Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
You know the classic image of the mustache-twirling villain tying a white maiden to train tracks? Well, if the maiden were blue, and if it cost $200m to make, you’d have Avatar.
Tom posted this at 10:32 PM EST on Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 as Film Rants
Of the two films I’ve seen that co-star Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger, this one was most faithful to its source material.
Tom posted this at 12:03 AM EDT on Friday, September 11th, 2009 as Film Rants
Roger Ebert has a must read post on the 30th anniversary of John Wayne’s death. He sums up as well as I’ve ever read what made John Wayne so great:
On screen he held so much authority so that he was not even being ironic when he explained his theory of acting: “Don’t act. React.” John Wayne, you see, could react. Others actors had to strain the limits of their craft to hold the screen with him. There is this test for an actor who, for a moment, is just standing there in a scene: Does he seem to be just standing there? Or does he, as John Wayne always did, appear to be deciding when, and why, and how to take the situation under his control?
And the Duke himself, expressing his thoughts on the greatest American art form:
But when you think about the Western–ones I’ve made, for example. ‘Stagecoach,’ ‘Red River,’ ‘The Searchers,’ a picture named ‘Hondo’ that had a little depth to it–it’s an American art form. It represents what this country is about. In ‘True Grit,’ for example, that scene where Rooster shoots the rat. That was a kind of reference to today’s problems. Oh, not that ‘True Grit’ has a message or anything. But that scene was about less accommodation, and more justice.
They keep bringing up the fact that America’s for the downtrodden. But this new thing of genuflecting to the downtrodden, I don’t go along with that. We ought to go back to praising the kids who get good grades, instead of making excuses for the ones who shoot the neighborhood grocery man. But, hell, I don’t want to get started on that
Of course, it’s Ebert, and the Duke was one of the great Hollywood right-wingers of yore, so politics can’t slip past unnoticed. Ebert’s fair enough, except for observing “I believe [Wayne] would have had contempt for the latter-day weirdos of the Right.” Yeah, right. Wayne supported Nixon and the war, he supported Reagan’s runs for governor. He was a through-and-through reactionary, and it’s impossible to imagine him any other way.
Apollo posted this at 8:33 PM EDT on Friday, June 12th, 2009 as Amer-I-Can!, Belles Lettres, Film Rants
No more time travel. And, if that request is too much, at least don’t tell us that time travel is what happens when you go into a black hole. It reminded me of that scene in one of the Spidermans where they put out a fusion reaction by putting it in water. I understand that it’s too much to ask that you have even the vaguest appreciation of the science you deal with, but perhaps you could run these things by a high school physics student once before the script goes to final production. Along those lines, if you blow something up at the event horizon, the light from that explosion will not escape the black hole. That’s because light from an explosion – even a really, really big one – does not travel faster than light.
But that’s just being nitpicky The main point is this: NO MORE TIME TRAVEL.
Apollo posted this at 1:35 AM EDT on Monday, May 11th, 2009 as Film Rants
Christian Toto tries to explain why Ms. Ryan’s career is unlikely to come back:
Ryan is a good example of what happens to too many older actresses. Sure, you’ll always have the exceptions — Meryl Streep and Judi Dench come to mind. But only Streep remains red-hot, commercially speaking, at the ripe age of 59.
Ryan, the ’90s rom-com princess, could command big paychecks. Romantic comedies are where actresses shine, both commercially and in the hearts and minds of movie goers.
Just think back to Goldie Hawn and Doris Day before her.
Today, Ryan is often seen in direct to video fare (”The Deal,” “My Mom’s New Boyfriend”). She still looks beautiful even if she may have dabbled in some plastic surgery. And her figure remains to die for.
But she’d need Quentin Tarantino to stage an entire film around her to give her career that ol’ A-list juice.
Then you have Rourke, an actor who seemingly spent the last decade burning every bridge in sight. And his face is a Jackson Pollock painting of age, boxing losses and who knows what.
