As usual, our “President” decided to make an issue of it (he’s nothing if not content to make everything about him) and was promptly slammed by its host, Jimmy Kimmel but, frankly, this is side-issue stuff.
The thing that intrigues me is the fact that the Oscar rating are down and, like our “President”, I’m going to make it about me…
I missed the whole thing. Like, everything. I knew it was on. I usually catch at least a minute or two here and there.
The bottom line, though, was that I completely and totally missed the whole thing.
I opined that maybe my lack of interest in seeing the Oscars was related to the movies that were being honored and in the running. I certainly think this is a pretty big factor.
But there’s another thing: Times change and what was once an interesting event can become something that simply isn’t all that interesting anymore.
There was a time that roadside parades were a HUGE thing in cities. Perhaps they still are in many of them. But I don’t think they’re as popular as they were.
Movies, too, have changed, at least in the way we see them.
Used to be we’d see them in theaters and, at least when I was much younger, I was incredibly eager to see what was about to be released and what I could catch. Nowadays, and because things get to be so damn busy, I’m lucky if I find the time to catch them. Further, if I do miss the films in theaters, all I have to do is wait a few months and -voila- the movie becomes available on home video.
Suddenly, seeing a new film in theaters during its release isn’t such a big deal anymore.
There are, of course, exceptions to this. The recently released (and big hit) Black Panther was eagerly anticipated by many before its release and people are flocking to theaters to see it. Same, a little before that, with The Last Jedi.
Nonetheless I would argue such movies are increasingly becoming the exception rather than the rule.
The last film I saw in theaters, Game Night, I didn’t know anything about until I read the review of it in my local paper on the day of its release! And I didn’t know about it because, I suspect, I didn’t actively look around at what films were coming out.
In effect, I didn’t much care about films being released and figured I’d read about them as they come out.
Could this indifference extend to things related to movies, such as Oscars?
Obviously, what I’m musing about here is my own personal experiences/opinions, but I can’t help but wonder if others don’t feel the same thing.
Times do, as I mentioned before, have a way of changing things.
A few days ago (you can read it here), I wondered about the increasing appearances and statements coming from director Zack Snyder via his Vero account concerning his film Justice League.
The film is about to be released on home video, so one might be forgiven in thinking he’s trying to get people excited to buy the film.
Not so.
As I mentioned in that previous post and for those living under a rock until now, Zack Snyder left work on Justice League some six months before the movie’s release. His adopted daughter had committed suicide and, he stated, he couldn’t continue doing this work. Thus the film was completed by Joss Whedon and this was the version that was released to theaters. Mr. Snyder, it should be noted, kept a very low profile through all this and though the theatrically released film had his name on it as director, he attended no promotions or red carpet affairs. Further, he even noted at one point after the movie’s release that he hadn’t seen it.
To those who saw Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Zack Snyder’s previous film leading into Justice League, it was quite clear that Mr. Whedon made considerable changes before Justice League was released. While I liked the film overall, I nonetheless could tell that Justice League was more of a Whedon work, in the end, than a Snyder work.
Since then, fans of Mr. Snyder’s work have clamoured for the release of “his” version of the film versus the one that was released to theaters.
The big question is: Is there an actual Zack Snyder “cut” of the film?
In that previous blog post, I noted Warner Brothers eventually released a “Donner Cut” of Superman II. This despite the fact that Mr. Donner didn’t actually finish making that film back in the late 1970’s.
Unlike Mr. Donner, Mr. Snyder completed all principle photography of Justice League. He was working on some reshoots when he left the film but rumor has it a three hour “cut” of the film assembled before he departed. How complete -or good- the cut was is the question.
Regardless, several days have passed since my original posting and if nothing else, it appears that more and more people are thinking that Mr. Snyder is hinting at an existing “Snyder Cut” of the film.
Over at polygon.com Julia Alexander wrote the following article, which examines that building feeling people have that just maybe there is something to the rumors:
One of the arguments made against Snyder’s Cut of Justice League ever appearing is that he didn’t complete the work or that there are too many effects to be done or something along those lines.
However, I will repeat: A “Donner Cut” of Superman II was eventually released to home video even though by the time Mr. Donner was fired from the movie he stated he had filmed only some 60% of it.
