds up making most of what goes on an emotional blank and, therefore, we aren’t as deeply involved in the hunt as we might have been.

Despite this, I still recommend Zero Dark Thirty.  It is a worthwhile chronicle of a very dark time in U.S. history.

And, just for the heck of it…

 

Comic Books/Graphic Novels, General, Movies

R.I.P.

Yesterday came the sad news that two people who had a huge influence on my life -through their own work rather than any personal contact- had passed away.

Siskel & Ebert

Roger Ebert (on the right with Gene Siskel), probably the more famous of the two to the general public, was known for his many years of movie reviews, humorous wit, and liberal views.  I first encountered him on PBS when the late Gene Siskel and he hosted “At the Movies”.  They were a curious pair, often seemingly rubbing each other the wrong way while at other times appeared to be the best of friends.  In later years and after Mr. Siskel’s passing, much was written about their sometimes contentious relationship.  In this day of people’s opinions being such absolute “my way or the highway” tropes (especially in politics), it was refreshing to see two people with such different backgrounds and (sometimes) wildly differing opinions nonetheless get into meaty arguments over their views of individual movies.

Their analysis proved something of an intellectual watershed.  The duo taught me, perhaps more than anyone else in my life, the value of smart analysis and debate.  Though I would not agree with their opinions all the time, I grew to appreciate their viewpoints and through them realized that opinions could be radically different from mine yet could be just as right to them as mine were to me.

In his later years, Mr. Ebert showed incredible courage in continuing his life as normally as he could despite a series of medical issues which ultimately stilled his speaking voice.  In computers and the internet Mr. Ebert found a way of continuing to do what he so loved…”talking” with the world at large and offering his clever opinions on movies and everything else that fancied his mind.

Carmine 2

Carmine Infantino, though perhaps not as well known to the public at large as Mr. Ebert, nonetheless is easily one of the giants in the comic book industry.  During the so-called “Silver Age” of comics his artwork graced many a book and his designs for comic book covers were among the most recognized ever.

FlashBut to me what I’ll always remember and honor Mr. Infantino for is his work as editorial director for DC Comcs from the later sixties to 1976.  During that time DC Comics underwent an incredible change.  Mr. Infantino purged many of the older writers and artists and brought in a stable of talent both new and old to the ranks and supervised the release of some truly fascinating -and diverse- books.  During his run, we had the Denny O’Neil/Neal Adams Green Lantern-Green Arrow.  The same duo also moved Batman from the campy past into a darker, more eerie milieu and in the process created some of the best Batman stories ever.  Jack Kirby was notably whisked away from rival Marvel Comics and released the epic New Gods books as well as my personal favorite Kamandi.  Archie Goodwin and Walt Simonson collaborated on the memorable Manhunter saga while Len Wein and Berni Wrightson made ten of the most stunning issues of comic books ever with Swamp Thing.  DC Comics also released a series of great War and Supernatural books…and even combinations of the two!

If there was a “golden age” for me of comic books, it was DC during the very late 1960’s to the mid 1970’s and in that time the person in charge of the company was Mr. Infantino.  Sadly, his moves ultimately didn’t really work with the general reading population.  Many of the books mentioned above, now considered all-time classics, found their fans long after said books were cancelled and/or Mr. Infantino was ousted from his job.  It is a sad reality of life that sometimes the best, most innovative works are not appreciated until well after the fact.

Yet the diversity of product and the soaring imagination within the pages of the many books published by DC during that time remains a highlight of my childhood and, even today, a point to aspire to in my own humble writings.

Rest In Peace, Mr. Infantino.  Rest In Peace, Mr. Ebert.  You’ll both be missed.

General

WWII Bomb Defused Near Berlin’s Main Railway Station

Fascinating story, though scary, story about an un-exploded WWII era bomb found at the above location:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/world-war-ii-bomb-berlin-railway-station_n_3006153.html

Many, many years ago I recall seeing a show on TV involving some kids who lived with their family in one of those quaint fishing villages of (I think) Canada.  I only recall -very vaguely- the plot of two episodes.  One involved one of the kids getting his foot stuck in a rotted pier while the high tide was beginning and, thus, was in danger of being drowned.

