2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > July
July 2006
Mel Gibson’s gettin’ too old for this …
Mel Gibson’s next film as a director is called Apocalypto, but that might as well be the title for the state of his affairs.
As you may have read by now, Mel got himself into a world of trouble over the weekend. Not only was he arrested for DUI, but he allegedly made a number of anti-Semitic remarks towards the officers. It certainly doesn’t help that charges of anti-Semitism have dogged Gibson before.
Gibson issued an unusually contrite mea culpa, but it seems to be a tacit admission of wrongdoing, and some Hollywood observers say the damage has been done. When a person who advises Michael Jackson says your career is over, that has to give you pause. That guy knows about careers being over.
All the same, I’m not convinced Gibson did any mortal damage here. His best strategy may be to keep directing and stay out of the spotlight as much he can.
He’ll take a hit for now, which might put a dent in Apocalypto’s box office unless Apocalypto is another Braveheart. However, The Passion of the Christ was such a turning point for him that he may have been moving toward staying behind the camera anyway. As long as he lays low for awhile, I think he’ll eventually be OK, and history has shown that the public can be as fickle about celebrities as they can about taste in movies.
What are your thoughts? Did Mel dig his grave here? Would you see him in a movie again, whether he’s directing or starring? And does this incident make you more or less inclined to see Apocalypto? Or does it even make any difference?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: Celebrities
Plenty of vice in Mann’s ‘Miami’
If you go into Miami Vice expecting pastels, flamingos, an ‘80s soundtrack and a crocodile named Elvis, prepare to be surprised. The movie bears only a passing resemblance to the TV show – but is all the better for it.
After a rash of TV shows turned movies (Bewitched, The Dukes of Hazzard) that practically screamed, “Look! Weren’t we silly/stupid for liking this junk?� the gritty realism of Miami Vice cleanses the palette.
Michael Mann, who executive-produced the TV show, directs this movie very much in the style of his films Heat and Collateral. No one is better than Mann at making these kinds of intimate yet intense crime dramas.
That said, Miami Vice is the least of these three films, boasting neither the emotional impact of Heat, nor the propulsive energy of Collateral. Even so, Mann’s nerve-fraying directing still packs a wallop, elevating his somewhat slight script.
Detectives Crockett and Tubbs (Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx) go undercover posing as smugglers to bust a drug operation by the dangerous Jose Yero (John Ortiz). His associate, Isabella (Gong Li), helps broker the drug deal by hooking up with Crockett and Tubbs – especially Crockett.
Vice’s chief weakness is overlength – the 130-minute running time can’t quite support the story. After a strong start, the movie’s energy wanes in its midsection, as Mann gets too carried away with atmospherics, such as the overuse of extreme close-ups, which also bogged down Mann’s Ali biopic.
Such indulgences aside, Mann directs better than he writes, and the action scenes and the chemistry between the actors make up for the dry patches.
Foxx and Farrell are strong leads, and it’s especially nice to see Foxx play a role almost completely straight, without falling back on the comedy that can sometimes make his presence seem smarmy. Farrell is perhaps a touch too introspective, but the moving performance by the outstanding Chinese actress Gong Li makes their affair smolder.
Mann pulls out all the stops for a climax that left me breathless, particularly in an almost unbearably powerful hostage scene. As he did in Collateral, Mann shoots most of Miami Vice with digital cameras, giving the movie a documentary-like immediacy. Parts of Miami Vice struck me as being like an action-heavy expansion of scenes from Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic.
I wished Mann could have sustained that energy throughout Miami Vice, but despite its weaknesses, the movie has stayed with me thanks to Mann’s singular ability to get under my skin and raise the hairs on the back of my neck. The TV show should have been this good more often. GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Reviews
What was your first R-rated movie?
A discussion I had with GO editor Mandy Gambrell about the best racing movies led to this interesting query: What was your first R-rated movie?
For most kids, entry into their first R movie is kind of a rite of passage; one that stays with them for a long time - usually because the scary R-rated movie scared the bejeusus out of them.
For better or worse, my own experience is not so dramatic. My parents were pretty freewheeling about what I watched, so the R-rated movie never became the forbidden golden ticket for me. Heck, my dad likes to tell the story of how he took me to see the John Landis movie Schlock, and I yelled out in my loudest 4-year-old voice, “What the fudge was that?”
Only I didn’t say “fudge.” Schlock wasn’t t R-rated, but my mouth nearly was. (By today’s standards my outburst would be PG-13. The F-bomb has to be used as a verb to merit an R.)