Again: Zach Snyder completed all principle photography. He was working on reshoots when he left the project. Further, it appears many of the effects were indeed completed, at least based on early trailers for the film which feature scenes that were not included in Joss Whedon’s cut:
And here’s a more detailed examination of some of the scenes found in the trailer or mentioned by cast yet didn’t appear in the film:
There most certainly is work to be done if a “Snyder Cut” of the film is to be released, but I strongly suspect if Warner Brothers/DC allows it, we will eventually get it.
As I stated before, my only hope is that it won’t take 26 years, the length of time before the “Donner Cut” of Superman II was released, before we see it.
It’s fair to say that one of the more popular actors around is Jennifer Lawrence. For several years, she’s starred in films that have been both critical and commercial darlings.
However, if there’s one thing that one realizes is that as incredible as it is to see someone reach the proverbial tip of the mountain in their career, there is always the danger, and possibility, that the stay there is short lived.
The other day Ms. Lawrence was being interviewed on the Howard Stern Show. I have the Stern Show on my Sirius radio subscription and though in the past I followed it of late I have not.
(Quick random thought: The first time I heard the Howard Stern Show was waaaaaaay back in/around 1985 and I found it bold and incredibly funny. Years later and before he moved to Sirius, his show appeared on a local radio and I listed to it now and again and found it was still quite good, especially when interviewing celebrities. When he moved to Sirius, I checked him out now and again and, as before, I still really like his celebrity interviews. This, more than the controversial aspects about him, is IMHO his grand forte)
So the other day I clicked on the show while Ms. Lawrence was being interviewed and stuck around to hear what she had to say.
She struck me as someone well aware of her status in the entertainment industry, even noting at one point that she realizes her success is a limited thing.
She was on the show promoting her latest film, Red Sparrow, which was released last week and, while not a bust, looks to be at best like it will be a mild/moderate money-maker. However, this film follows the very controversial -and not very successful- mother! which in turn followed the successful (at least at the box-office) film Passengers. That film, though, was met with controversy due to its plot, which essentially took the protagonist’s highly questionable actions and somehow tried to make them look “cute” in a romantic way.
Regardless and despite the financial success of that film, I strongly suspect there are few today who would point to Passengers as some great Jennifer Lawrence vehicle. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if that winds up being one of those films that gets, for the most part, forgotten in time.
mother!, on the other hand, has its defenders but they seem to be very few. What is unquestionable, however, is that the film was a box-office bust and Red Sparrow, which looks to do a little better, nonetheless looks to be far from a blockbuster.
Rich Juzwiak at themuse.com noted the last films Ms. Lawrence has been involved in and asks:
Sadly, I think his question is quite legitimate. As good and successful as Ms. Lawrence -or any currently big name entertainer- has been, there is always the risk that if you deliver works that either don’t interest audiences or, even worse, turn them off, your high flying star may come crashing down.
In the 1970’s, Burt Reynolds was one of the biggest movie stars out there. Smokey and the Bandit, released the same year as that little, now forgotten film Star Wars (I kid, obviously!) was second in terms of box office take.
But Mr. Reynolds made some bad choices going into the 1980’s, the biggest of which was reportedly rejecting the role of Garret Breedlove in the very well received/Oscar winning film Terms of Endearment -a role that went to Jack Nicholson- in favor of starring in the box-office and critical bust Stroker Ace. He reportedly took the later role as a favor to its director Hal Needham, who had directed Mr. Reynolds in Smokey and the Bandit.
From that point on, Mr. Reynold’s career spiraled further and further downward and one notes that Ms. Lawrence, though perhaps not quite at that level of danger, nonetheless may be wise to consider her next roles.
Then again, I highly doubt Ms. Lawrence entered any of those films thinking they would ultimately end up as they did. That’s the great unknown regarding doing works of art.
What might be a big success on paper might result in a big failure when all is said and done.
I knew it was on. I usually catch at least a minute or two here and there. But this time around?
I know, I know. I’m sounding like that cranky old “get off my lawn” guy. But the truth’s the truth: I haven’t seen any of the films nominated for best picture, though I did pick up the digital copy, via VUDU as it was on sale, of Dunkirk. Alas, I haven’t had the time to watch it as of yet.
Here’s the cold hard reality of my situation: I haven’t seen any of the films on the major lists nor am I all that interested in seeing them. A good friend of mine highly recommended the big winner of last night’s Oscars, The Shape of Water, but I dunno. As I said, I have Dunkirk but I’m not in a huge rush to see it.
