Category Archives: Movies

Movies

End of the year means…

…end of the year lists!

One of my favorites is the “Worst Films of the Year” type lists.  Call me a glutton for punishment, but there’s something about seeing such lists and considering the works present within them and wondering just what went wrong.

The list presented below is a more “scientific” rather than personal list, as it features the Top 10 Worst-Reviewed films of 2013:

http://theweek.com/article/index/253827/the-10-worst-reviewed-movies-of-2013

Looking over that list I have seen a grand total of…none of the films.  The only one I was mildly interested in and coming in at #2, the Liam Hemsworth/Harrison Ford/Gary Oldman/Richard Dreyfuss film Paranoia certainly intrigued me for the cast, if nothing else.  But with each commercial I saw of the film, the whole thing seemed to scream “MEDIOCRE” or worse.  When the film was finally released and the reviews poured in, what little interest I had in the feature was completely gone.

Time Magazine offers the following Top Ten Worst films of the past year:

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/04/arts-and-entertainment/slide/top-10-worst-movies/

A couple of films from the previous list show up here as well.  I never saw the original The Hangover despite my wife’s assurances that it is indeed a hilarious film.  When The Hangover II was released, I watched it with my wife and was completely unimpressed.  My wife was too.  She insisted the original was very good but was just as disappointed in the sequel.  Lesson learned.  Neither of us bothered with The Hangover III and based on the reviews, it appears we missed little.

Finally, a personalized Five Worst Films of the past year list, this one by Dana Stevens for Slate Magazine:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/12/12/worst_movies_2013-elysium-identity-thief-jobs-oz-and-ripd.html

Once again, we have at least one film repeated between lists, although this list offers some interesting alternate choices as well.  Yet again, I haven’t seen any of the films on this list but finally there is at least one film I am interested in seeing: Elysium.  Now, I know that most critics (and fansboys) were eager to see the well received District 9’s director’s sophomore feature and I know many people were ultimately disappointed by it, but I don’t believe anyone felt it was one of the “worst” films of the past year.

I’ll see soon enough!

Movies

White House Down (2013) a (mildly) belated review

A little while ago I reviewed the 2013 Gerard Butler starring Olympus Has Fallen (read about it here) a variation on the Die Hard formula but rather than set in the Nakatomi Plaza Building, our hero has to deal with deadly terrorists that have assaulted the White House itself.  I enjoyed the film, finding it a pleasant enough time killer despite some pretty silly stuff to swallow if not much else.  Lurking in the weeds, waiting to be seen, was the second Die-Hard-in-the-White-House film of this year, the higher budgeted Channing Tatum/Jamie Foxx White House Down.

A few quick questions and answers:

1) How similar are these two films?

Answer: Very.  Both feature leads who are “damaged” (again, a Die Hard trademark).  Both feature (duh) assaults on the White House with the people behind these assaults seeking to get their hands on the President of the United States and radically change the world as we know it today (I won’t say more to avoid spoilers).  The heroes in both films also have kids (in one film a boy, in another a girl) who are caught in the middle of all this danger.  Bullets are fired and the bad guys (including an “inside man”) manage to barricade themselves in the White House with the hero plays cat-and-mouse with the villains and is the only one capable of restoring any kind of order.

2) How are the films different?

Let me think here…hmmm….Well, in Olympus Has Fallen the President is played by Aaron Eckhart emulating your typical blue-eyed square-jawed all-American Anglo Saxon Commander In Chief while in White House Down the President is played by Jamie Foxx who is clearly emulating President Barack Obama, complete with wife and daughter (one, not two) and a fight against a cigarette habit.

What else?  As mentioned before, Olympus Has Fallen was a far lower budgeted affair compared to White House Down. Further, there was more going on in White House Down’s script, both in terms of story and ancillary characters, than the previous film.

And that, I believe, is about it for the differences.

So let’s return once again to the films’ similarities.  White House Down, like Olympus Has Fallen, is a perfectly OK action/adventure film that succeeds in killing your time without causing you too much pain or regret.  Having now seen both films, however, I can sincerely state that I no longer want to see either again.  The fact is that both White House Down and Olympus Has Fallen are very much disposable entertainment.  Once seen, I seriously doubt that some time in the near or far future I’m ever going to want to revisit either of these films.

Having said that, one final question: Which is better?  I’d probably have to give a very slight edge to White House Down.  That film benefits from its larger budget as well as the slightly better script and a slightly more interesting cast of characters around the hero/President.

Still, I’ve reached my lifetime quota of White House assault films.