But he came this close to beating out Sean Penn for the Best Actor Oscar over the weekend and is in talks to star in “Iron Man 2.”
The one movie in which I liked Meg Ryan was Courage Under Fire; perhaps not coincidentally, she died horribly in it. But more important than that, she was NOT in a chick flick or rom-com. Perhaps a large part of the trouble is that actresses try to do rom-coms long after they should have moved on. John Wayne always played John Wayne because being a tough guys, like fine wine, improve with age, but actresses must get beyond My Mom’s New Boyfriend. Note that Meryl Streep wasn’t most recently nominated for a rom-com but for playing a hard edged nun. Ingenues sparkle in gooey rom-coms, but grande dames need to get out of the candy shop and into the forge. Ms. Ryan needs needs roles that showcase iron will, steely determination, brassy self-confidence; the heart of gold is optional and might be a counterproductive. (See the careers of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford.) It’d be nice to see some more actresses evolve. Helen Mirren and Judy Dench won’t be around forever. I somehow doubt Meg Ryan will evolve, but one never knows.
Hubbard posted this at 5:14 PM EST on Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 as Film Rants, Ladies, Gentlemen, and the Rest of us
Burt Prelutsky rips into this year’s batch of Oscar bait, and he makes Apollo look like Little Bo Peep. I haven’t seen all the movies, but I agree with him on The Reader. Kate Winslet rocks. Otherwise:
I thought that Sean Penn, who generally strikes me as hammier than pigs feet, was absolutely believable as Harvey Milk, the homosexual activist who was the first openly gay American elected to public office. But the movie, itself, plays like a, well, fairy tale. Every gay character is decent, witty, warm, wise, charming and courageous. In a year or two, I fully expect that “Milk! The Musical!” will open on Broadway, with Nathan Lane in the lead.
“Changeling,” directed by Clint Eastwood, stars Angelina Jolie in one of those dowdy roles that glamour girls take on in the hope of snatching up an Oscar. Eastwood seems to feel that if he leaves “The” off his titles, as in “Unforgiven” and the 141-minute “Changeling,” he’s made enough of a concession to the Philistines. Speaking on behalf of Philistines everywhere, I say it would be better if he edited his movies instead of his titles.
That brings us to “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” If you think the title is a mouthful, you ain’t seen nothing. The movie is 159 minutes long. That’s just 41 minutes less than “Casablanca” and “The Maltese Falcon” put together! “Button” certainly has its nice moments, but at that length, how could it not? Briefly, it is the life story of a man who, for no discernible reason, is born old and becomes younger as the years go by. On the other hand, if you happen to be young when you sit down to watch it, you’ll be eligible for Social Security by the time it’s over.
Prelutsky complains about the movies as long as fourth grade. It recalls Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a novel: a short story padded.
As regards the lousy movies this year, a quote from William Goldman: “Every Oscar night you look back and realize that last year was the worst year in the history of Hollywood.”
Hubbard posted this at 4:14 PM EST on Friday, January 30th, 2009 as Film Rants
Hey Jamie–
I bet you didn’t know that Scalia was one of us. (H/T)
Hubbard posted this at 7:40 AM EST on Thursday, January 29th, 2009 as Film Rants, Humor
I didn’t realize how terribly Frost/Nixon had done at the box office. Less than $15 million! Jeez, if you added up the value of all the Frost/Nixon advertisements I have personally seen, it would come close to $15 million. Somebody lost their shirt on this one; probably their shorts, too. You could have made more money renting out theaters as places for weary travelers to sleep.*
When your advertisements tell people that you’ve made a movie about the fact that some people in Hollywood don’t like Richard Nixon, one should expect this type of response. All of the old Nixon haters are dead or too old to go to theaters; all of the young hippies are curious why the movie isn’t called Frost/Bush.
Though that might not have done too well either. Despite a ridiculous media blitz during the most politicized year in living memory, W. was the 104th best grossing moving of 2008. I originally thought boxofficemojo had screwed up and not listed it, until I saw that their first page only listed the top 100. Of course, it was a big hit compared to Frost/Nixon.
*And, somehow, Frost/Nixon is only the fourth worst grosser of the Best Picture nominees; The Reader makes Frost/Nixon look like, um, well, a movie that people saw. A few weeks ago, I actually got a phone call from Sid Ganis advising me that a 30-second clip of my cat I took using my digital camera – GracieCoughsHairball3.avi – had been nominated for Best Picture, but I declined and suggested they nominate something that had reached a larger audience. Hence, The Reader. That’s a true story.
P.S. Paul Blart: Mall Cop has been the #1 movie for three consecutive weekends.
Apollo posted this at 11:23 PM EST on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 as Film Rants
Hurricanes and Hitler are often cited as the most difficult challenges to the belief that God is good. A more compelling answer is He has deprived us of the chance to have a young Clint Eastwood play President Andrew Jackson.
 |
 |
| Old Hickory | Young Easty |
Tom posted this at 2:00 PM EST on Thursday, November 20th, 2008 as Faith, Film Rants
The teaser trailer for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is simply beautiful.
Look at just how much storytelling can be made in a just under two minutes, and with only three sentences of dialog and a minute and a half of music. Stunning.
At the risk of sounding like Apollo, the Oscars are filled with crap nobody cares about. A ‘best trailer’ category would be fun, interesting, and would honor an art form that — though hardly neglected — is certainly unappreciated.
NB: I haven’t seen W., but the trailer contains ironic use of “What A Wonderful World.” This is blasphemy against cleverness.
Tom posted this at 3:04 PM EDT on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 as Film Rants
I’m not sure what any of this means, except that Hollywood writers enjoy making movies that portray Republicans in a bad light.
Apollo posted this at 2:44 AM EDT on Sunday, October 19th, 2008 as Amer-I-Can!, Film Rants
Fact 1: Oliver Stone keeps making movies that cover topics I’m interested in. See 1, 2, 3, 4.
Fact 2: Oliver Stone keeps making movies that bore me to death. See 1, 2, 3, 4. See again 1.
Fact 3: The previews for W. make it look interesting.
Fact 4: The previews for Alexander made it look interesting.
Fact 5: There is a fantastic movie to be made about George W. Bush. And it may include a [tiny] part of the left’s weird insistence that the last 8 years are best understood as a mediocre son trying to outdo his heroic father.
Fact 6: That movie will not be made by Oliver Stone.
Existential Whine 1: Why must the Hollywood director whose interests most closely correspond to mine be an unrepentant Communist?
Apollo posted this at 7:47 PM EDT on Monday, October 13th, 2008 as Film Rants, George Bush Rules!, George Bush Sucks!, Ourselves
In 1984, Rob Riener, Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer introduced us to Spinal Tap — a fictional British rock band that is at varying times a satire on the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and probably half a dozen other British Invasion bands — with their fake documentary This Is Spinal Tap.
For anyone who hasn’t seen This is Spinal Tap, I cannot possibly recommend it too much. Besides having a hilarious script and some of the best chemistry between actors I’ve ever seen, the songs in the film manage to be just good enough for you to believe ‘Tap had once been to popular, while being just bad enough enough for you to be certain that you wouldn’t have been one of the people who would have liked them.
In one of the deleted scenes, the band endorses a meat pastry with the painfully awful brand name of ‘Rock ‘n Rolls’:
While shopping at the supermarket the other day, my girlfriend called my attention to this new product endorsed by Hannah Montana:
Tom posted this at 12:03 PM EDT on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 as Film Rants, Nerdom
Last month, Andrew Klavan argued that The Dark Knight is a simple
“paean of praise to the fortitude and moral courage that has been shown by George W. Bush in this time of terror and war (and) …a conservative movie about the war on terror. And like another such film, last year’s “300,”* “The Dark Knight” is making a fortune depicting the values and necessities that the Bush administration cannot seem to articulate for beans.
On National Review’s Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson attempted to Klavan to task for this, put found himself unequal to Klavan’s rejoinder that “‘Aw, come on’ is not an argument.” As I wrote recently, Klavan makes a foolish
one-to-one equation of Batman and his tactics, to President Bush and his efforts to fight terrorism domestically.
President Bush is an elected public official responsible for ensuring the safety of his constituents and the protection of their rights. Now, does that make him more like the Gotham’s A) millionaire playboy turned chiropterian-themed vigilante, or B) its district attorney?
And what did the movie have to say when Harvey Dent adopted Batman’s modes of crime-fighting? It condemned them and not only because Dent/Two Face went too far: but because it acknowledged that some things that are appropriate for vigilante Batman are not appropriate for DA Harvey Dent.
One other thing of note is that Batman “push[es] the boundaries of civil rights” under much more limited circumstances than President Bush does. When Batman tortures the Joker, he’s doing it in response to a literal ticking time bomb; when uses his sonar-thingy to tap into all of Gotham’s cell phones, he gives control of it to a man who he knows will destroy the device as soon as the crisis is passed. The Bush administration has seen little need for this kind of sunsetting, and when it does provide provisions to allow new government powers to lapse, it insinuates that anyone who would allow such a thing to happen is a squishy-dove liberal.
Geoffrey sometimes speaks of some conservatives’ masturbatory fantasies of a real show down with Islam; this Batman-equals-Bush thing is its kissin’ cousin.
Tom posted this at 10:12 AM EDT on Friday, September 12th, 2008 as Conservatism, Film Rants
The Joker has been in two major movies, portrayed by Jack Nicholson in 1989’s Batman and by Heath Ledger in 2008’s The Dark Knight. Both Nicholson and Ledger managed to capture the essence of the Joker, a perverse and gleeful destructiveness. How this evil was portrayed on screen roughly a generation apart shows how our imaginations declined.
In both movies, his victims and henchmen get his fatal punchlines. (One wonders why anybody would work for the Joker, since he seems to kill off more of his henchmen than the police or Batman ever manage.) Although both Batman and The Dark Knight were rated PG-13, the latter’s much higher body count and disturbing images should have given it an R rating, particularly if movies like Clerks and Southpark got the scarlet R. Parents could feel comfortable taking older grade school aged children to Batman, but not to The Dark Knight.
In each movie, both Jokers justify their mayhem with philosophy. “I’m not a monster,” says the Ledger Joker. “I’m just ahead of the curve.” After explaining that rules for normal people don’t apply to him, the Nicholson Joker proclaims, “I make art until someone dies. See? I am the world’s first fully functioning homicidal artist.” Ledger waged war on the present, but Nicholson ravaged the past.
A key to the Joker’s character is that he would love to see civilization destroyed. The Ledger Joker made this point with explosions in hospitals and by trying to manipulate police into killing patients rather than criminals. Few things are more perverse than trying to trick good men into killing the innocent. The Nicholson Joker, however, did something at once less violent and more grotesque: he desecrated a museum. With the glee of a child squashing sandcastles, he sprayed graffiti on portraits and shattered sculptures. It’s not enough for the Nicholson Joker to kill the living; he has to destroy the past’s connections with the future. A grade school kid probably won’t get the full implications of the desecration of the art, but he’ll understand that he’s watching a terrible evil.
The great strength of The Dark Knight over Batman is that it deals with bigger issues: human goodness in the face of meaningless and random evil. The great weakness of The Dark Knight is that it relies on violence to make points that Batman made obliquely; it’s the difference between bombing a hospital and wrecking a museum. We seem to be in an era where nobody expects the audience to use their imaginations, and that explains why The Dark Knight had to be more explicit than Batman was to show the same evil. The screenwriters showed wild imagination to show evils in The Dark Knight, but the screenwriters in Batman trusted viewers to use their imaginations to see evil.
Hubbard posted this at 9:29 PM EDT on Sunday, August 3rd, 2008 as Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Film Rants