Enough, though, of the negativity. Author Sam Adams over on Slate.com points out one of the better stories coming out of the Oscars, something even a crumudgeon like me could appreciate:
The above mentioned Mr. Deakins, as it should be obvious from the article’s title, won an Oscar last night for his cinematography on the film Blade Runner 2049. Mr. Deakins, as the article further notes, was previously nominated in this category a whopping 13 times between 1995 and 2017 and, as Mr. Adams further notes, in 2008 he was nominated for best cinematographer twice. It goes without saying but until last night, he hadn’t won for any of those nominations.
Unlike the best picture nominees, I have actually seen Blade Runner 2049 and, though I feel the film was too bloated for its own good, there is absolutely NOTHING negative I have to say about the look of the film and the cinematography. Indeed, it is quite brilliant and worthy of the adulation it has received.
Good going, Mr. Deakins. This cranky old man totally agrees you deserved this Oscar… even if he hasn’t seen too many of the other nominated films.
Back in 1978 and to great fanfare and success the Richard Donner directed, Marlon Brando/Gene Hackman/Christopher Reeve starring Superman was released to theaters.
That movie, to my mind, remains the pinnacle of superhero films, even though the effects, miraculous at the time, are pretty dated and not quite so spectacular.
What audiences at that time didn’t know is that the movie’s producers, Ilya and Alexander Salkind, decided to sack Richard Donner even though during the filming of the original Superman he was also filming Superman II.
In fact, by the time Mr. Donner was fired, some 60% of that sequel, perhaps a little more, was finished yet the Salkinds nonetheless fired Donner and brought in Richard Lester to finish up. Mr. Lester would receive sole credit for Superman II when it was released to theaters in 1980 despite the fact that a considerable amount of the material in the film was created under the direction of Richard Donner.
Because of the success of these films and over the subsequent years since their release, the fan community expressed a great deal of interest in seeing Richard Donner’s version of Superman II. In 2006, twenty six years after the theatrical release of the Richard Lester version of the film, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut was released to DVD/BluRay…
While a fascinating watch, Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut was a flawed work. The fact of the matter was that Mr. Donner hadn’t finished the film way back when and certain included scenes were audition/practice takes. They worked reasonably well even if they were crude considering the scenes around them.
What didn’t work, alas, was the film’s ending, which featured the “going back in time to set things right” climax which was featured in the original Superman. For those who didn’t know, the going back in time thing was originally intended to be used in Superman II but somewhere along the line Donner and company felt it was a better ending for Superman. They wound up using that ending in that movie and figured in time they’d get around to coming up with another ending for Superman II.
Because of the firing, that time never came and no new ending was created/conceived by Donner and company for Superman II. Thus, in the Donner Cut of the film, we’re given that ending, despite the fact that it was already used in the original film.
As I said above, I feel the Donner Cut is a fascinating watch but ultimately a flawed work. I nonetheless feel it is on par with, and in some cases better, than the Lester version of Superman II.
Fast forward to last year and the release of Justice League.
The production of that film was a source of considerable tension and gossip. Zack Snyder, the film’s director, seemed a man with a target on his back, given the controversy behind the release of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice.
While some people (like me!) enjoyed BvS, there were many, including a large percentage of critics, who slammed the film.
Given that Justice League featured Mr. Snyder back in the director’s chair and with DC/Warner Brothers clearly feeling burned by the reviews of BvS (and to some extent Suicide Squad as well), there was a great effort made to show fans that JL would be a better product.
However, some 6 or so months before the film’s release, Zack Snyder announced he had stepped down from the production. His daughter committed suicide and he didn’t have the heart, he stated, to continue working on the film. Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, The Avengers) who had apparently been working on the script of the film, was promoted to director and tasked with finishing it up.
As it turned out, Mr. Whedon did extensive re-shoots. When the film was released last year, the critics were a little kinder but Justice League ultimately underperformed. It wasn’t a bust, but considering the amount of money spent on it, Warners was likely not too happy with the end results.
Worse, even casual fans of Snyder’s works could see the released film skewed heavily toward Whedon’s lighter, snarkier take. In fact, someone made this fascinating comparison of the visuals presented by each director…
Now, before I go any farther: I think this comparison is somewhat unfair. I suspect Whedon was under great pressure to get things done and done quickly and that may be part of the reason why the Whedon “visuals” look so much cheesier.
However, now that the theatrical version of JL has been released and now that the home video version is on the horizon (the digital version is already available) this does beg these questions:
Is there a “Zack Snyder” cut of the film?