Movies

East Meets West…

10 Asian Movies Remade by Hollywood:

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/12/05/east-meets-west-10-asian-movies-remade-by-hollywood/

Not to sound too full of myself (I know, I know…too late! 😉 ), but the main reason I checked the list out was to see how many of the features I already knew about…and, conversely, to see what might surprise me.

The one that wound up surprising me was entry #9, Il Mare, a film that was remade as…The Lake House.  I’ve always had a fondness for The Lake House, starring Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, because it presents an intriguing romance pleasantly mixed with time travel/sci-fi elements.  Perhaps that’s the way I like romantic films: When they feature elements not usually associated with them (check out, for example, Grosse Point Blank, perhaps my favorite romantic comedy, a film that featured hit men!)

For those who don’t know about either Il Mare or The Lake House, the plot involves a man and woman who communicate with each other via mail left in a mailbox in front of the referred to lake house.  The two come to realize that they live in different times: the woman lives in the lake house in “the present” while the man occupied the same residence two years before.  As the film plays out, there are indications the man may have met his end in the interval.

The two develop a romantic attachment even as the present day woman tries to figure out what happened to this man.

No, the American film is far from perfect, but the charisma of the two leads and the intriguing story line made the film a pleasant diversion.  I’ll have to check out the original.

Movies

About that Khan reveal…

…so director/writer J. J. Abrams noted in an interview that the reveal that Benedict Cumberbatch’s character in Star Trek Into Darkness (from now on I’ll refer to it as STID) was Khan was perhaps not handled as well as it should have been:

http://www.slashfilm.com/j-j-abrams-admits-keeping-khan-secret-in-star-trek-into-darkness-was-a-mistake/

I think Mr. Abrams states the obvious by this point and, no, I’m not trying to be snarky.  In fact, this is perhaps why Mr. Abrams has succeeded as well as he has in a business as cut throat as the one he’s involved in.  It shows he’s capable of looking around, assessing, and adjusting.

I’m certain there are plenty of directors who in his shoes would never in a lifetime admit something they did was “wrong” in any way.  For that matter, there are plenty of people in many other lines of work who would be loathe to admit they ever did anything wrong (I have yet to hear a mea culpa for anything that occurred during the previous Republican President’s term).

I suspect that those working behind the scenes of STID came into the venture clearly wanting to put their spin on the Khan storyline.  Unfortunately, they got so wrapped up in trying to “surprise” their viewers of the character’s identity that they ultimately tripped over their own feet in that reveal.

The fact is that the original 1982 Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan had the villain’s name in its title and yet other than die hard Star Trek fans, few knew who the heck Khan was or why he was all “wrathing” on the Star Trek characters.  But the movie filled you in on all the information you needed in very short order.  In his introductory scenes, Khan and his group were given a complete backstory that allowed audiences to know he was a very dangerous and clever villain.  By the time Captain Kirk and Khan were about to cross paths for the first time, my stomach was in a knot, knowing that Kirk and his crew were innocently walking into a lion’s den…and there was a real doubt as to whether he would be able to survive that first encounter (check out Kirk’s reaction to seeing Khan at the five minute mark).

Excellent, excellent stuff.

But STID tried to hide Khan’s character from audiences until he was face to face with Kirk by the film’s second half.  Then, when Khan reveals his identity, actor Benedict Cumberbatch delivers the line as if it is some major revelation…yet in this Star Trek universe, this is the very first meeting between the characters and therefore the whole thing is decidedly anti-climactic.

In The Wrath of Khan, Kirk is surprised, amazed, and more than a little horrified by the return of this very bad man.  In STID, however, since the characters haven’t met this person before and have no knowledge of his backstory until he tells them, this big reveal is a big…nothing.

In the end, all that effort to hide the identity of the villain proved useless or, even worse, distracting from the overall film.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I enjoyed STID when I saw it in theaters but thinking about the film and the passage of time have certainly dulled my enjoyment and thoughts of the film.  I’m not completely down on it, however, but feel that while it did succeed in certain respects it surely did fail in others.

General, Movies

Busy weekend…

…at least for me.  Plenty of stuff to do and things to see and read.

Perhaps the one thing that stunned me the most was the death of actor Paul Walker.  I was never a huge fan of his though I have to admit I’ve seen a large number of his films.  Early reports of his death via a terrible automobile accident state he was a passenger and not the driver of the car but that “speed was involved”.  I feel for those he left behind, particularly his young daughter and family.

At the time of his death, he was scheduled to film more scenes for the upcoming Fast & Furious 7, obviously the seventh film in this popular movie franchise.  Hopefully without sounding too crass, I couldn’t help but wonder what the status of that film is.