So I can’t say with certainty what my first R-rated movie in the theater was. Beverly Hills Cop is my best guess. I do know that one of the first R-rated movies I saw on TV was Blazing Saddles, and I remember being confused at the gay jokes in the Hollywood chorus line. And, of course, the double entendre of names like Lili Von Shtupp sailed right over my head.
The first R-rated movie that traumatized me was Alien. Couldn’t get past the chest-bursting scene. And you’re talking to a kid who thought it was scary when Bill Bixby turned into the Hulk.
So tell me - what was your first R-rated movie? Please do try to keep the comments PG-rated!
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Moviegoing
Home (Re) Viewing: Classics and cartoons
Let’s see, what’s in the new release section this week?
The Benchwarmers: Didn’t see it. And besides, the more I think about that movie, the more my face twists into a painful expression of scorn.
Final Destination 3: People who want to see Final Destination 3 don’t read reviews, and people who read reviews won’t see Final Destination 3, so I’m leaving this one alone. Come to think of it, that applies to The Benchwarmers as well.
Well, back to the classics section again!
From the catalog
Bogie & Bacall – The Signature Collection: This Amazon.com exclusive packages all four films that one of Hollywood’s greatest couples made together, and even the “worst� of the bunch is still imminently watchable.
To Have and Have Not: See Bogie and Bacall fall for each other onscreen while the same thing was happening offscreen. This sweltering Howard Hawks drama bears more than a passing resemblance to Casablanca, but the couple’s come-ons make this one immortal anyway. Besides, you know how to whistle, don’t you, Steve? Grade: A-
The Big Sleep: My favorite of their pictures features a plot that’s so dense and complex, even its original author, Raymond Chandler, couldn’t keep it straight. Still, it’s delicious all the same. The DVD includes a comparison between the released version and a noticeably different pre-release cut. GRADE: A
Dark Passage: The least known of their pictures is this noir-ish thriller that leans a bit too hard on contrivances, but it’s a thrill to watch, especially during the first hour, in which we only hear, but do not see Bogart, with a subjective camera making Bogie’s eyes ours. GRADE: B+
Key Largo: John Huston’s drama about a gangster holding people hostage in a Florida hotel is a touch overwrought, but as an acting showcase it’s top-notch, with Edward G. Robinson and the Oscar-winning Claire Trevor joining Bogie and Bacall. GRADE: A-
TV on DVD
Normally I don’t cover TV shows, but as SRCPutt duly noted yesterday, perhaps the release of the Animaniacs and Pinky and the Brain sets is a clever cross-promotional gimmick by Warner Bros. to promote the misbegotten Lady in the Water, which also uses the word “narf� like Pinky does.
Or maybe not.
Whatever, the case, these were my favorite TV shows of the early 90s, animated or otherwise, with many a movie reference packed into them. Great fun. And remember, Mary had a Little Lamb … with mint jelly. Thank you.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: On Video/DVD
Weekend movies: The half-fab four
Having crawled through Monster House, checked out Clerks II, gotten seasick at Lady in the Water and broken up with My Super Ex-Girlfriend, I found this weekend’s movies to be half successful. The odds were against any movie having a feminine word in the title.
Clerks II: Writer-director Kevin Smith returns to the characters that made him famous, as they find out that life still hasn’t begun at 30-something. Having disappointed fans with the mild Jersey Girl, Smith makes sure to pile on plenty of pop culture riffing and raunchy humor this time. A lot of the material works, like the hilarious Star Wars vs. Lord of the Rings debate, or any scene with the alluring Rosario Dawson. Some of it falls flat, like the obvious and overextended bestiality jokes. What resonates most, though, is the genuine love Smith feels for this crew, which reminds us that he can be classy and crass at the same time. GRADE: B+
Monster House: Well, someone has finally done it — Sony has beaten Pixar at its own game, if only just barely. Frame for frame, this riotous haunted house story tops Cars. Pixar’s movie has more heart, but it sometimes sputtered a little. This movie never does, as promising new director Gil Kenan’s “camera� runs wild, taking us on a dizzying ride like that’s like a Tales from the Crypt episode for the young and young at heart. It’s probably too intense for anyone not yet in second grade, but older kids and geeky/giddy adults will eat it up. GRADE: A
Lady in the Water: I already reviewed this Friday, so I’ll recap here with a one-word reaction: glub. GRADE: D-
My Super Ex-Girlfriend: One of the summer’s best story ideas (vengeful ex-girlfriend is a superhero) turns into one of the most disappointing movies. This film should have been a gas, but it’s mostly gaseous. Instead of developing his inspired ideas, writer Don Payne cheapens them with smarmy or obvious sex gags. Uma Thurman and Anna Faris do their best to make the film fly with appealing performances, but Ivan Reitman’s leaden direction keeps running it into the ground. GRADE: C
Did you see any of the movies this weekend? What did you think?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Reviews
‘Lady in the Water’ drowns
I’m not going to give away the ending of M. Night Shyamalan’s Lady in the Water. However, I need to tell you about the ending of its preview screening this past Tuesday.