If there is, will we ever see it?
As for the first question, there are rumors that Mr. Snyder had a 3 hour cut of the film made shortly before he left. Before you get too excited about that, there are further rumors that this version was deemed “unwatchable”, though by whom I don’t know.
There are also rumors, freshly released, that Mr. Snyder didn’t leave JL voluntarily, despite all that was stated at the time and the tragedy that occurred to him, that he was actually fired.
However, that’s all water under the bridge at this point and, like with Mr. Donner’s version of Superman II, we have a not insignificant amount of people out there who are curious to see the Snyder version of JL.
This is, of course, assuming that before he left Mr. Snyder did indeed create something approaching a final cut of his version of the film.
So, what is the likelihood of this happening?
Well, perhaps its due to the fact that the JL film is about to be released to home video but it seems that hints of a possible Zack Snyder cut of the film is starting to percolate into the net.
Mr. Snyder himself has commented on Vero regarding two deleted scenes he directed and what they meant in his version of the film. This article, by Jude Terror and found on Bleedingcool.com, details Mr. Snyder’s explanation…
Mr. Lafayette’s points out that Mr. Snyder, via Vero, posted the following pictures:
As Mr. Lafayette points out, a cut thumb. A “Snyder” cut, followed by a picture of Superman? Hmmm… could Mr. Snyder be, subtly if nothing else, teasing the notion that audiences might be getting his version of the film?
I have to admit, I’d certainly buy a “Snyder Cut” of the film if it is released. As I said too many times before, I’m a fan of BvS, especially the “Ultimate Cut”, and am very curious to see what Mr. Snyder would do with the Justice League.
Understand: I did NOT hate -and in fact enjoyed- the theatrical cut of JL. Having said this, that film was clearly more of a Whedon product versus a Snyder product.
Perhaps one day soon, and not 26 years down the road, I might get a chance to see Snyder’s take on Justice League.
This past Friday, the 23rd of February, I pick up the local paper, head over to the Weekend section to see what’s up in the world of entertainment and found, as one does, reviews for the films being released that day.
Among the films being released was Game Night, a film that, until I saw the review in that paper, had heard absolutely nothing about. Here’s the movie’s trailer, which clearly I also missed when it was shown on TV (if indeed it was!). Though I’m putting the trailer here, I would urge those who know about and/or are interested in seeing the film skip the trailer. It gives away a lot of information about the film. Thankfully, not everything, but too much:
Anyho, I read the review, which was positive, and my wife spotted it as well and on Sunday we didn’t have all that much to do in the afternoon so we headed out and saw it.
I have to admit, I was somewhat leery. The movie’s directors, John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, previously directed the 2015 remake/sequel Vacation, a film that wasn’t very well received and fizzled at the box office.
Nonetheless, based on that review and the overall very good reviews of the film on rottentomatoes.com, we went.
And you know what? The movie was quite good!
I mean, it isn’t a “classic” in the realm of, say, Airplane! or the Monty Python films, but it nonetheless is a film that is consistently funny and, as an added bonus, quite clever with several fun twists and turns.
Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams play Max and Annie, a married couple who share an interest in playing games and are damned competitive about it (one of the more humorous lines in the film, found early on, has our protagonists playing Risk with another couple and joining forces to crush the others. When told they can’t join forces while playing Risk, their response, which I won’t give away here, is quite hilarious).
Anyway, Max’s brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, quite good) is in town and, after a game night ends, he invites Max and Annie and their friends to his house where, it turns out, he’s got a “next level” game night planned: He’s hired a company that stages a kidnapping and its up to the players to solve the kidnapping. The winner gets Brooks’ beautiful cherry red Stingray.
This part you probably see coming: The staged kidnapping turns out to be a real kidnapping, though the players are, at least at first, blissfully unaware of that fact.
I won’t give away anymore of the movie’s plot here but, again, expect more than a few twists and turns.
Everyone within the film delivers here. Having said that, special mention has to be made to Jesse Plemons. He plays Max and Annie’s next door neighbor, a creepy police officer who has just divorced and seems to wear his police outfit twenty four hours a day. A great character!
In sum, if you want to have a fun time at the cinema and laugh throughout a film (as opposed to some “comedies” that give you a couple of laughs here and there), you could do a lot worse than Game Night.
I’ve already posted about early reactions to Black Panther, the latest Marvel movie and noted how those early reactions were quite positive.