Given the fact that he was scheduled to film some more scenes, Mr. Walker obviously didn’t finish all his work for the movie.  Was there enough to finish the film without making major changes to the script?  Or will extensive reworking become necessary?  Unlike the death of Heath Ledger before the release of The Dark Knight and given the way Mr. Walker died, the idea of seeing him in a film about people who recklessly drive fast cars might seem a tad…uncomfortable.  In light of this, is it better to remove his character entirely from the film?

I suppose all that is irrelevant for the time being.  A life was lost in a most tragic way.  It reminds me of the death of James Dean so many years before, also in a car accident.  Both were young men who were peaking in their fields and likely had bright futures ahead of them.

James Dean made only three feature films before his career was prematurely ended.  He also made an eerie public service announcement that I’ll embed below.  Getting behind the wheel of a car and driving fast can be an exhilarating, adrenaline rush.  But our bodies are fragile and we must be sure that whatever we do, we do it with safety in mind.  Otherwise, the consequences can be tragic.

Movies

21 Real Deleted Scenes…

…That Completely Changed Famous Movies:

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_707_21-real-deleted-scenes-that-completely-change-famous-movies_p21/

Now, let me be upfront and say the following: Some of these deleted scenes didn’t really change the famous movie they’re from.  Not all that much, anyway.

For example, the deleted scene from Jaws is amusing but hardly a game changer in terms of what occurs in that movie.  The same goes with the J. J. Abrams’ directed Star Trek.  Interesting little scene, for sure, and it adds information to the young James Kirk’s hardly idyllic life, but it doesn’t radically alter what comes afterwards.

On the other hand, the slide show points out some genuinely interesting cut sequences that do indeed change the film, sometimes for the better.  For example, I wish that Superman II had kept the three Kryptonians being hauled off by the police at the very end.  I always felt that having them fall into what seemed like a very deep pit was…disturbing.  Superman should not kill or allow someone to die.  And, no, I have not seen Man of Steel yet.  I’ll give my opinion on that soon enough.

The cut sequence regarding Dallas’ fate in Alien, likewise, is a fascinating bit as well.  Interestingly enough, that sequence wound up being the entire basis of Aliens!  Ironically enough, Aliens featured a scene similar to this Dallas scene, and it too wound up being cut.  It isn’t mentioned in the above article, so I’ve embedded it below.  Check it out:

Finally, I thought the cut sequence in Star Trek II was interesting and certainly added to the pain Scotty felt for the deceased crew member.  But, was the scene necessary in the end?  Shouldn’t Scotty -and the rest of the senior crew, for that matter- feel bad about every young crew member’s death?

Books/Literature, Movies

5 Great Movies…

…That Were Turned Into Terrible Books:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20681_5-great-movies-that-were-turned-into-terrible-books.html

Gotta hand it to the folks at Cracked.com for this list.  There was a time when novelizations of movies were quite in vogue.  We are not talking about novels that were written and released and subsequently made into films.  We’re talking about hiring an author, while a movie is being made, to write a “novelization” of the film in production.  Said novel is then released concurrently with the film to allow the studios to make more money off their product.

I used to read a few of the ones that interested me, in particular those that were about films I was dying to see.  Oftentimes, the novelization of the film would be released a month or more before the film was in theaters, and in those pre-internet days it was rare to hear much about the film before its release.

Way back in 1989, for example, I would literally kill to see the Tim Burton directed Batman. All that was known was that Michael Keaton was playing Bruce Wayne/Batman (and the fan base was really confused about that choice) but, on the bright side, Jack Nicholson was playing the Joker, and that had everyone thinking good thoughts.

Some time shortly before the film was released I got my hands on the Batman novelization.  As it turned out, I didn’t get a chance to read it before seeing the film…

I was of two minds with the Batman film.  While I really, really loved the first half of the film and my young(er) mind would easily give that first half four stars, roughly from the point immediately after the Joker states “Wait til they get a load of me!” on, the film became overly weird and…silly.  It was as if the movie’s makers were winging (no pun intended) it from that scene, allowing the Joker to do his increasingly crazy (and for the most part pointless) stuff while Batman slowly comes after him.

A little after seeing the film, I decided, just for the heck of it, to read the novelization.  What I read wound up surprising me.  The first half of the book, if memory serves, followed the film pretty closely.  However, the second half of the book -again, if memory serves- was almost nothing like the second half of the film.  Not that it was any better, mind you, than the film, but clearly this was a movie/novelization that featured a pretty good first half but never could come up with an equally good second half.