The other involved an un-exploded WWII era naval mine floating into the protagonists’ harbor and giving everyone involved a big scare.  Watching that episode and seeing that ugly ball with the jagged spikes coming out of it covered in weeds and the debris of many years’ worth of time was one of those sights that impressed my young mind.

Of course, it has nothing much to do with the above story.  Indeed, the above story simply reminds you that sometimes the distant past isn’t all that far away after all.

Movies

The Innkeepers (2011) a (mildly) belated review

Director/Writer Ti West developed a strong cult following among horror film aficionados with the release of his 2009 film The House of The Devil.  Many viewed it as a great throwback to the slow buildup/high tension horror films of the past.  His 2011 film The Innkeepers, which he also wrote and directed, would appear to follow in the same tradition, this time focusing on one of the more tried and true horror tropes:  The haunted house.

Or, in this case, the haunted Inn.

Claire (Sara Paxton) is a very young twentyish woman who works at the Yankee Pedlar Inn along with the slightly older Luke (Pat Haley).  The Inn is on its very last days and will be closed forever following the coming weekend.  Yet Claire and Luke work on despite the low number of tenants and high level of boredom.  Why?  Because Claire and Luke believe the Inn is haunted by the spirit of one Madeline O’Malley, a woman who in the Inn’s distant past (the Inn is perhaps a hundred or so years old) hung herself in the basement.

Claire and Luke are effectively just like the various “ghost hunters” you (over) see on TV nowadays, people with cameras and audio recording equipment hunting for any evidence of ghostly doings.

While there is one humorous, though completely superfluous, scene outside the Inn wherein Claire visits a coffee shop run by Lena Dunham (yes, that Lena Dunham) and we get a few minutes of Ms. Dunham doing her thing, the rest of the movie is exclusively set within the Inn itself.

Claire, we come to find, is starting to hear things.  Her co-worker worries that she may be getting a little too involved in this whole “ghost hunting” situation.  Meanwhile, two final guests show up at the Inn, Leane Rease-Jones (Kelly McGillis) a one-time famous actress now devoted to crystals and assorted spiritual pursuits, and an old man (George Riddle) who insists on being given a room on the third floor, despite the fact that the rooms up there have already been stripped in preparation for the Inn’s closing.

I don’t want to give away too much more but suffice it to say that for those who are patient enough for this “slow burn” type film, the scares are delivered in bulk by the film’s delirious climax.

However, the ending itself left me rather…cold.  In fact, while I could forgive some of the extraneous elements in the film (the already mentioned Lena Dunham cameo, the mother and her son), the ultimate resolution of the film simply didn’t work for me.  It came across as a little too downbeat.

Anyway, that’s just me.  Regardless, The Innkeepers offers plenty of good buildup and a terrific climax that should have just about everyone suffering from white knuckle syndrome.  My only reservation lies in the film’s final few minutes, but otherwise its a keeper.

Movies

On second thought…

Thinking back on the post 30 Films That Aren’t As Bad As You Remember got me thinking about a similar topic:  Which films had I seen that I originally didn’t like -or outright hated– but grew to really like after the fact?

I figured there would be plenty of examples of this but after thinking for a while, only three came to mind.  Interestingly, the reasons for my switch in attitude on each of these three films was radically different.  In one case, the change occurred almost like a thunderclap.  I went from not liking the film to loving it, all in the course of one more viewing.  The other occurred very gradually.  I was unimpressed with the film but over a very long period of time found myself loving it.  The third is a classic example of focusing on the trees and missing the forest.  Or, to put it more bluntly, a case of the film was good and I needed to lighten up.