Welp, the movie is being released today and, if you go by the overall ratings presented on rottentomatoes.com, it would appear that critics are also falling head over heels for this film (you can see those overall ratings for Black Panther here).
Interestingly, or perhaps not, while a whopping 98% of critics have expressed positive feelings for the film, the audience reactions are a little less, at this point being in the still positive range of 77%.
Here’s the thing: It’s becoming clear that there are some people out there who are purposely trying to bring certain films down.
Apparently, some of them belong to the “alt-right”, a group that I don’t really want to waste too much time typing about.
There were rumors that this started with Star Wars: The Last Jedi, that some of the audience reactions were from people who simply wanted to bring the movie down. I suspect there were elements there who did this, but given what I’ve read around the ‘net, TLJ was a film that some very much loved but which many others… did not.
How much of the film’s audience reaction, which over on rottentomatoes.com currently sits at a mediocre 48% positive, is attributable to the malcontents determined to bring something down is difficult to gauge but, again and based on my reading many people’s reactions to the film (positive and negative), I do believe there is a sizeable contingent of people who legitimately didn’t like it.
As for Black Panther, I’ve already noted before that I’m not all that interested in seeing this movie and suspect I won’t catch it until it hits either home video or some premium cable channel (like I did with Spider-Man: Homecoming).
Having said that, I have no reason whatsoever to believe the “pro” critics and early fan reactions are incorrect. Quite the contrary: I firmly believe these positive opinions and, further, absolutely believe Black Panther is a good, perhaps even excellent, film.
…but…
Here’s the thing: As big a fan of comic books as I am, I’m becoming distressingly fatigued by this seemingly endless procession of comic book films. Worse, I just don’t have the time like I used to to see films in general and, obviously, this includes superhero films specifically. By necessity I’ve become choosy about where I spend my increasingly limited free time and, until something changes, that’s the way it is.
Sometimes, sadly, there can be too much of a good thing.
As I’ve made it abundantly clear before, I’m a big fan of -and have even worked in- comic books. I love many, many characters and can point out many stories, writers, and artists who have to this day inspired me with their works.
Among my favorite runs of comic books is the original Stan Lee and Steve Ditko take on Spider-Man, which started in the famous Amazing Fantasy #15…
Steve Ditko would go on to co-plot and do the art for 38 issues of Spider-Man plus two Annuals, a very long run on the character, before parting ways with Marvel. Sadly, from all accounts his departure was acrimonious, not unlike the departure a little later of Jack Kirby. Spider-Man, the comic book, would do quite well after Mr. Ditko left. John Romita would take over the art on the book and many people consider his run even better than the one Ditko produced. I don’t share that opinion though I would quickly add that John Romita did some excellent work, though I still like the Ditko stuff better.
Spider-Man is easily Marvel’s biggest, best known character, on the par with legends such as Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman (all DC characters who have existed for many years before the web-head’s first appearance) and thus it makes sense he’d show up -multiple times!- on the big screen.
Like many others, when comic book movies first began appearing with greater frequency, I was curious to see a live action Spider-Man film. In 2002 audiences finally got a taste of a big-budgeted (as opposed to the cheesy -sorry, they were!- TV version) Spider-Man, via director Sam (Evil Dead) Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. They would go on to make three Spider-Man films, the second of which many consider one of the best super-hero films ever created before flaming out with Spider-Man 3, which many (including me) consider a misfire.
Only five years after the release of Spider-Man 3 and in 2012 a new, rebooted version of Spider-Man, named The Amazing Spider-Man and featuring Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, was released to much acclaim.
And I really, really didn’t care.
As I said above, I’m a fan of comic books and I’m always on the lookout for a new (hopefully good) superhero film, but for whatever reason, after three Spider-Man films by Raimi, I felt I’d seen enough of the good ol’ web head on the big screen.
As the saying goes: “I’m good.”
I have yet to see The Amazing Spider-Man or its 2014 sequel The Amazing Spider-Man 2, which featured the same leads. That later film didn’t connect well with audiences and Sony Pictures, the producers of the films, decided that run was done.
After negotiations with Marvel/Disney, a deal was reached where the Spider-Man movie property, which Sony had the rights to, would be allowed to appear in the very popular Marvel films. Thus the “new” (now third) iteration of Spider-Man, this time played by actor Tom Holland and with Marisa Tomei playing the role of Aunt May, showed up briefly in 2016’s Captain America: Civil War and, last year, Spider-Man: Homecoming, the first feature film with Mr. Holland in the lead, appeared to much acclaim.