I can only guess that the novelization followed the screenplay and the screenplay, as the film was being made, was essentially tossed out in the second half and reworked “on the fly”.

My most vivid memory of something in the novel not featured in the movie is a sequence where Bruce Wayne goes to visit Vicki Vale (Kim Basinger) in her apartment for a date.  The Joker, it turns out, has developed an interest in Vicki and, as Bruce and Vicki are about to leave the apartment on their date, the Joker appears at the door.  Bruce and the Joker talk to each other (a sequence I can only imagine was designed to allow Michael Keaton to actually act opposite Jack Nicholson without having a disguise on) and in the end the Joker either knocks out or shoots Bruce Wayne, apparently killing him, and kidnapping Vicki.

Bruce, it turns out, was carrying a metal tray or had some kind of bullet proof suit on and the bullet was stopped by said item.  Bruce leaps out the window after the two (who still think he’s dead) and jumps from building to building (sans Batman suit) while pursuing them, in touch with Alfred and telling him where he is so that he can bring the Batman suit to him.  Eventually, he does.

Yet again, I must warn you: I’m going by very old memories here, so some of the details presented above may not be quite right, but this sequence, obviously, wasn’t part of the Batman film.

A curiosity, for sure!

 

Movies

The Kings of Summer (2013) a (mildly) belated review

Found the trailer for The Kings of Summer attached to another movie and found it quite humorous:

So I put the film on my Netflix que and soon enough it arrived.  Yesterday I finally had a chance to see the film.  Did it live up to this delightful trailer?

Well…

Kinda.

The first half of the film, which is most in evidence in the trailer, is damn good as we meet the three leads, a trio of high school friends who decide to make a home in the woods so they can live as “men”.  First up is Joe (Nick Robinson), the instigator, who finds it increasingly difficult to live with his moody widowed father (Nick Offerman in a role that while still using what are his standard -and very humorous- comedic tropes, nonetheless gives him a chance to present a character who is genuinely hurting inside).  Next up is Joe’s friend Patrick (Gabriel Brasso) who also has considerable trouble with his parents, to the point where he has developed hives.  Rounding out the group is the genuinely bizarre Biaggio (Moises Arias), who is given the lion’s share of funny lines and reactions.

Along with a need to get out of his house, Joe also pines for Kelly (Erin Moriarty), a High School crush who likes him as a friend, though it is his sincere hope that one day they might become more.

In that first half of the film the boys run away from their homes and build their “new” house in the woods while their worried parents engage the police (a bungling -and also quite hilarious- duo played by Mary Lynn Rajskub and Thomas Middleditch) to help find them.

With me so far?

As I was saying, I loved the first half of the film but, unfortunately, the second half was nearly as good.  The second half of the film tries to tone down the humor and bring in more drama.  I didn’t really mind the shift that much but was bothered by a feeling that Jordan Vogt-Roberts, the director, was drawing things out and, to be blunt, becoming too “artsy” in his presentation.

What was until that point a delightful rush became a slog.  There were several sequences that didn’t feel like they needed to be in the film and should have either been cut down significantly or removed entirely (why did we need to see the extended preparation of the rabbit?  Why did we need to see those two young impulsive lovers who bump into Joe in the river?).  The “artsy” bits and pieces presented here and there, of nature and flowers and animals and water, after a while also felt like overkill.

By the time the film ended, I was truly torn.  On the one hand, the first half plus of the film was delightful and achieved a beautiful balance between being laugh out loud funny while still presenting a realistic/serious picture of what it is like to be a young teen with “difficult” parents.  The adults, who could have been treated as cardboard “jokes” were given more depth than initially met the eye, in particular in the portrayal of Joe’s father.

But that second half of the film ruined most, if not all, that goodwill.

In the end, I find it difficult to recommend this film in spite of the many, many good things to be found within it.  Truly, that is a shame.  However, even if the movie didn’t ultimately work for me in its entirely, director Vogt-Roberts created enough good stuff for me to keep him on my radar.

I’m looking forward to seeing more from him.

Movies

The return of…Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.E.R.?

Interesting article from Huffington Post regarding the settlement between MGM, the production company Danjaq, and the estate of Kevin McClory.  What does this have to do with James Bond’s arch-villain and head of the evil organization known as S.P.E.C.T.E.R., Ernst Stavro Blofeld?  Read on and learn:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/17/james-bond-settlement-blofeld-return_n_4291697.html

For those who wondered what the deal was with Sean Connery’s last (until now unofficial) outing as James Bond, 1983’s Never Say Never Again, a thinly veiled remake of the 1965 Bond film Thunderball, the answers can be found in that article.