The Birds

The first film is Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds.  When I originally saw the film, I considered it one of those “of their era” type films.  It was one of those films I figured really must have shocked people when it was originally released but, over time, the shocks lessened.  However, as a big Alfred Hitchcock fan, I couldn’t help but also think that The Birds might just be one of those over-hyped films that simply wasn’t as good as his many others.  So for years I couldn’t understand why so many loved this film when, clearly to my mind, such films as Lifeboat, Rear Window, Vertigo, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, etc. etc. were so much better.  And then one day, it all changed.

On that day long ago, the film was on TV and I caught its climax.  Watching the ending of the film made me think about the rest of it and, just like that, I had an epiphany:  The Birds was Alfred Hitchcock’s attempt at making his own version of those monster attacks-type films that were so very popular in the 1950’s.  Only instead of using giant ants or spiders or scorpions, he used the common bird.  But that wasn’t the only subversion of those monster movie cliches.  There was no “cool under fire” scientific type that, working in concert with the military, figures out a way of controlling the menace.  The heroine, for her part, is left by the end of the film near-catatonic.  There is no happy ending here.

It was absolutely brilliant.

Needless to say, my opinion of The Birds changed at that very moment.  What I felt was a grossly over-hyped Alfred Hitchcock vehicle became, in my opinionm Mr. Hitchcock’s last truly great film (I’m not saying the rest of his movie released following this were “bad”, its just that I don’t feel the handful of post The Birds films were quite as good as what came before, and that’s an opinion that hasn’t changed over time).

shining

The next film in this list of three took literally years to percolate in my system.  Back in 1980 I wasn’t all that familiar with one Stanley Kubrick, but was intrigued with the upcoming release of The Shining.  Stephen King’s novels were becoming a nation wide phenomena and the idea of seeing Jack Nicholson in a scary feature had me eager to see this.  My father and I went to the theater upon its release and, frankly, I was completely unimpressed with what I saw.  To be even more blunt, rather than scare me the film proved a bore.

I subsequently learned of Stanley Kubrick’s other films and became a big fan of his works. But The Shining, I still felt, simply didn’t do it.  Then, over the next five or so years, I caught bits and pieces of the film on TV.  With each little clip I saw I realized that this was a film not about outright horror but rather about slow tension and suffocating dread.  This is a creepy film that draws you into its icy grip one chilling scene after the other.  While I still agree with some of the critics that perhaps Mr. Kubrick should have given Jack Nicholson’s character a more gradual flight path toward insanity, even that criticism became irrelevant.  The Shining is a film you drink in.  Like its protagonists you start to feel yourself trapped in this elegant, well lit (!), yet incredibly menacing setting.  Like them, you realize there’s no escape, even as one of your own starts showing signs of not being all that right in the head…

So over the years my opinion of The Shining changed.  Not only did I feel this was a great film, but I began to feel that it could well be one of the all time best horror films ever made!  Quite a change in attitude!

predatorThe third film on my list was one that was incredibly popular upon its first release.  Call me a movie snob, but when I saw it (coincidentally, also with my father), we both laughed at its silliness and brushed it off as a dumb film.

Why did we feel this way?  Because in the opening sequences of the film, when Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Dutch has his little chat with Carl Weathers’ Dillon, they talk about a mission Dutch didn’t take to Libya.  Dutch tells Dillon something to the effect that “I don’t participate in massacres”.  Yet a few scenes later, Dutch and his boys (including Dillon) effectively do just that, attacking a small village of poorly equipped rebels and, yes, overwhelm and massacre the entire bunch of them.  In fact, the massacre is so complete that I was almost expecting Dutch and his gang to start slicing off rebel ears and making necklaces out of them.

So bothered was I by this silliness that it took me out of the film entirely and, as I mentioned above, lost sight of the forest because of those particular trees I was focused on.  It didn’t take long, however, for me to realize I was being waaaay too silly here myself. Yeah, Dutch’s conversation with Dillon remains hypocritical but, so what?  Get over yourself and enjoy the film for what it is:  A great action/horror hybrid.  Along with Aliens, perhaps one of the best ever.