As the credits started to roll, many in the audience laughed derisively. One woman griped, “Can I have my time back?”
And me? I sat there dumbfounded, realizing I had just seen the worst movie of the summer, the worst movie Shyamalan has ever made and the movie that will sully his reputation for years to come.
Even if I had given away the ending of the film, it would not have mattered. There is no “twist” this time, unless you count the way Shyamalan has stuck his head so far up his own posterior, he has lost all sense of what entertains an audience.
I can explain how silly the whole enterprise is simply by recounting the plot. Cleveland Heep (Paul Giamatti), a superintendent at an apartment complex, hears strange splashes in the pool after hours. A trembling, sad-eyed waif (Bryce Dallas Howard) comes to his apartment. Her name is Story, and she is sort of a mermaid frightened of attacks by wolf-like creatures called scrunts. Story must find her defenders among the tenants so that an eagle named “the great eatlon” can take her away.
Still with me? I didn’t even talk about the little boy who can solve the mystery by decoding cereal boxes!
The fairy tale mythology is so muddled and patently absurd that after about a half hour, not only did I not understand what was going on, I didn’t care what was going on. Shyamalan should have at least done a quick Google search to realize that by naming a mermaid “narf,” he would make some cartoon fans in the audience respond, “Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering
Even if Shyamalan’s writing was not up to snuff in the past, his strong directing skills would redeem his movies. Not so this time. Fairy tales are supposed to create worlds that are enchanting, but much of this movie is, quite frankly, ugly. Many of the shots are self-consciously arty and pretentious. The director’s tendency to show a crowd scene with the speaker off camera is especially annoying.
The one thing that saved this movie from being a complete failure was the touching chemistry between Howard, who was the best thing about The Village, and the always watchable Giamatti. I very much wished that they were in a movie that deserved their performances.
As I explained yesterday, I’ve admired Shyamalan’s work up to now. I wasn’t out for the writer-director’s blood, because I don’t go to movies wanting to hate them. Instead, I watched sadly as Shyamalan slit his own wrists.
Shyamalan has said that he made this movie for his young daughters so he loves it no matter what. That’s an admirable sentiment, but he won’t be so sanguine when he realizes that Lady in the Water will change his name from a movie’s selling point to a warning.
Speaking of Shyamalan’;s kids, the movie’s dedication reads, “To my daughters. I will tell you this story one more time. Now go to bed.”
My response to Night: “No more bedtime stories, please. We movie audiences aren’t supposed to sleep. Now get over yourself.”
GRADE: D-
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Reviews
M. Night Shyamalan: Where he’s been and where he’s going
“An M. Night Shyamalan Film.” What do those words mean to you?
For a filmmaker whose filmography is not all that long, Shyamalan inspires a great deal of heated debate. Some view him as a unique genius; others see him as a self-obsessed one-trick pony who has exhausted that one trick.
I think Shyamalan falls somewhere between those two extremes. On the eve of the release of Lady in the Water, which will be a watershed film for him (no pun intended), I’ll recap his career up to now and offer some advice.
Wide Awake: I’ve not seen Shyamalan’s debut film, Praying with Anger, but this was his first movie for a major studio. He hadn’t really found his feet yet as a director, and there’s no “twist,” but Shyamalan already shows an affinity for otherworldly themes as he tells the story of a boy who searches for God after his grandfather dies. Shyamalan also reveals a knack for directing young actors, which would become rather important in his follow-up.
The Sixth Sense: That it still works amazingly well long after you know the secret is a testament to Shyamalan’s gifts as a writer and director. Bruce Willis and Haley Joel Osment’s performances give the film its heart, and there’s another young actor who would become famous later: the little girl who died because she was poisoned is a very young Mischa Barton, late of The OC. Pun intended.
Unbreakable: Yeah, the ending is rather obvious if you think about it, but this very unusual superhero tale was highly underrated. Shyamalan’s direction is particularly insightful: notice how in the opening scene on the train, he goes to pains to never show another character in the frame with Willis, heightening Willis’ sense of isolation. Shyamalan has said he envisioned this as a trilogy. I’d love to see the next chapters.