For those unwilling to check the article out, the bottom line is this: Mr. McClory collaborated with James Bond creator/author Ian Fleming with some concepts that he felt Mr. Fleming eventually “appropriated” without attribution and in the novel Thunderball.  In the making of the 1965 movie, Mr. McClory came up with both the white-Persian-cat petting Blofeld and S.P.E.C.T.E.R.  Blofeld, always played by a different actor in film, would become Bond’s arch-villain and appear not only in Thunderball but in the three subsequent Bond films You Only Live Twice (1967), On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) and Diamonds Are Forever (1971).

After that four movie run as Bond’s archvillain, Blofeld abruptly disappeared from the series until returning in the intro segment of the 1981 Roger Moore Bond film For Your Eyes Only (perhaps due to the McClory lawsuit, the Blofeld-like character in this segment went unnamed even though he looked, acted, and carried a white Persian cat suspiciously like the one Blofeld had).

Mr. McClory apparently managed a favorable enough legal ruling regarding his contributions to Thunderball that this allowed another studio company to use the Bond, Blofeld, and S.P.E.C.T.E.R. concept and story in Sean Connery’s very last (unofficial) outting as James Bond in Never Say Never Again.

So fast forward to the above article.  If the issues regarding Thunderball have been resolved, it means that not only could Never Say Never Again become part of “official” Bondian lore, but the character of Blofeld and his organization might just make a return.  I suspect this is what the makers of the recent Daniel Craig Bond films are eager to do.  They hinted to a worldwide organization behind the villains of the three Daniel Craig films though they never outright stated that the organization was S.P.E.C.T.E.R.

Could be interesting…

Books/Literature, General, Movies, Music

Blockbuster, RIP

Interesting article by Dana Stevens for Slate magazine regarding the news that the owners of Blockbuster are closing all remaining retail centers, effectively ending the era of the big video rental stores:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2013/11/blockbuster_closing_why_even-those_of_us_who_hated_the_chain_will_miss_it.html

When Blockbuster first came along, there were more than a few “Mom & Pop” video stores around renting those pre-historic VHS tapes for film fans to watch.  Those who weren’t around back then don’t remember the way the film market used to be.  Recent movies took forever to be released to the home market and, when they were, they cost a lot to buy.  It wasn’t unheard of to see “new release” films go for as much as $50-85.  Further, that “new” film often took over a year -sometimes much more- before it even reached the home video market.  I distinctly recall the amazed reaction by many when the original Tim Burton directed Batman film was “quickly” released to video.  I can’t recall the exact time it took for the film to be released, but it was perhaps three to six months or so after its theatrical release, a turnaround that was completely unheard of back then but not so much now.

But this was the exception that eventually proved to be the rule.  Again, at the time and given the high price of films, video stores were a necessity.  If you didn’t rent and only bought the films you wanted, you would very quickly go quite broke.  When Blockbuster showed up, the Mom & Pop stores in my area were doomed.  These small stores couldn’t compete against the sheer bulk of material Blockbuster offered.

Even then, one had to be quick as even if Blockbuster had a large number of the latest “new” film available for rent, there were plenty of others trying to get their hands on it as well.

But for me the greatest thing about Blockbuster wasn’t so much the new and desired films, but their vast library of older classic films..  It was thanks to Blockbuster that I became aware of the movies of Stanley Kubrick.  It was also where I discovered Metropolis (the Giorgio Moroder version, which of course lead me to eventually want to see the original, uncut version) and Orpheus, two of my all time favorite films.

I could go on and on…

For all its flaws (and there were many) Blockbuster was a great place for its time.  The first big signs of trouble for the company probably came from the arrival of the DVD and the significant lowering of movie prices.  You could rent a film from Blockbuster for about $5 for three nights, but for another ten dollars or less you could purchase the DVD and own the film outright.

The straw that broke the camel’s back was likely the same as the one that killed music stores (and, sadly, looks to be doing the same to bookstores): computers and the internet.  Not to mention more choices in general.

Why would one go out to a Blockbuster to rent a film when you could Netflix it or stream it or Pay on Demand?  For those far less honest, you could steal a film via downloading it through one of many torrent sites.

So no, I’m not at all surprised Blockbuster has seen its end.  It was expected and, if anything, the only surprise one feels is that it lasted as long as it did.  Yet like Borders, like Circuit City, and like Peaches, I’ll miss her and the era she inhabited.

The world moves on and all that remains are the memories of what once was.