And I still didn’t really care.
Understand, I’m not trying to sound like some kind of grouch here. As I said, I really like the Spider-Man character. But unlike many other superheroes out there, for whatever reason seeing him on the big-screen no longer appeals to me.
Yesterday, however, the movie premiered on the Starz channel. It was the purest of luck that I happened to be watching TV a few minutes before it came on (Starz was showing the Michael Mann directed movie version of Miami Vice, a movie I really didn’t like when I originally saw it in theaters but, now catching it again, I’m finding more fascinating… though still flawed).
Anyway, so I see that Spider-Man: Homecoming is coming on next and I say: “Why not?”
The movie starts and we get an intro to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton, damn good in the role) who I knew would be the movie’s villain The Vulture. Here’s how the character looked in his first appearance in The Amazing Spider-Man #2, with art by the amazing Steve Ditko:
It’s sorta/kinda interesting but I’m not totally there. Then the movie shifts to a few years later and we get a brief rundown, from Peter Parker’s point of view, of what happened in Captain America: Civil War.
Ok stuff, but I’m still not feeling it.
We then move to post Civil War and awkward high school Peter Parker and… I dunno. I’m still not feeling it.
After some twenty/thirty minutes of watching, I’m seriously thinking of turning the whole thing off and giving up.
And then, the movie finally starts to click. The story of Parker/Spider-Man and the Vulture slowly begins to come together and all the elements begin to work and I’m having myself a pretty good time.
It’s not the best superhero stuff I’ve ever seen and though the opening act nearly ruined it for me, I’ll be damned if I didn’t find the second and final act of the film worth checking out.
Thus, I recommend the film.
However, and this is one really, really BIG “but”… do yourself a favor and don’t think too hard about what you’ve seen because the story flaws are plenty and can be very bothersome.
For example: What’s with Tony Stark? Not to put too fine a point on it, but how is what Spider-Man did which got Stark mad at him halfway through the film different from the destruction and near death he caused at the movie’s end, which earned him kudos? Granted in one case Tony had to clean up a mess that Spidey made but it would seem the person in the wrong in both cases IS Tony for ignoring Spidey and/or not communicating well with him as to what he was doing and what was going on.
In other words: Tony Stark sure was written as a big jerk here.
Further, the surprise reveal of who Toomes was, while suspenseful in the movie proper, seems awfully –too– convenient story-wise, as does the way he discovers -too conveniently, again- who Parker is.
Also, how exactly did Toomes’ henchman arrive so quickly at the Homecoming party? Is he always hanging out with Toomes?
Also, what happened to Peter Parker’s “Spider-sense”? In the books it allows him to sense danger around him yet is completely absent in this movie (it is presented in the trailer to the new Avengers film, by the way), which allows not one but two people to surprise him while he’s in costume.
At this rate, he won’t have to do a news conference like Tony Stark to announce who he is… everyone will know.
Finally: I liked most of the “blue” jokes, but there’s this one bit where a group of high school girls are engaged in the game of “fuck, marry, or kill” with the various Avengers aaaaaaannnnnddd…
I know, I know, girls that age no doubt say and do far worse but we’re talking about a movie where Peter Parker (and thus, I imagine the girls in this film which are going to school with him) are like 14-15 years or so old and maybe that joke should have been left out.
Yeah yeah, get off my fucking lawn already.
Anyway, I don’t think these story problems are as big as, say, those present in Star Trek: Into Darkness, a film I also enjoyed when I watched it but almost immediately afterwards realized the story quite literally fell apart and have since grown to dislike the damn film.
Again, I don’t think I’ll grow to “hate” Spider-Man: Homecoming like I did that film yet I’d be lying if I said it is anything more than a cute, fun time-killer. At the very least, it is far better than the other Stan Lee/Steve Ditko creation made for the big screen, Doctor Strange.
As for it making me want to see more of this version of Spider-Man on the big screen? Well, maybe it has made me a little curious, and that’s saying a lot.
The late director Robert Altman (1925-2006) had an incredibly long and fruitful career, working on many different genres both in TV and in film. Some of the output highlights include MASH (the original movie starring Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland), McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Long Goodbye, The Player, and the delightfully quirky pseudo-Agatha Christie mystery/comedy Gosford Park.
Of all the films and TV shows he was involved in, it is fair to say that many of his fans consider Quintet, Altman’s -and star Paul Newman’s- sole 1979 foray into sci-fi his most divisive work. And that’s being kind.