Signs: Some of the writing is overly precious (“swing away”) but Shyamalan was still firing on all thrusters as far as his direction goes, with some suspenseful scenes that would do Hitchcock proud. The ending sequence, with the family holed up in the cellar, is Shyamalan’s riff on Hitch’s The Birds.
The Village: Shyamalan lost a lot of viewers with this one, but it wasn’t nearly as bad as people made it out to be, particularly because of Bryce Dallas Howard’s amazing performance. I will allow, however, that this film doesn’t hold up to repeat viewings because once you know the secret, it doesn’t enrich the story. Night’s “trick ending” hook had backed him into a corner.
I’ll review Lady in the Water tomorrow, so for now, I will only offer this analogy. If The Village found Shyamalan at a crossroads, then Lady in the Water finds him lying in the ditch off the shoulder.
I have long believed that Shyamalan is a much better director than he is a writer. To reclaim some of his luster, he should bring his very distinctive style to someone else’s screenplay. Shyamalan has complained that he can’t talk in anyone else’s “voice,” but I think he forgets that in the movies, your camera can be quite the instrument itself. Steven Spielberg, to whom Shyamalan is often compared, writes very few of his movies and he’s done OK.
I’d like to hear from you. What do you think of Shyamalan’s output up to now, and where should he go from here?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Coming Attractions
May day: Pick Spidey, Jack or Shrek
Earlier this week I asked which of Friday’s movies you are most looking forward to. Today I’d like to extend that question even further into the future.
Next May is shaping up to be one of the biggest record-breakers, with the arrival of sequels to not one, not two, but three film series, all of which can (or are about to ) boast of a $400 million grosser in their lineup: Spider-Man, Shrek and Pirates of the Caribbean. The first Spider-Man and the second Shrek both crested $400 million, and the current Pirates sequel is sailing toward that mark, having already made more than $260 million in only two weeks. (Whistles).
Here’s the lowdown on the three films, in order of release:
Spider-Man 3: Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) battles two villains: the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), and Venom (Topher Grace), a parasitic life form. He also tangles with a new love interest, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) while still trying to work things out with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst), who knows his secret. Due May 4.
Shrek the Third: When his father-in-law, King Harold (John Cleese) falls ill, Shrek (Mike Myers) is looked at as the heir to the land of Far, Far Away. Not one to give up his beloved swamp, Shrek recruits Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss (Antonio Banderas) to install the rebellious Artie (Justin Timberlake) as the new king. Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz), however, rallies a band of royal girlfriends to fend off a coup d’etat by the jilted Prince Charming (Rupert Everett). Due May 18.
Pirates of the Caribbean – At World’s End: Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp), Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley), and a surprise accomplice look to sail off the edge of the map and into uncharted territory. Due May 25.
My choice?
That’s easy. Only one of these series has a film that made my 10 Best List, and that’s Spider-Man 2, which is the best live action superhero movie ever made. If this third movie can keep the series’ delicate balance of action and heart, it should be amazing.
I’ve liked the Pirates and Shrek movies but I find both series to be somewhat overrated. The casting of Cameron Diaz’s real-life beau Timberlake in Shrek The Third strikes me as the ickiest kind of navel-gazing. I would add that with Eric Idle in the cast, the filmmakers will have screwed up massively if he doesn’t have any scenes with John Cleese.
The third Pirates movie holds a lot of promise, especially with the casting of Jack Sparrow’s dad, Keith Richards, whom Depp has said was a model for his performance. I also love the casting of Chow Yun-Fat as one of the new villains. I’m just praying Disney can wrap the series up without dragging it out for three hours-plus.
Which movie would you most like to see? And which do you think will do best at the box office?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Coming Attractions
Home (Re)Viewing: She’s the Man? Nuh-uh!
Once again the classics department at Warner Bros. has put out the best DVD releases this week, although you could certainly do worse than the one mainstream release I caught from this year’s bleak first quarter.
She’s The Man: Amanda Bynes pulls off the somewhat dubious feat of being both the best and the worst thing about this Shakespeare remake by way of a teen movie.
This movie wants to do for Twelfth Night what 10 Things I Hate About You did for The Taming of the Shrew when it launched Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles to stardom. Unfortunately, She’s The Man only wins half the battle of the sexes.
Bynes is a gifted young comedienne and is very winning when she’s playing a girl, but she plays her male guise so broadly I didn’t buy it, even though the dull-witted males in the movie did. Clark Kent would love this crowd. They’re so dense that Clark wouldn’t have to wear glasses to disguise the fact that he’s Superman.
As for She’s The Man, it’s watchable as long as Bynes is the woman - but there was too much faux testosterone for me to give this one a pass. GRADE: C+
Also Out Today
Tsotsi: This drama about a South African Thug who unwittingly kidnaps a baby was this year’s Foreign Language Film Oscar winner.
From the Catalog
Film Noir Collection: Warners cranks out its third collection of starkly lit, hard-boiled dramas, including Lady in the Lake with Robert Montgomery as Philip Marlowe, On Dangerous Ground with Ida Lupino and directed by Nicholas Ray, His Kind of Woman with Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell, The Racket, also with Mitchum; and Border Incident with Ricardo Montalban, directed by Anthony Mann.
Tough Guys Collection: Last year Warner gave us its gangster collection featuring the rough and tumble films that were the studio’s early trademark. This collection broadens the definition a bit, featuring James Cagney in G-Men, City for Conquest and Each Dawn I Die; Humphrey Bogart in San Quentin and Bullets or Ballots and Edward G. Robinson in Bullets and A Slight Case of Murder.
Permalink | | Categories: On Video/DVD
Pick one: Lady, Monster, Clerks or Girlfriend
Now that everybody and their brother and sister and nieces and nephews has seen the Pirates sequel, Hollywood offers us one of its more varied and competitive lineups this weekend, with four big new openings.
Clerks 2: I’m always interested in what Kevin Smith has to show and say. Heck, I even liked Jersey Girl. This follow-up to his first movie probably won’t broaden his cult-ish following, but I’m a member so I’m in.
Lady in the Water: The vultures are already circling around this one. Early reviews are not promising (in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter), suggesting that maybe M. Night Shyamalan is trying too hard to please himself, rather than his audience. Still, Shyamalan is always an interesting filmmaker and I thought The Village was better than most people made it out to be, so I still have hope.
Monster House: This animated adventure uses the same techniques as The Polar Express (live performances form the basis for computer animation), and it seems primed to become the breakout hit of late summer. This is the movie I’m most looking forward to seeing, particularly if I can catch it in 3D. (It won’t be IMAX 3D, but regular 3D, much like Chicken Little had last year.) The real question is: Can this movie beat Pixar at its own game? I won’t rule it out.
My Super Ex-Girlfriend: This movie remains the biggest question mark of the quartet. There is almost no buzz about it, good or bad, and I’m not sure what to make of that. Uma Thurman playing a super-heroine who uses her powers to get even with an ex seems rife with possibilities. There is one good sign: I love the new poster, which looks like this and features the tagline: “If you love someone, set them free.� (Cue Sting.) That’s a great improvement over its lame predecessor, “He broke his heart. She broke his everything.�
So what’s your pick for this Friday? Monster, Night, Uma or Jay and Silent Bob?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Coming Attractions
What About Dupree? Meh.
Universal has sold You, Me and Dupree as this year’s Wedding Crashers. Unfortunately, the filmmakers only got the crash part right, so I’m divorcing myself from this aimless comedy.
Actually, since Owen Wilson plays a lovable misfit instead of the “nice� half of a duo, comparisons to The 40-Year-Old Virgin might be more appropriate. Call this one The 37-Year-Old Teenager.
Then again, that doesn’t work either, because You, Me and Dupree doesn’t have half the humor or heart that Virgin did. Dupree spends so much time aping other, better comedies, it’s a real Frankenstein monster of a movie. It’s like the filmmakers took pieces of Crashers, Virgin, What About Bob, Meet the Parents, Down and Out in Beverly Hills and others and clumsily sewed them together, but this mess never comes alive.
Wilson’s Dupree is one of those amiable schlubs who is impossible to completely dislike, even though he’s a perpetual screw-up. He’s the kind of guy who can’t find his way to a wedding in Hawaii because he forgets which island to go to. “Dupree was born on the wrong island,� complains his best friend Carl (Matt Dillon).
Dupree is Carl’s best man at his wedding to the lovely Molly (the lovely Kate Hudson), so when Dupree winds up homeless, Carl and Molly feel obliged to take him in.
Will Dupree make a mess of things? Does Owen Wilson like to talk in that laid-back drawl?
This timeworn scenario is so relentlessly predictable it’s literally not funny. Then the movie introduces Molly’s dad and Carl’s boss (Michael Douglas) as his nemesis, and that’s when the film truly flies off the tracks. I never bought into their disregard for each other, because it was based on stupid jokes like Douglas actually asking Dillon to get a vasectomy. The writing gets that desperate.
I was pleasantly surprised then, to see the film brighten in the middle because Molly sort of falls for Dupree unexpectedly, which works because Wilson and Hudson play off each other very well. Wilson does his utmost to make Dupree witty and zany, scoring a few offhand laughs, and Hudson radiates charm, even burdened with substandard material. The movie would have been much better had Hudson and Wilson been the married couple.
But then the film lurches back to the stupid battle of wits (or witlessness) between Dillon and Douglas and never recovers. The well runs so dry that writer Mike LeSieur or directors Anthony and Joe Russo throw in some off-the-wall references to the Martin Scorsese masterpieces Raging Bull and GoodFellas. The Russos even use the GoodFellas freeze-frame toward the end of the movie, never mind that it doesn’t belong there.
I’ve got yer GoodFellas reference, guys. Suddenly I find myself like Joe Pesci asking “How is this funny?�
Grade: C
Permalink | | Categories: Reviews
How to write/direct a great movie
With the summer movie season hitting a bit of a lull this weekend, I thought this was a good time to post some “rules” of good movie-making by some great Hollywood filmmakers. The movie I shall be reviewing Friday breaks a lot of these rules.
Howard Hawks, a master of multiple genres, directed many classics including Bringing Up Baby, Red River, The Big Sleep and His Girl Friday. A plaque outside the Howard Hawks stage on the Fox lot says, “Don’t try so hard on every scene. If it’s a real good scene, go to work on it and work hard, but if not, get it over in a hurry and don’t annoy the audience.”
Ron Howard pretty much ignored that directing the leaden Da Vinci Code.
Billy Wilder was the greatest writer director ever to work in Hollywood, having made Sunset Blvd., Some Like It Hot, Double Indemnity and The Apartment. Even his lesser movies still tend to be very entertaining. He had 10 rules for screenwriters:
The audience is fickle.
Grab ‘em by the throat and never let ‘em go.
Develop a clean line of action for your leading character.
Know where you’re going.
The more subtle and elegant you are in hiding your plot points, the better you are as a writer.
If you have a problem with the third act, the real problem is in the first act.
A tip from [director Ernst] Lubitsch: Let the audience add up two plus two. They’ll love you forever.
In doing voice-overs, be careful not to describe what the audience already sees. Add to what they’re seeing.
The event that occurs at the second act curtain triggers the end of the movie.
The third act must build, build, build in tempo and action until the last event, and then—that’s it. Don’t hang around.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Rocky re-whatever: Bring back Alien!
The Italian Stallion gallops back into theaters this Christmas with the new film Rocky Balboa. (Titled as such, I guess, because Rocky VI would remind us all just how desperate this franchise has become.)
I watched the trailer over on Yahoo, and instead of yahoo, my reaction was “yawn.” Rocky was a great character in his heyday, but this series ran out of gas when Mr. T came in. Besides, since Adrian has passed on and Rocky is a widower in the movie, so much for “Yo, Adrian.” Maybe we’ll get “No, Adrian!!!!” instead.
A lot of other movie franchises are getting, or have gotten reimaginings, or the new popular term, “reboots,” including James Bond and Batman. However, I think a series that really could use a reboot is Alien. And no, I don’t mean another Alien vs. (Slimy Creature X) piece of junk.
It amazes me to this day that the folks in charge of Alien have never lighted on what seems like an obvious idea: What would it be like to battle the aliens on their home turf? We’ve never seen it in the Alien movies. The toothy little creeps have always ended up on some remote rock or space station or here on Earth. I’d love to see that home planet.
On the other hand, maybe I would be more interested in a Rocky movie if Woody Allen were his opponent. Maybe that way Sly Stallone could get his revenge on Woody for getting the best of him in Woody’s Bananas all those years ago.
What movie series would you like to see rebooted? Do you care about Rocky or not?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Coming Attractions
What a trio: Pirates, June Allyson and Sharon Stone
Ordinarily I would review the video releases today, but the only major new release is Basic Instinct 2, which I never saw since it was in and out of theaters faster than anyone could say “Who cares?” I mean, is there really anyone interested in the movie, other than people looking for some Skinemax fare?
(Insert sound of crickets here)
Heck, I’ve heard it’s not even bad enough to rate as a Showgirls-like howler, so why bother? Instead I’ll share some thoughts on items that crossed my desk recently.
•The latest copy of Entertainment Weekly arrived. The cover features Johnny Depp, Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom in all their Pirates glory. The cover asks, “After a stormy shoot, can Depp and crew rule the box office again?” Thing is, the issue arrived Monday, after the grosses came in. Ya think they’ll do OK?
•I was saddened to learn of the death of June Allyson, whom I knew best as one of the great MGM musical stars. It’s too bad most people of my generation remember her for those silly Depends commercials, because she was really quite good in her day. She had a very distinctive voice - in Good News, Till the Clouds Roll By, and even her fleeting appearance in Girl Crazy, the best of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney movies, you could immediately tell who was singing. Her winning personality has been and will be missed.
Permalink | | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Pirates reax: How did you like Dead Man’s Chest?
If you say “Arrr!” in a Pirates of the Caribbean review, is that an expression of approval or disapproval?
Whatever the case, I was curious as to what you all thought of the big Pirates sequel. As I wrote Friday, I liked it pretty well, and if the movie had been a lot shorter, it might have been the best thrill ride of the summer.
Alas, the second half, which really cooks with gas, is preceded by a limp first half that made me feel like I’d accidentally drunk too much rum before the screening. Since the climactic action sequences work so well, I find it almost criminal that the first half is as sleepy as it is.
One indicator of a really great movie is how soon you want to see it again. I’d love to catch the last hour of the Pirates sequel a second time, but I don’t feel like sitting through the dull stuff to do it, so I’ll wait for the DVD, thank you very much.
As good as some of Pirates is, it’s on the lower end of the E-ticket summer blockbuster scale. I had much more fun with MI: 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Cars, Over the Hedge, Superman Returns and even Poseidon. OK, I’ll take Pirates over The Da Vinci Code, but that’s about it.
But that’s just my opinion. What did you think? Sure, it made a TON of money this weekend, but that was because most people loved the first movie. Did you love all of the sequel, or was it really the last hour that was cool? And would you see it again in a theater?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: In Area Theaters
The new ‘Pirates’ - more is a little less
I want to say one word to you: tentacles.
Why am I opening my review of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest by riffing on the famous “plastics” quote from The Graduate?
I have two reasons. First, it’s the sort of zany thing Jack Sparrow might say. Second, “tentacles” point the way to all that is right and all that is wrong with this very entertaining but somewhat inferior sequel.
Tentacles were the sight I remembered the most about the movie, from the slimy strands that cover the face of the villainous Davy Jones to the giant arms of the sea monster called the kraken, who can swallow ships whole. In terms of sheer spectacle, this new Pirates is a blast.
If only the tentacles had tightened around the sequel sooner. Once again, a Pirates of the Caribbean movie suffers because it’s
WAY
TOO
LONG.
At a numbing two and a half hours, this movie takes forever to move, with a needlessly complicated setup that makes the first half pass with all the speed of a snail shackled to a ball and chain.
That the first hour is so sluggish is baffling, considering the basic story isn’t that complex. William and Elizabeth (Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley) are arrested for helping Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). They will be set free if William finds Jack’s compass, which will point them to the key of Davy Jones’ locker, which holds the secret to that evil pirate’;s power.
Unfortunately, writers Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio, who worked on the first movie, spend too much time separating the characters and sending them off on their own adventures. Had they kept the characters together more, the movie could have been much leaner and meaner minus 20 or 30 minutes.
Once the characters do get back together, however, the action shoots into the stratosphere. The last 45 minutes or so are a prime showcase for the sort of no-holds-barred visual showmanship that put Hollywood action movies on the map. Director Gore Verbinski specializes in lively, imaginative camerawork, particularly in a wild scene where his camera darts over, through, and around a runaway water wheel on which two people are swordfighting, with a third caught inside the wheel.
The digital effects in the first Pirates were impressive, but they look second-rate compared to the groundbreaking work in this sequel. For the creepy visualization of Davy Jones alone, in which actor Bill Nighy’s head was replaced with an all-digital creation, the effects crew deserves an Oscar.
The flesh and blood characters have also improved, in some places. Bloom and Knightley were fine in the first film, although Depp owned the movie. In Dead Man’s Chest, the opposite happens. Bloom is more commanding, while Knightley handles her increased action scenes with terrific aplomb, with Elizabeth showing a stronger mischievous streak.
The unfortunate side effect is that Depp, who was the reason the first film was such a phenomenon, is not as interesting this time. While the actor is still great fun to watch, he doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the character, so the thrill of discovery that had made Jack Sparrow such a delight is diminished.
What remains in the last hour, however, is more than enough high adventure to make me anticipate Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, due next May. Here’s hoping there will be less plot, more Depp — and more tentacles.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Reviews
My favorite pirate movies
When Pirates of the Caribbean came out three years ago, movie pundits scoffed because after disasters like Cutthroat Island, pirate movies would never do well at the box office.
Oops.
Jack Sparrow and the gang aside, pirates have been scuttled at the movies a lot recently, but it wasn’t always so. If you find your appetite for peglegs whetted or you can’t get into the Pirates sequel this weekend, try these on for size.
Captain Blood (1935): This is the quintessential classic Hollywood pirate movie, made by the same crew that would go on to even greater success a few years later with The Adventures of Robin Hood. Errol Flynn, Olivia De Havilland and Basil Rathbone, swing, smile and sneer with the best of them.
Treasure Island (1950): It doesn’t have quite the high energy of Captain Blood, but Disney’s version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic story holds up remarkably well. For an inventive and underrated take on the story, try Disney’s animated Treasure Planet as well.
The Pirate (1948): Say, what are Gene Kelly and Judy Garland doing here? Why, pretending to be a pirate and swooning after one, respectively. This was one of the few MGM musicals to lose money on its initial release, but it’s grown in stature over the years, with great Cole Porter numbers like “Mack the Black� and “Be a Clown.�
The Goonies (1985): Probably the best pirate movie without pirates as actual characters. Steven Spielberg, who wrote the story, couldn’t top himself when he went on to make the decent but bloated Hook.
Peter Pan (1953): To heck with Johnny Depp – Captain Hook is still the most animated comical pirate of all time. Eat your heart out, Captain Jack. For the best live-action take on this story, seek out the too little seen 2003 film of the same name.
So what are some of your favorite one-eyed movies?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Lists
Home (Re) Viewing: Winter in the summer
While the summer movie release schedule has heated up, the video release schedule has grown cold because the titles have cycled around to the crummy films that came out earlier this year. If you can find a diamond in the rough, more power to you.
New this week
The Libertine: Yes, Johnny Depp made a movie that not even the indie crowd cared about.
The Matador: Pierce Brosnan earned some good notices for his performance as a very different kind of assassin than he’s usually known for – one who has lost his edge. Greg Kinnear co-stars as the man who tries to help Brosnan on that “one last job.�
Available now
Annapolis: This military thriller with James Franco and Jordana Brewster didn’t make much of an impression at the box office. Does this mean we don’t get a movie called West Point?
Failure to Launch: Launch? Forget that! (And people really should forget this movie). How about my failure to comprehend how this turgid, shrill and unfunny piece of junk made $88 million? The movie has a decent premise (girl poses as romantic interest for men who won’t leave the nest), but the filmmakers botch it with bad animal-bite jokes and leads that aren’t nearly as interesting as the supporting players. Sorry, Sarah Jessica Parker … I want the best bud, Zooey Deschanel, to headline her own romantic comedy, darn it! GRADE: D+
Find Me Guilty: Normally I would delight in the failure of a Vin Diesel movie, but I hear this film, about him playing a mobster who defends himself at a trial, is actually pretty decent. Since it’s directed by Sidney Lumet, who made the greatest courtroom drama of all time (Twelve Angry Men), I’m willing to give it a chance.
Madea’s Family Reunion: More hijinks from the man who brought us Diary of a Mad Black Woman.
Ultraviolet: Sigh. I miss the days when Milla Jovovich in a silly sci-fi movie (The Fifth Element, Resident Evil) could actually hold promise.
Permalink | | Categories: On Video/DVD
What was so great about the first ‘Pirates’ ?
While I’m curious to see the Pirates of the Caribbean sequel (review forthcoming on Friday), I must confess I’m a little puzzled about something.
Just what exactly was SO wonderful about the first Pirates? It wasn’t THAT great.
Now let me make myself clear. I really liked the first movie. I thought it was good, solid fun and was a lot better than any movie based on a Disney ride should have been. (Anybody remember the movie versions of The Country Bears or The Haunted Mansion? No?)
And yes, Johnny Depp absolutely deserved his Oscar nomination for playing Jack Sparrow with such loopy swagger.
That said, I have never understood why so many people count this as one of their favorite action movies of all time. People talk about it as if it were the greatest popcorn flick since Raiders of the Lost Ark, but in my opinion, it’s nowhere close to any one of the Indiana Jones movies. I’d much rather watch even the weakest Indy movie, Temple of Doom, than the first Pirates movie.
What was my biggest problem with the first Pirates? For a movie with a bone-thin plot, it sure wore out its welcome. I wrote in my review, “At two hours and 20 minutes the film is way, way too long. After a while the swordfighting and mast-climbing all start to look the same, making the climax particularly tiring when it should be the most rousing part of the movie.”
And the sequel is even longer, clocking in at at a full two and a half hours! Oyyyy! I mean, arrrrr!
So tell me — why is the first movie so beloved? And do you really want to see 150 more minutes of it?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Coming Attractions