Here’s the movie’s trailer:
Quintet involves a world on the verge of apocalypse that has entered a new ice-age (the cause of this is not explained, though one could presume this might be the result of a nuclear winter). Paul Newman plays Essex, a seal hunter from the south who, along with his pregnant companion Vivia (Brigitte Fosse), traveled to one of the last remaining “cities”, another frozen hell-hole. Seals no longer exist and Essex needs to find another means of survival along with his companion. They go to this city in search of Essex’s brother and, once they arrive, we realize that Vivia is, unlike the other city inhabitants, quite young. This is surprising to Essex’s brother and people living with him.
We also find that the citizens of this city are into Quintet (who’da guessed?!), a dice/board game which figures into the movie’s plot.
The people of the city, apart from being older in age, share a seeming malaise. Packs of dogs roam this frozen city and chow down on anyone who dies while, true to form, very few care. Indeed, the viewer soon realizes the citizens feel more than just malaise: They’ve given up. There’s little left to do but play Quintet and wait for the end.
As you know, I’m loathe to give away too much of a movie’s plot but I’ll proceed to one more element, which puts the story in motion. However, given it happens some thirty minutes plus into the movie, it is a SPOILER…
Still there?
Ok, Essex finds his brother and, after introducing himself and Vivia to everyone, leaves them in their apartment home and heads out, looking for work.
While away and while Essex’s brother, Vivia, and the others are busy playing Quintet, a mysterious stranger silently opens the apartment door and rolls a bomb into their living room. It explodes, killing everyone, including Vivia, in the blast.
Essex hears the blast and rushes back to the apartment and finds everyone dead. He also sees the man responsible for the killings and gives chase. However, before he gets to him, the man is attacked by another and his throat slashed. Essex finds the killer’s still very warm corpse and searches through his belongings. He finds a list of people’s names along with Quintet game trinkets.
Essex takes these items and assumes the man’s identity, his goal being figuring out why the man a) killed his brother and Vivia and b) why he himself was killed.
Soon enough, Essex comes to realize the game of Quintet extends well beyond the board.
I’ll stop withe movies SPOILERS here and turn to my feelings regarding the movie:
In some ways I found Quintet a fascinating work while in others I felt the people who made the film, those both in front of and behind the camera, failed… at times quite spectacularly.
The first big failure, and it pains me to say it, is hiring Paul Newman for the movie’s lead. Please understand: I usually love Paul Newman’s work as an actor but in this case… it just felt like he was the wrong choice for the role. This is most apparent in the sequences right after he finds Vivia’s dead body. Paul Newman’s reaction is curiously muted and almost a non reaction. This, to me, was a big problem. Newman’s playing Essex as a far too unemotional individual and this, sadly, works against us caring for him, his tragedy, and subsequent need for revenge.
The next big problem the film has is director Robert Altman’s decision to film the entire movie with Vaseline around the edges of the frame. Let me repeat: THE ENTIRE MOVIE features blurry images along all four sides of the screen and, while in theory one could view that as an interesting choice to further emphasize the “cold” nature of the scenery around us, its distracting and silly. Yeah, Altman and company tried to do something different but in this case it just didn’t work.
Another problem: The sets at times don’t look all that good. There are more than a few moments where you feel like you’re watching some kind of cheap and overwrought play in a local (frozen) park.
Which leads me to one final big problem: Paul Newman is surrounded with a cast whose native tongue, for the most part, is not English. This becomes a big problem in scenes which feature plenty of dialogue infused with the movie’s philosophical ideas.
So those are the movie’s minuses, and they are considerable.
Yet after pointing these problems out, as the movie played I nonetheless found myself curious as to where the story was going. Where it went, in its conclusion, was particularly strong, at least in my opinion.
Despite the strong ending, I simply can’t recommend the film to a “regular” audience. However, if you’re willing to take a ride that’s far from the ordinary and ignore the problems I listed above, you may find yourself intrigued by this film. At least intrigued enough to not feel like you just wasted two hours of your life.
During the Superbowl (I think) there was a trailer for Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s latest film (I believe he has something like 563 films coming out this year), of which the following poster has appeared:
In the trailer, which ends with this jump, I turned to my wife and said: “Welp, I guess that’s how that character dies.”
Other people have noted the same, as pointed out in this amusing article by Lee Moran and presented on Huffington Post:
