Middletown vs. Moeller
Pyramid Hill light show preparation
Were you spotted tailgating?
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > July
July 2008
Disney goes down south, Pixar goes up
New trailers for Disney and Pixar’s coming attractions have arrived on the ‘net, and both look very promising.
The one I was most excited to see was the one for Disney’s The Princess and the Frog, now scheduled for Dec. 25, 2009. This is the studio’s first theatrical foray into hand-drawn animation since 2004, and that alone is enough to thrill me. The trailer is a delight, with the kind of sweet-natured, zany vibe that’s the trademark of directors John Musker and Ron Clements, who sparked the Disney renaissance with The Little Mermaid. Now they get another chance to bring Disney animation back to life. Take a look:
This project should be caused for celebration, but wouldn’t you know it, some people have already found something to gripe about. Folks are complaining that the firely character at the end is a black caricature, a la Song of the South. Spare me. A commenter on EW’s Popwatch blog put it very well: “Sigh. Score one more for the whiney, thin-skinned, on-the-hunt-for-something-to-be-offended-about masses.”
As much as I love and adore Pixar, their movies have a completely different feel from Disney’s. For me, it’s not a question of one vs. the other; I want both, and I believe there’s room for both. (There once was, if anyone can remember 1995 to 2003.) This is the only 2D film on the slate for now, but I’m hoping its successful enough for Disney to make more.
Now, just to balance the scales, here’s what Pixar is Up to.
I know, it doesn’t tell you much, but it’s the very definition of a teaser. It’s meant to make you say “What the heck was THAT? More please!” Works for me.
Here’s a plot description: Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) spent his entire life dreaming of exploring the globe and experiencing life to its fullest. But at age 78, life seems to have passed him by, until a twist of fate (and a persistent 8-year old Wilderness Explorer named Russell) gives him a new lease on life.
It’s directed by Pete Docter (Monsters Inc.) and is due out May 29, 2009.
If you’re curious about what else Disney/Pixar has in the pipeline, here’s my old post on that subject. What do you think of these?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What’s opening Friday, August 1?
The dog days of August are almost upon us, and the movies will live up to that in a BIG way this weekend.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor: I already got a dig at this yesterday, so I’ll refrain for the moment, but bring some tongs when I review the film tomorrow.
Swing Vote: Have you seen ANY ads for this new Kevin Costner vehicle? I haven’t. However good or bad it may be, it’s going to get lost in the shuffle now. I would have waited a month to release it.
At the arthouses
The Neon in Dayton brings in two new films: The new condensed version of Brideshead Revisited, starring one of our greatest corset wearers, Emma Thompson. There’s also the well reviewed The Wackness, starring the unlikely pairing of Ben Kingsley and Mary-Kate Olsen. Famke Janssen and Olivia Thirlby (Juno’s buddy) co-star.
And The Little Art plays some obscure little flick called The Dark Knight. Wonder if it’s any good.
At the Victoria
Doctor Zhivago: David Lean returns to the big screen in Dayton. Everyone start humming “Lara’s Theme” now.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Harry Potter and the Excellent New Trailer
I’m going to say it very simply: this WORKS.
What’s especially interesting about this trailer is that unlike past ones, it doesn’t focus much on the Harry/Ron/Hermione friendship. In fact, I think Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are barely in this trailer, if indeed they are there at all.
And that’s as it should be. The preview rightly focuses on Harry, Dumbledore and Voldemort, which is the core of this story. Very creepily effective.
If you think the actor playing the young Voldemort looks a lot like Ralph Fiennes, that’s because he’s Fiennes’ nephew, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin.
Film geek moment: Looks like the decision to hire Bruno Delbonnel as the cinematographer has paid off handsomely. He’s done striking work in Amelie, A Very Long Engagement, and Across the Universe.
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince will be out Nov. 21. Like its predecessor, Order of the Phoenix, it will be released in IMAX with selected scenes in 3D. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final story, will be split into two movies, with Part 1 scheduled for Nov. 19, 2010 and Part 2 due in May 2011. All the remaining films are being directed by David Yates, who helmed Order of the Phoenix. (Suggestion: For the finale(s), why not go 3D all the way, or maybe film partly in IMAX, like The Dark Knight did to such great results?)
If you want to see this trailer on the big screen, it will play before The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, opening Friday. My advice: Pay a matinee price and then leave quickly before Mummy starts. You will get your money’s worth that way. Otherwise, you will not. More on that later!
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Protect the child from that nasty movie!
Many people commonly cite a crying child as one of the worst annoyances in a theater, especially if that child is at an R-rated film. However, when I saw Step Brothers last week, I witnessed something even more disheartening.
A small child was sitting a couple of rows ahead of me. Knowing that Step Brothers was rife with crude humor, I thought “Oh, crud. The kid’s folks probably think this is going to be a relatively safe comedy like Talladega Nights.”
I expected the parents would have some ‘splainin to do when they got home, but I was amazed at what they did right there in the theater. Whenever something raunchy happened in the movie (and this was quite frequent), the parents/guardians would actually cover the child’s eyes and/or ears.
When Will Ferrell attempted to touch a drumset with um … part of the male anatomy, one adult covered the child’s eyes with her hand. When John C. Reilly engaged in a wild sexual romp, with a lot of screaming, an adult on one side covered the child’s eyes, while the adult on the other side covered the child’s ears.
Poor kid. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and watch one of the adults cover the kids’ mouth so he/she wouldn’t breathe anything harmful. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. As far as I was concerned, it was the ignorant adults who were truly deaf, blind and dumb by taking the child to an R-rated comedy in the first place.
How to deal with such a problem? I have some advice.
Look, I’m all for shielding a child’s eyes from Will Ferrell’s antics, but there are ways to get an idea of what you’re in for when you see a movie.
There is, of course, the Motion Picture Association of America, which has a Web site that explains the reasons for their ratings. The MPAA also spells out what got the film that rating on all the posters and other ads. In Step Brothers’ case the movie was rated R “for crude and sexual content, and pervasive language.”
A little vague, perhaps. And I know all too well the MPAA’s ratings can be less than helpful when a gentle movie like Once gets an R-rating because it dropped a few too many f-bombs, while something truly scary and unsettling like The Dark Knight gets a PG-13.
There are other sites on the Web that provide much more specific and helpful information for parents. One of the best is Screen It, which provides detailed breakdowns of potentially offensive or scary content. (Be advised this can lead to spoilers.) Most admirably of all, they review films based on artistic merit. In other words, Screen It does not condemn every movie with sex, profanity and violence as inherently evil like some sites do. Here’s their page for Step Brothers.
I hope this helps. What encounters have you had with children at R-rated movies? And how would you handle such a situation?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
Today’s DVDs: Doomsday and Guantanamo Bay
Isn’t it just a wondrous coincidence that movies called Doomsday and Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay come out on the same day?
Actually, I can’t speak much about either movie, having seen neither. Doomsday looked promising, being from the director of The Descent, but by most accounts, lightning did not strike twice. I am also automatically suspicious of any movie that Harry Knowles says is “bugnuts.”
As for Harold and Kumar, I can only guess it is what it is.
However, I can talk about Shine a Light, the new Rolling Stones concert film directed by Martin Scorsese. It is not the best concert film from either group. For the Stones, that’s still Gimme Shelter, and for Scorsese, that’s still The Last Waltz. Regardless, Shine a Light still boasts many great moments that make it well worth seeing. See my full review here. GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Where/how high can ‘The Dark Knight’ go?
With Batman breaking box office records like he busts criminals’ heads, many people are salivating over the prospect of The Dark Knight overtaking Titanic to become the all-time box-office leader. Oft-quoted box office analyst Paul Dergarabedian thinks this is a very real possibility.
I don’t.
It goes without saying that The Dark Knight’s run so far has been nothing short of breathtaking. It took only 10 days - 10 days! - to make $300 million at the box office. The previous record-holder was Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, which crested $300 million in 16 days. At this point, $400 million is a mortal lock for The Dark Knight, and $500 million is within reach.
But to topple the $600 million-plus earned by Titanic? I just don’t see it happening, the main reason being that theatrical runs keep getting shorter and shorter, and so does the window between theatrical and DVD. Bear in mind, when Titanic hit, DVD was only just starting to make inroads. Now, I think people are well aware that The Dark Knight will be on DVD in time for the holidays, and I don’t think people will be inclined to revisit it quite so often as moviegoers did for Titanic, which kept racking up high grosses for MONTHS, to say nothing of weeks.
However …
The Dark Knight’s run in IMAX (for which it was specifically designed) is doing a lot to boost its numbers, and I don’t believe another IMAX release is set until -ulp - Madagascar 2 in November. (What a waste. Have fun with your two weeks before Harry Potter hits, guys!). That being the case, I say The Dark Knight stops at around $500 million, making it the the number two film of all time, upsetting another behemoth - Star Wars. And that’s mightily impressive for an unremittingly bleak and somber film whose predecessor just barely topped $200 million in its entire run.
Just to keep things in perspective, however, look at the box office chart adjusted for inflation. A $500 million run would put The Dark Knight at #30, where Ghostbusters floats. The all-time champion remains Gone With The Wind, which made $1.4 BILLION in adjusted dollars.
Now, for those of you not interested in box office, I have other questions: Where in the world can a third Batman movie go? What villains could they possibly use? Mr. Freeze? The Penguin? Too silly. Catwoman? Still too much stench from her solo movie. MAYBE the Riddler, but that seems too comic for this downbeat series. If memory serves, Christian Bale, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine all signed three-picture deals. (Director Chrstopher Nolan did not.) What would you like to see in the next installment?
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Disowning ‘Step Brothers’
In one scene of Step Brothers, Will Ferrell tries to bury John C. Reilly alive, and the scene is an apt metaphor for most of Ferrell’s movies, including this one.
Like so many Saturday Night Live performers before him, Ferrell’s method is to wear out a gag’s welcome. He’ll crack a joke. It might even be a good joke that’s funny for a few minutes. Then he repeats the same joke ad nauseum until he beats it into the ground.
Ferrell usually doesn’t stop there. Then he exhumes the joke, cremates it, and places the remains in a decorative urn before finally scattering the ashes to the wind, just to make sure everyone got the point.
And so it goes with Step Brothers, the latest variation on Ferrell’s version of Peter Pan: the man who won’t grow up. The intended novelty here is that two of them are front and center. Ferrell is Brennan, a 40-something who acts like he’s 4 and still lives at home with his mom (Mary Steenburgen). Reilly is Dale, a 40-something who acts like he’s 4 and still lives at home with his dad (Richard Jenkins). The mom and dad get married, forcing the man-children to move in together. It’s not too hard to guess what happens from there.
Yet I would be lying if I said that I grimaced through all of Step Brothers. There are a handful of genuinely funny gags. When he’s not busy being obvious like his star, co-writer/director Adam McKay can actually stage his gags well. His depiction of Brennan’s disgustingly white bread clan is hilarious when they sing Guns n’ Roses “Sweet Child o’ Mine,” making it sound like an Up with People cover. And when the credits start to roll, don’t be so quick to leave, or you’ll miss the funniest joke of the film.
There’s something to be said too for this movie’s willingness to do anything, and I mean anything for a laugh. Families who found Talladega Nights hilarious are hereby warned that despite its themes, Step Brothers is not a family-friendly comedy. It is rated R for a reason. Remember the “franks and beans” gag in There’s Something About Mary? Imagine the beans being used to play the drums.
It helps too, that Reilly is a much more gifted actor than Ferrell. He doesn’t have great material to work with, but he manages to sell most of his jokes without making me wish I was watching him in Chicago or The Aviator.
That said, Step Brothers is still Ferrell’s vehicle, and his sense of humor, and I’ve never hidden the fact that I’m not a fan. Heck, many times I’ve shined a light on my disdain of him. Nine times out of 10, I simply don’t find the man funny, because his idea of funny is usually screeching at the audience.
So I found it rather ironic when in a recent interview, McKay said: “You never want to appear needy or desperate with comedy … the second you start to see any sort of calculation happening, people feel like that’s somehow cheap or makes it all fake.”
The irony is, McKay’s right on the money. That’s just Ferrell’s problem. Too often, his characters act so needy and desperate, I don’t root for them. I want his movies, including Step Brothers, to get out of my face - and out of the movie theater too.
GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
New Rocky Horror, Hairspray films? Uuummm …
Variety reports that a remake of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and a follow-up to the musical version of Hairspray are on the way - and I think both ideas are of extremely dubious merit.
I’ve never been a huge RHPS fan, but the idea of remaking that very unique movie seems foolhardy to me. Why is it even necessary when the original film is still thrilling nutty midnight audiences decades hence? Can the world really take TWO interactive campy musical/sci-fi flicks?
The good news about RHPS: Lou Adler, who produced the original, is involved. The bad news: so is MTV.
I may take two or four jumps to the left of that one …
Then there’s the Hairspray sequel. I’m a fan of that franchise. I loved the 1988 John Waters original, would love to see the Broadway version, and I thought last year’s musical movie was a lot of fun. But I just don’t see where the story could go. It’s not like the story left a whole lot of unanswered questions.
I’m heartened by the fact that Waters is writing the treatment for the new movie, but still … it seems to me New Line Cinema wants this not because it’s a great idea, but because they smell money. And the world goes ‘round again.
What do you think of these? Are you as skeptical as I am? Or do these actually seem appealing?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What’s opening Friday, July 25?
With The Dark Knight still casting a long shadow at the box office (it’s already made more money than Batman Begins did in its entire run), two lesser-looking lights will try to make an impression.
Step Brothers: Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly try to recapture their Talladega Nights mojo in this comedy about two men with a major case of arrested development who move in with each other after their parents marry. Hilarity ensues, but only intermittently. Review posts tomorrow.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe: I have a nagging feeling that title is going to turn out to be ironic. Maybe it’s because I was never plugged into the show, but I just don’t sense a great clamor for this movie, except for its rabid fans, which I suspect aren’t that numerous. Am I wrong?
At the Victoria:
The early film version of Little Women, starring Katharine Hepburn and directed by George Cukor plays at the Cool Films series. You may recall that the less well regarded 1949 version of the film was originally on the schedule, and this very blog and its commenters were responsible for the change. Thanks again to Victoria for making the switch.
At the art houses:
The Neon opens When Did You Last See Your Father, an exploration of a father/son relationship, as Blake Morrison (Colin Firth) deals with his father Arthur’s terminal illness and imminent death. They’re hanging on to the doc Gonzo, about the Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas author Hunter Thompson, and the enduring Young@Heart.
The Little Art goes mainstream this weekend, with my favorite film of the year, WALL-E, and with the better of this summer’s female-centered films, Sex and the City, which far outshines Mamma Mia!, IMHO.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
OK, so people talk at the movies a lot - but WHY?
A number of times on this blog, myself and my readers have bemoaned just how rude movie audiences seem to be these days. The talking is incessant, the cell phones are annoying, the kids are loud, etc., etc.
But now comes the $100,000 question: WHY are people this way?
It seems to me that truly rude audiences are a relatively recent phenomenon. Sure, there have always been and always will be bad audience members, but they seem especially prevalent in recent years. Again, why?
I have a theory.
My observation is that rude movie audiences have gotten especially distracting in the last decade. That coincides with two things: the age of DVD and the age of cell phones.
The DVD effect is two-fold. First, it made buying movies more affordable, making people more inclined to stay at home, even moreso than in the VCR age. Second, it made living rooms more like movie theaters, with their high-quality picture and sound. Thus, the lines between the living room and the movie theater became blurred, and people became more inclined to behave the same way in both places.
The more immediate cause is, I think, the rise of the cell phone. Simply put, it gives people an opportunity to be rude that they didn’t have a decade ago. And because the cell phone has become the tool so many of us can’t dispense with, a whole host of irresponsible behaviors has grown along with it, including talking while driving, and talking while in movie theaters.
Or maybe there’s another reason …
Let me play the cynical cuss here. Is it just possible that some people, particularly ones of a younger generation, are SO into themselves that they don’t care what other people think of them?
Or are audiences even that bad? Do you run into bad behavior every time you go to the theater? Or is the bad behavior memorable enough to make it stand out? Maybe it’s because I see so many movies, but I’ve become quite good at tuning people out because I sit close to the screen, making it much easier to pay attention to the movie.
Now let me really go out on a limb: Could it be that while we’d all like to THINK that WE’RE never guilty of anything, and THEY’RE to blame, haven’t we ALL been guilty of the very behaviors we decry at one time or another? I know I’ve talked loud a few times or carelessly left my phone on once or twice.
And here’s maybe the most important question of all. Now that we’ve established that audiences are worse than ever, what do we DO about it? Seems to me that everyone complains a lot, but rarely do I see people actually doing anything about it.
Thoughts?
Disclaimer: I do not have $100,000 to dole out to commenters who come up with really good answers.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
‘Mamma Mia,’ that’s-a dopey movie!
Before the ABBA musical came along, the phrase “mamma mia” always reminded me of the classic Alka Seltzer ad with the actor filming a commercial and blowing take after take saying, “Mamma mia, that’s-a spicy meatball.”
Unfortunately, after seeing Mamma Mia! the movie, I felt like I needed a good, tall fizzy glass of the stuff. I didn’t hate the film, but I will say that when the credits rolled, I was glad to get out of there.
I understand that the movie wants to be a fun, bubbly affirmation of life. It’s like the feminine version of the old Fast Times at Ridgemont High catch phrase: “Hey, chick - let’s party!” But while everyone around me was having a ball, I felt like slinking off to the corner and ducking out of sight.
However, the fact that the film is more than a little girlish isn’t what bothered me the most. I expected it to be an estrogen haven. However, I also expect musicals to be well filmed, and Mamma Mia! is not. I never imagined that a movie set in the Greek islands could look ugly, but Mamma Mia! does.
Why? Because the bulk of it wasn’t filmed on the Greek islands. Some scenes were filmed on location, but it was very obvious to me that most of the movie was shot on a soundstage, with digital backdrops filling in for the islands. Call me a purist, but that’s not my idea of romance.
An even bigger problem is that the producers insisted that the director of the stage show be allowed to direct the film, and Phyllida Lloyd didn’t know how. There are way too many distracting “Look ma, I’m a director” shots that kept taking me out of the story and focusing my attention on how Lloyd was trying really, really hard to have a high old time.
It’s really a shame, because if you asked me now if I would like to see the stage show of Mamma Mia!, I would still go. The story, about a young girl (Amanda Seyfried) who invites her three potential fathers (Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard) to her wedding, has a certain charm, and I do like some ABBA songs. You’ll never catch me buying an album of theirs, but my ears can’t help but perk up to the likes of “Dancing Queen” and “Waterloo.”
Despite Lloyd’s awkward direction, at times I almost sailed with Mamma Mia! because the cast brings so much energy to it. Meryl Streep, playing the young girl’s mom, mugs a little too much, but she has an ebullience that can’t be denied. Seyfried has the best voice of everyone, and I was saddened she wasn’t given more to do. Christine Baranski and Julie Walters as Samantha and Miranda … uh, I mean Streep’s gal pals are fun to watch, as are the men. Pierce Brosnan plays his role with such sincerity that I forgave him for the fact that he can’t sing.
But by the time Mamma Mia! stacked about five different badly written and directed endings on top of each other, and I didn’t care about any of them, I realized the movie wasn’t for me. I’m sure some female readers think that I’m incapable of having fun at this movie because I’m a man. I would counter by saying that I saw Sex and the City and liked it - and Mamma Mia! made the feminine Fab Four look positively studly.
No, if I want a fun movie that makes great use of ABBA songs, I’ll turn instead to a charming little film called Muriel’s Wedding that doesn’t shout “HAVE FUN!!!” in my face like a drunk gal at a party. Oh, what a relief that will be.
GRADE: C-
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Today’s DVDs: Two fun high roller movies
The DVD selection remains as thin as half a rail, but there are two solid choices on the new release wall, both of them “based on a true story” crime pics:
21: This Vegas caper was much more entertaining than most critics said it was, buoyed by energetic direction and a solid cast featuring Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishburne. Full review. GRADE: B+
The Bank Job: This British crime thriller is the rare Jason Statham movie with more on its mind than a kick to the groin. Several criminals are asked to break into a bank vault, not knowing what they’re stealing are photos of a British princess in a compromising position. Taut direction by Roger Donaldson makes this one crackle. GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
Somebody & Someone: Ebert & Roeper leave TV
When I read this afternoon that both Roger Ebert AND Richard Roeper had left the show that bears their name, I was struck by how sad I didn’t feel.
The show hadn’t been relevant in a long time, and I can tell you the exact date it stopped being relevant: Feb. 20, 1999, the day Gene Siskel died.
I don’t want to come down too hard on Roeper, an eminently decent man and a good writer - but he was simply never a movie guy. He was always the eager young cadet to Ebert’s seasoned old pro, whereas Siskel and Ebert were equals. Once that chemistry was gone, there was no recapturing it, no matter who sat in those theater seats.
Quite frankly, since Ebert was laid low by health issues that left him unable to speak, I’m surprised the show has lasted this long.
There’s some speculation about what kind of show might take its place. I’ve heard more than one person suggest that film writers David Poland (Movie City News) and Jeffrey Wells (Hollywood Elsewhere) have a show. These two know their movies, and they have a long-standing rivalry, just like Siskel and Ebert had, particularly in their early days.
Still, I think the chances of getting those two together are not much better than a snowball’s in Hades. Poland, in particular, seems to have no love lost for Wells, recently remarking on his blog: “I have no idea what Jeff is up to. I don’t read him, don’t talk to him. Last time I heard about him, he was still banned by a bunch of studios for incredibly bad behavior.”
After Poland got married recently, Wells shot off this missive: “When I was sick with possible blood poisoning a year and a half or two years ago Poland left a ‘get well’ phone message, so it seemed okay and symmetrical to send him a ‘congratulations and good for you’ e-mail a few months ago when I heard he was moving in a marital direction. Poland being Poland, he ignored it.”
The more pressing question to me is, do we even NEED TV for critics? Who turns to TV for reviews anymore, especially when the Internet gives us instant access to everyone from a legend like Andrew Sarris to little guys like me? I would be willing to bet a lot of people didn’t even know an Ebert and Roeper show was still on the air. (For all intents and purposes, it wasn’t.)
What do you think?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Other critics
Ranking the Batman movies
Nice box-office opening for The Dark Knight, huh?
Now that the dust has settled and every interested party has seen the film at least once, it’s time to take stock of where the Batman films rank.
The Dark Knight: Yes, it really is that great. There’s some debate about whether the movie actually broke Spider-Man 3’s record at the box office , but that’s all academic, because unlike Spider-Man 3, The Dark Knight has not severely disappointed people.
Batman Begins: Watched it again over the weekend, and as you might expect, it holds up incredibly well. I was struck by just how different in tone and style Christopher Nolan’s two Batman films are, which makes the achievement of The Dark Knight all the more impressive. Still, this movie is almost as good.
Batman Returns: Some might be surprised to see me rank Tim Burton’s second Batman movie this high. It’s flawed to be sure. It suffers from the “too many villains” syndrome, and Danny DeVito’s Penguin is more gross than threatening. But Burton’s first Batman movie never came alive the way this one did when Michelle Pfeiffer said but one word: “Meow.”
Batman Forever: Contrary to popular belief, Joel Schumacher is not QUITE the devil incarnate when it comes to Batman movies. Yes, he sank the franchise with Batman and Robin, but people seem to forget he directed this movie too, and it’s one of his better efforts. Val Kilmer made a good Batman, Jim Carrey was a fun riddler, and Nicole Kidman ate Kim Basinger for breakfast. And who would have guessed that Carrey would come off better than Tommy Lee Jones’ Two-Face?
Batman (1989): Yes, it’s down this low. I never understood why everyone went SO nuts over this movie. I thought Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the best movie that summer. Sure, Nicholson was fun, Keaton was better than people gave him credit for, and the movie looked great, but it felt awfully restrained compared to Tim Burton’s other work. Batman Returns had more of his distinct style. Kim Basinger was a washout, and the ending in the tower was a lumbering, badly staged mess.
Batman (1966): Hey, we can’t forget the Adam West movie! Besides, none of the other movies could get away with a line like “Robin- hand me the shark repellent bat spray!” - which, of course, was right next to the Manta-Ray repellent Bat spray.
Batman and Robin: In the immortal words of the screenplay for this movie: “BOMB!!!!! BOMB!!!!!!!”
So how would you rank the Batman movies? Feel free to use this space to talk more about The Dark Knight too.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Hot air balloon movies: A short list?
With the MidFirst Ohio Challenge hot air balloon festival starting today in Middletown, I tried to think of good movies with hot air balloons.
The first thing I remembered wasn’t a movie, however. It was an entry in Roger Ebert’s movie glossary:
Balloon Rule: Good movies rarely contain a hot-air balloon.
I began to think of it, and it seems Ebert was right. Oh sure, a couple of exceptions leap to mind. There’s The Wizard of Oz, with the immortal line, “I can’t, I don’t know how it works!” The Great Muppet Caper isn’t one of the great Muppet movies, but it’s entertaining enough, and it had a hot air balloon.
After that, though ,,,,
Um …. Around the World in 80 Days? Uch. Best Picture my foot.
Er ….
The Great Race was a fun comedy, although I would stop well short of calling it a great movie. Much better was the comedy Rat Race, the last good movie from part of the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker team of Airplane! fame.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen is one of Terry Gilliam’s delightfully loopy visions, though I can’t say I remember it for any balloon scenes.
Octopussy: One of the better Roger Moore Bonds, though the site of Q in one of the balloons is awfully silly.
Superman II showed us how to escape from prison using a hot air balloon.
There are some decent choices here, but I still need to broaden the palette. A Google search of “Hot air balloon movies” turns up a bunch of videos, but no feature films, at least on the first page.
Changing the search to hot air balloon films gets us a clip of a silent film with Buster Keaton, The Balloonatic. Clever, and an interesting find.
Still, we’re not getting very many movies where balloons play a major part of any scene.
Ah, but if we expand our criteria to floating aircraft and not just balloons, then it gets a little more interesting:
Black Sunday: The Goodyear Blimp + the Super Bowl = cheesy fun.
The Hindenburg: Robert Wise directed George C. Scott, and Anne Bancroft in this 1975 film about the doomed zeppelin.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Two words: No ticket.
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow: Granted, the Hindenburg only shows up in a few scenes, but I’ll take any chance I can to promote this sorely underrated film.
Well, let’s face it. I’ve ridden in a hot air balloon, and no movie, no matter how good, can successfully capture their grandeur. You simply have to see them in person. So come on down to the Challenge this weekend and check them out. Here’s our site with all the details about the event.
But first, have I overlooked any movies that represent balloons/blimps/zeppelins well? Comment and let me know!
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
‘The Dark Knight’ a terrifying triumph
I fully expected The Dark Knight to be an intense movie. However, I did not expect it to chill me to the bone.
Many reviews have called this the greatest comic book movie ever made, but I’ll go even further. The best live action film of this calendar year is one of the greatest crime dramas of any type, with or without capes. And yes, the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker more than lives up to its buzz. Like the movie, it’s the stuff nightmares are made of.
When I saw an extended trailer for the movie last year, depicting a daring bank heist, I noticed that director Christopher Nolan, who also made Batman Begins, filmed the robbery in a very brisk, energetic style that reminded me of Michael Mann’s Heat. Even more than Batman Begins, The Dark Knight looks like a gritty, down and dirty urban thriller.
However, The Dark Knight reminded me even more strongly of another renowned crime story. The new Batman movie is nothing less than a 21st century version of The Godfather Part II, in which the Caped Crusader must lose his soul in his attempt to achieve the greater good.
Batman (Christian Bale) and police Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman) have Gotham City’s crime families on the run, having dried up most of their finances. Then, a new figure arrives on the scene who makes even criminals’ blood run cold. Determined to reveal Batman’s identity, the Joker begins a crime wave so terrible that Bruce Wayne begins to doubt himself. He believes that another man, crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), may be better equipped to deal with Gotham’s ills.
Nolan’s movies always look great, but The Dark Knight reaches new heights of visceral excitement, especially since Nolan filmed parts of the movie using IMAX cameras. One of the IMAX scenes, with the camera swooping high over a city, actually made my palms sweat, even through my feet were touching the floor.
Even more powerful than Nolan’s eye is the way he puts the viewer in the characters’ minds. One of his trademarks has been to scramble timelines in movies like Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige. In The Dark Knight, however, he plays the chronology straight, so he can more effectively play doubles. Most everyone in this movie has their soul divided. Batman has trouble sorting out good and evil. Harvey has a dangerous way of mixing up fate with chance. And Bruce’s longtime love Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is torn between Bruce and Harvey.
There is one character who is absolutely not confused about who he is. The Joker enjoys making people squirm, preying on their worst fears just because he can. Other Jokers have been diabolical, but even Jack Nicholson’s was a debonair clown. Now, in Ledger’s hands, for the first time in the movies, the character is truly menacing.
The entire cast is excellent, but it’s Ledger people will be talking about, and this would have been true even without his untimely death. It’s an extraordinary performance. His Joker combines steely resolve, wild abandon, and above all, an utter lack of remorse, fear or sympathy. It’s one of the five scariest screen villains of all time. This Joker is nothing less than a terrorist.
Indeed, the screenplay by Nolan and his brother Jonathan resonates with strong echoes of 9-11. The movie shows not only mass-scale destruction, but also questions the morality of being able to spy on anyone at any given minute of the day, giving the movie an unsettling air that’s all too contemporary. My only misgiving is that I might have trimmed the climax a touch to let the film, and the audience, breathe a little more.
If I’m making the movie sound grim, that’s because it is. The Dark Knight is not a popcorn movie that’s fun for the whole family. It is not suitable for young children, particularly when young children are threatened at gunpoint on screen. Even for adults, it’s deeply unsettling. When the movie was over, as great as it was, I felt I needed to see something lighter like WALL-E to permeate the darkness.
However, that very intensity, coupled with Nolan’s razor-sharp action scenes, is what makes The Dark Knight transcend the “comic book movie.” It’s unrelenting, but it’s also unforgettable. Brace yourselves.
GRADE: A+
Permalink | Comments (10) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Trashing the WALL-E backlash
It seems that a backlash of sorts has developed against WALL-E, my absolute favorite film of the year.
After the initial flurry of raves (including my own) I’ve sensed an increasingly vocal dissatisfaction with Pixar’s latest film - most of which I can live with. If you think it’s too arty, or that the second half is heavy-handed, or that the movie is (shudder) boring, I will fiercely disagree with you, but allow that you are entitled to your opinion.
However, there are a couple of complaints about WALL-E that I simply cannot abide. Some people grumble the film is an anti-global warming tract, an animated version of An Inconvenient Truth. Other have been aghast that the movie denigrates obese people.
Wrong! Factually, provably, wrong!
It’s all too easy to dismiss the stupid global warming accusations. Obviously, WALL-E has a green message on its mind, but it’s not about global warming. If people would bother to pay attention to the movie, they would see that the dominant energy source on Earth is solar power. Greenhouse gases seem to be long gone, not that it got us out of trouble.
No, what has desolated the Earth is massive littering. A newspaper WALL-E rolls over bears the headline “TOO MUCH TRASH.” The planet became so covered with it, we killed the plant life and had to leave. Some people scoff at this notion too, but anyone who doesn’t think we humans are a wasteful lot hasn’t looked by the side of the highway lately. And anyone who doesn’t think it’s a good idea to live a little cleaner than we’ve been doesn’t have his ducks in a row.
The complaints that WALL-E ridicules the obese are even more troubling. It’s simply not true.
I’m sensitive to attacks on the less able-bodied myself, because I’m disabled, with a mild case of cerebral palsy. That makes it especially hard for me to lug around 50 pounds of weight I shouldn’t have. But WALL-E didn’t offend me - it emboldened me to do something about it. I wish the movie made more people feel that way.
Yes, the humans in the film who live on a spaceship have wide girths and seem to spend a lot of time slurping down food. But writer-director Andrew Stanton and his co-authors Jim Reardon and Pete Docter aren’t laughing at fat people and suggesting they deserve contempt or even pity - far from it.
First of all the movie explains that because humans have spent several hundred years in space, they’ve suffered massive bone loss. People of the future aren’t fat, they’re small-boned.
More important than that, WALL-E’s main concern isn’t how much humans eat. It’s that they’ve become so beholden to technology, letting machines do everything for them, that personal contact is alien to them. That’s why the characters John and Mary, the two humans we get to know besides the captain, seem so shocked when they actually - touched each other.
As Stanton explains in this interview with Christianity Today, “I wasn’t trying to make the humans into fat, lazy consumers, but to make humanity appear to be completely consumed by everything that can distract you—to the point where they lost connection with each other, even though they’re right next to each other.”
And here’s the ironic counterpoint: the two most romantic characters in the film are the robots, WALL-E and EVE, who learned to be affectionate by watching the way humans used to behave in a bygone era.
It saddens me that such a life-affirming sentiment gets lost amid complaints of such narrow vision. As far as I can see, the attacks on the film say a lot more about the attackers’ self-esteem than they do about WALL-E. The movie might improve their outlook - if only they would decide that they would live a little.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Beverly Hills Chihuahua: YIPE! YIPE! YIPE!
So has anybody seen the trailer for Beverly Hills Chihuahua yet? If so … I’m so sorry.
And lest anyone think I’m being unconscionably mean to a kids’ movie, rest assured, I am not alone. The New York Times wrote this very amusing story about the mortified reactions several people have posted on YouTube.
One aspect the story doesn’t go into detail about is who made this masterpiece to be. The director is Raja Gosnell. He has more than a passing familiarity with cinematic dogs, having directed both Scooby Doo movies. (I’ll let you decide if that’s a double entendre or not.) The cast includes Drew Barrymore, Salma Hayek, George Lopez, Cheech Marin and Edward James Olmos, who should all know better.
One of the writers is Jeffrey Bushelll, who has written TV shows like Zoey 101 and What I Like About You. The other writer is Analisa LaBianco, who has no other credits, so I’m going to guess she’s 3 years old and needed Bushell to get her ideas in script format.
This is my favorite of the YouTube reactions. Clip may be NSFW, depending on your boss’ tolerance for bleeped language.
Comment away, if you’re still conscious after seeing the trailer.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Guess what?? ‘Mamma Mia’ is a musical!
So there’s a new movie musical coming out Friday, but you’d never guess it from the previews.
It’s Mamma Mia, whose ads make it look like My Big Fat Greek Wedding, but Actually in Greece This Time! However, people familiar with showbiz know the title is a musical featuring the songs of ABBA.
So yes, Meryl Streep sings! And so do Amanda Seyfried, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth and Stellan Skarsgard! And I believe some of them dance too!
So why is Universal trying to hide that fact? I haven’t seen a single ad with anything resembling a musical number. If there is such an ad, it hasn’t been shown much. And that makes no sense to me.
Paramount took basically the same tact with Sweeney Todd last year, obscuring the fact that Johnny Depp can carry a tune - and quite well, at that. But as dishonest as that strategy was, it was understandable. A certain segment of Johnny Depp’s audience believes that if they get stuck at a musical, they will no longer be able to breed. And given the mindset, maybe that’s all for the better.
However, Mamma Mia’s target audience is predominantly female, and women usually have not been so quick to reject musicals as men. I’ve heard more than one person refer to Mamma Mia as “this year’s Hairspray.” Hairspray was a big hit last year - and that film didn’t hide the fact that it was a musical at all!
So I don’t get it. Do you? Did you know Mamma Mia was a musical? And now that you do, does that make you more or less inclined to see it?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
‘Hellboy II’ burns brighter than the original
I wasn’t a great fan of the original Hellboy, but I am definitely a great fan of Hellboy II: The Golden Army.
The 2004 film was wild and original, but maybe a little too original for its own good. More than anything else, it struck me as a weirder, loopier version of X-Men. It was too caught up in being offbeat and not caught up enough in making me care about the characters.
That error has been mostly rectified in this wildly thrilling follow-up. Watching it, I got the sense that the first time around, Director Guillermo del Toro held back somewhat, and for whatever reason, his vision didn’t reach full flower. It has this time around, with a vengeance.
Since the first movie, del Toro’s stature has grown. The ads state that the movie is “from the visionary director of Pan’s Labyrinth.” That’s not to say that this sequel is equal to the genius of Pan’s Labyrinth, but it is to say that film gave the director more freedom on Hellboy II, allowing his imagination to run wild.
It runs so wild, in fact, that I can’t fully explain the plot without sounding silly, so I’ll boil it down to the essentials: An evil prince (Luke Goss), wanting to wage war on humans for long-ago misdeeds, plots to reawaken the immense mechanical golden army. He needs a certain piece of a crown to do it, but his twin sister, (Anna Walton), wanting to keep the peace, tries to shield it from him. Enter Hellboy, (Ron Perlman), the ultimate bodyguard.
One reason Hellboy II outshines its predecessor is that the emotional pull is much stronger, with higher stakes for Hellboy and his fiery lady Liz (Selma Blair). The movie even ups the ante by having Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) finding himself attached to the princess. It’s strange, but it works. An added benefit is that this film is self-contained; one does not need to see the original to understand this one.
When I first heard that del Toro was making this movie, I feared he was just spinning his wheels, and I suppose he was, but nobody can spin them quite so vividly as he can. The film overflows with one outrageous set piece after another. His use of mechanical effects is especially ingenious, and I can’t think of anyone else who has successfully created a character who’s made entirely of gas. Suffice it to say this movie has to be seen to be believed.
Hellboy II may still be a little more frenzied than it ought to be; I kept wishing the movie would slow down and let me catch my breath a little. Still, any film that’s nutty enough to use a Barry Manilow song as its love theme, and get away with it, is nothing if not inspired.
GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
The best films of the half year
Why do a 10 best list when the year’s only half over? Simple. It’s to give some quality films from early in the year their due. They may not be good enough to end up on a 10 best list at the end of the year, but they’re certainly good enough to warrant a little extra attention.
The list also serves as an interesting primer for what will come at the end of the year. Which movies will be strong enough to stay here?
Keep in mind that I’m counting movies that opened in the Dayton area this calendar year, even though they may technically be 2007 films.
10. The Spiderwick Chronicles: Amid the glut of fantasy films lately, this one kind of got buried in the mix, which is too bad. For my money, it’s better than either of the Narnia films.
9. The Bank Job: Jason Statham stars in an action movie with a brain! Wow!
8. Forgetting Sarah Marshall: The Judd Apatow movies not actually directed by Apatow have been a mixed bag, but this one was easily the funniest of the lot.
7. Persepolis: I found this highly acclaimed animated film a bit overrated, due mainly to the abrupt ending, but there’s no denying its unique vision and biting humor.
6. Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day: A delightful throwback to 1930s style screwball comedy. And yes, the presence of a certain Amy Adams helped earn it a spot here.
5. Kung Fu Panda: It just might be DreamWorks best animated film. Hi-ya, Shrek!
4. Atonement: A shattering, engrossing look at the nature of truth, and the power of a lie.
3. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: How on earth can someone understand the feelings of someone who’s can only communicate by blinking one eyelid? By making a film as extraordinary as this one.
2. There Will Be Blood: Admittedly, the movie is not for all tastes, but I draw the line at complaints this movie doesn’t work because the lead character isn’t likable. There is no law that says lead characters must be likable, but they do have to be charismatic. And if Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance can’t put that across, nothing can.
1. WALL-E: I have a strong feeling this masterpiece will stay in the same place on my list come December.
Admittedly, this list is not comprehensive as I haven’t caught up with acclaimed titles like In Bruges or 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days yet. What other movies deseve consideration? What are your favorites of the year thus far?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Lists
What’s opening Friday, July 11?
Hellboy II: The Golden Army: Regardless of the movie’s merits (which I hear are considerable), I have to ask: WHY on earth is Universal releasing this a week before The Dark Knight, which is going to kick its butt next weekend? This would have had a better chance to succeed in the spring, which was deadly dull this year. I will review the movie tomorrow, if all goes as planned.
Journey to the Center of the Earth: The ads make it look fairly innocuous. Word has it the many 3D effects are snazzy, but there’s not much else.
Meet Dave: … and wonder if Eddie Murphy will ever be funny again.
At the Victoria
The Cool Films series plays Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, widely acclaimed as Marilyn Monroe’s funniest movie - after Some Like It Hot, of course.
At the arthouses
The Neon in Dayton opens Before the Rains, a drama about an English spice baron who settles in South India; and The Children of Huang Shi, the story of a young English journalist, an American nurse and the leader of a Chinese partisan group who y rescue 60-orphaned children leading them on an extraordinary journey, Roger Spottiswoode (!) directs a cast including Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Michelle Yeoh, Chow Yun-Fat and Radha Mitchell.
The Little Art will open The Fall, the new film from Tarsem, who made The Cell, and My Brother is an Only Child, from the writers of the highly regarded The Best of Youth.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Wow! The movie wasn’t terrible after all!
One of my favorite experiences at the movies is when one surprises me by being good when I didn’t expect it to be.
I try to go into every movie with a positive frame of mind, but there are some I can’t help but dread. Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle and many of Michael Bay’s films spring to mind.
A few movies, however, clear the air of dread and end up being rejuvenating. The first example that I always think of in this situation is The Brady Bunch Movie, which totally blindsided me.
I was never a fan of the TV series, which was aggressively chirpy for my taste, so I wasn’t looking forward to a long version of it. But that’s not what I got. It turned out to be a smart, funny parody. Director Betty Thomas cleverly filmed the scenes in the house with the show’s flat, overly bright TV lighting, which amusingly contrasted with the “real” world outside. The movie kidded its subject, but did so affectionately, much like Disney’s Enchanted did last year.
On top of all that, the cast included some standout players, including Christine Taylor (Marcia Marcia Marcia), who later became Mrs. Ben Stiller, appearing alongside him in Dodgeball and Zoolander, two other pleasant surprises.
And speaking of Monsieur Bay, The Rock was a surprise too, at least in retrospect. That was my introduction to him, and while I found his style to be over the top (of course), Nicolas Cage, Sean Connery and Ed Harris compensated for that by giving the story some humanity.
Then Bay made Armageddon, and he’s been pulverizing humanity ever since. The Rock remains his one decent movie. I would welcome another, but I shan’t hold my breath.
So tell me about films that exceeded your expectations. What movies had you convinced they were going to be mediocre at best, and then they turned out to be quite a bit better? Surprise me!
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Do you double-dip on DVDs?
I’ve read some DVD news recently that made me jump for joy and gnash my teeth at the same time.
The good news is that new editions of some Universal Hitchcock films, and the Godfather trilogy are coming our way.
The bad news is …. I already had the old editions, which had some nice extras on them.
According to The Digital Bits, in October, Universal will release new 2-disc edition sets of Psycho, Vertigo and Rear Window, the three most illustrious titles in their library. All of the sets will contain content not on the original discs, including excerpts from the legendary Hitchcock/Truffaut interviews, which I would LOVE to hear. Details are here. (No word on Blu-Ray versions, for you hi-def converts.)
As if that weren’t enough, in September, Paramount will release a new version of the Godfather films, which not only have extras new to the set, but feature transfers of the first two films restored by Robert Harris, the go-to guy on making old movies look new. He worked similar magic on Rear Window, Vertigo, Lawrence of Arabia and other films. Details on that set are here. The Godfather sets will be on Blu-Ray.
Such double-dipping has been the bane of many a DVD collector. The Hitchcock titles are especially aggravating, because technically, those are triple-dips, and I had the first two versions. What I usually do is ask myself, “Are the new materials worth the price?” I don’t know about you, but I am sorely tempted.
While we’re on the subject of DVDs, there will be a cool new version of Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil, released at the same time as the Hitch sets, which will contain all the versions of that film. I’m all over that. And in other Hitch news, in October MGM will release a box set of their Hitch titles, including Rebecca, Spellbound, Notorious, The Paradine Case, Sabotage, Young and Innocent, Lifeboat and The Lodger - all with nice extras. Somebody must know October is my birthday month.
Finally, here are today’s new titles: The Ruins, Stop Loss, and, if you must, Superhero Movie, none of which I got to see, for better or worse.
What do you do when a new DVD edition of a movie you already own comes out? What titles do you own more than one copy of?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
An American girl and boy review ‘Kit Kittredge’
It seemed only natural to spend my Fourth of July seeing a movie called Kit Kittredge: An American Girl, based on the beloved doll line and book series.
The big boys and their bright, loud fireworks overshadowed the little girls at the megaplexes, and that’s unfortunate. Kit Kittredge is lovingly made and smartly presented - most of the way.
Adapted from stories by Valerie Tripp, the movie has Kit (Abigail Breslin) striving to become a reporter for the Cincinnati Register. Gradually, the shadow of the Great Depression darkens even Kit’s usually plucky disposition. Her dad (Chris O’Donnell) is forced to find work in Chicago, while her mom (Julia Ormond) has to take in boarders to make ends meet.
The plot thickens when a crime wave hits Cincinnati, Hamilton, Columbus and Dayton. (Middletown, blessedly, seems to be spared.) Police and tut-tutting adults in the neighborhood are quick to suspect hobos, but Kit, who has befriended them, vows to prove their innocence.
One of the most refreshing qualities of the American Girl franchise is that it isn’t a crass attempt to sell merchandise. The books show their readers slices of life from history, and so does this movie. Handsomely presented by director Patricia Rozema, the film cannily uses true-life details like hobo symbols that I found especially fascinating.
But Kit Kittredge is more than just a glossy museum piece. It doesn’t sugarcoat the Depression, presenting its characters with dilemmas that lead to heartfelt moments. Breslin is irresistible, whether she’s determined to realize her dreams or disillusioned by the Depression. The cast also includes such dependable players as Jane Krakowski, Wallace Shawn and Joan Cusack.
Most of the movie is so winning, it’s more than a little disheartening to see it resort to lame, predictable slapstick in which the adults have the IQ of a cabbage. It feels as if a studio executive said, “We need to give the little ones something zany to laugh at. Cue the pratfalls!” It’s out of synch with the rest of the movie, and totally unnecessary.
Perhaps fearing that the Depression would be heavy going for its audience, writer Ann Peacock ties the story up with too many bows. Happy endings are to be expected in this sort of movie, but everything falls so conveniently into place, the conclusion feels more like a matter of luck than real achievement.
What this movie achieves, however, is highly impressive and more than a little charming. It may not seem like the kind of movie that needs to be seen in a theater, but it’s beyond cute to see an audience full of children clutching their dolls.
GRADE: B
Speaking of dolls, I’d like to introduce you to one of my personal favorites - my dear friend Angela Allen. The American Girl dolls and books are to her what movies are to me, so here’s a review from a real aficionado who, in her own way, is following in Kit’s journalistic footsteps!
I have been waiting a long time for this movie. An avid American Girl fan since a library visit in 1990 that led to my discovery of the books, I have been the proud owner of a Kit Kittredge doll since her debut in 2000. Kit’s books are among my favorites in the series.
Let me state right now that I don’t consider myself a total book purist when it comes to movie adaptations. The American Girl television movies ran the gamut from following the books pretty closely (Felicity) to waiting almost halfway through the movie before lifting something from the books (Molly) to somewhere in between (Samantha). Many fans complained of the changes made to all three, but it comes with the territory when you take six books and smash them into one cohesive story. Some changes I had issues with, others didn’t bother me at all.
With Kit, I knew of many changes going into the movie just from watching the trailers, so I was prepared. In fact, I ended up being pleasantly surprised. Immediately as the movie started, Kit’s world of the 1930s felt familiar, and I delighted at spotting outfits, story moments, accessories, and furniture right out of Kit’s collection. It became a game of, oh look, it’s Kit’s school supplies! Oh look, it’s Kit’s desk! Oh look, it’s Kit’s typewriter! Oh look, she’s wearing the outfit the doll comes in! Even the picture of Kit’s favorite baseball player and her copy of Robin Hood are there.
As for the plot, the best way I can describe it to fans of the Kit book series is that it’s as if they took her 6 core books and tossed them into a blender- a pinch of this book, a dash of that book, a toss of something new. Literally, I’d catch bits and pieces from each book as the movie continued on. Dad loses his business in book 1. Will and the hobos are in book 5. Mr. Gibson, the newspaper editor, appears in book 6. Some moments, such as, Kit’s heartbreaking discovery at the soup kitchen, are exactly how I imagined them.
Although overall I really enjoyed this film, I can’t say it is without flaws. A mystery plot never seen in the books threatens to turn it into a goofy catch-the-thief movie with bad guys that would almost be better suited for Home Alone or something from Nickelodeon. I’m disappointed in the screenwriters for feeling the need to add something so hokey to an otherwise beautifully done adaptation! I also felt the ending wraps up things just a little too neatly. Something Kit works towards for the entire movie is suddenly dropped right into her lap with no explanation.
As is the nature of the medium, the movie is unable to express the same character depth that can be found in the books. Poor Ruthie, one of my favorite characters, is left with very little to do. The books get more into the differences between Kit and Ruthie and the challenge of being friends when Kit’s family becomes poor while Ruthie’s father works at the bank. The movie only hints at this story arc.
The American Girl books are full of wonderful illustrations, so I have these images in my head of favorite moments. If Kit Kittredge: An American Girl is your introduction to Kit’s world and you enjoyed it, I highly recommend reading her books to learn more about her. Yes, get over your embarrassment of being seen in the children’s section of the library and check them out.
Eric asked me to assign a grade - something that is very difficult for me to do because I often have trouble making up my mind on how I feel about something. So I’ll just say this - the silly mystery plot gets a C, but the rest of the film gets an A!
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Summer report card - so far
The summer movie season is only about half over, but since we’re headed into the long holiday weekend, I figured it was a good time to provide my quick takes on what’s come out so far. Remember - not all the fireworks are in the sky this weekend.
Grades link to full reviews.
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
The follow-up to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe improves on the first installment, with much more lively action scenes, more realistic-looking effects, and a religious allegory that isn’t so baldly obvious. It takes a little too long to get going, but once it takes off, the movie works very well. Ben Barnes impresses as the titular prince, and the sword-fighting mice are charming and funny additions to the gang. At the rate this series is going, the third movie, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, due in 2010, looks very promising indeed. GRADE: B+
Get Smart
The ’60s TV spy spoof makes for a decently engaging big screen comedy. Its biggest mistake is that it tries too hard to be an action movie, and comedy director Peter Segal is unskilled and clumsy in this genre. Still, it works because of the two leads, Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway, who are always eminently watchable. GRADE: B
Hancock
The ads for the film make it look like it’s about a superhero who really doesn’t care to be a hero - and that part of the movie is the part that works best, thanks to some sharp writing and direction. Then, about halfway in, the plot twists and the movie becomes a completely different animal. The two halves don’t mesh very well, but even in the movie’s rough patches, it works because of the very likable cast of Will Smith, Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron. It’s inconsistent, but entertaining. GRADE: B
The Happening
It’s neither an unmitigated disaster, nor a misunderstood gem. Instead, M. Night Shyamalan’s movie is a confused mess. It can’t decide whether it wants to be a Hitchcockian thriller, a goofy B movie or a message picture about being nice to Mother Nature. The director’s visual style is still potent enough to create some suspenseful scenes, but that’s not enough to overcome the jumbled tone. A fascinating misfire, but a misfire all the same.
GRADE: C
The Incredible Hulk
More like the “Just Kinda OK Hulk.” Marvel tries to atone for the alleged sins of the 2003 Hulk movie by making a new one that’s more of an action flick. The problem is, in making the new movie more muscular, they’ve also made it dumber than Ang Lee’s version. The action scenes are decent, and Edward Norton is good as Bruce Banner, but Liv Tyler is badly miscast as the love interest, and the villain is bland. There may be visual fireworks, but there’s almost nothing to care about. GRADE: C+
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The first Indiana Jones film in 19 years succeeds as both a blast from the past and the future. The breathless action scenes crackle once again, and Harrison Ford returns to form with his liveliest performance in years. Shia LaBeouf is fun to watch as Indy’s sidekick, and Cate Blanchett finds the scenery quite delectable playing a Russian villainess. There are a few disappointments. Marion (Karen Allen) isn’t used very well, and the finale underwhelms because there’s not enough of a sense of danger, but I still came out much happier than when I came in. GRADE: B+
Iron Man
Terrifically exciting launch of the summer movie season with an Oscar-quality turn by Robert Downey Jr., a fun performance from Gwyneth Paltrow, lively direction by Jon Favreau, and a clever mix of old school and new school effects. Major debit: a lame and obvious villain played by Jeff Bridges, a great actor who’s not so great at being nasty. GRADE: B+
Kung Fu Panda
DreamWorks’ animated movies usually emphasize gags over character, but this is a delightful exception. Yes, the movie has funny (if often obvious) jokes, and the animation is great, but the main reason it works is the lead character is utterly lovable. I felt for the big furry lug as he struggled to fit in with a group of kung fu masters he worshipped, but who couldn’t stand him. Great, touching fun. GRADE: A-
Lawrence of Arabia
I know, it’s not a summer movie, except in the sense that it’s playing at the Ultra Cool Films series at the Victoria Theatre in Dayton this weekend. But it IS the greatest epic of all time, and if you haven’t seen it in a theater, you haven’t seen it at all. Go. GRADE: A+
Sex and the City
The Fab Four (the female version, that is) move to the big screen, and the transition is fun if not enthralling. Instead of feeling like one long episode, the movie feels like five episodes that have been inelegantly jammed together. The 21⁄2-hour running time is excessive. What holds the movie together, though, is the powerful chemistry between Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis. Parker, in particular, has never been better. Fans of the show ought to be pleased, and men who aren’t virulently against chick flicks should come away not wanting to slit their wrists. GRADE: B
WALL-E
Simply put, it’s one of the very best movies of all time, animated or otherwise. Who would have guessed that such a moving love story could be made from two mechanical objects who don’t speak English? Pixar tops itself again, as it so often does. I don’t expect to see a better movie this year. GRADE: A+
Wanted
Take part of The Matrix, part of Fight Club and part of Shoot Em Up and what do you get? A derivative bore. James McAvoy is such an annoying wimp in his early scenes, I wasn’t interested in seeing him growing a spine. Sure, there are some wild action scenes, but this is, as a classy writer once put it, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”
GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Hancock: A heroic mess
At one point in Hancock, the title character talks about how he was going to see the movie Frankenstein at about the same time he discovered his superpowers.
That reference may be more fitting than the filmmakers intended. Hancock is a Frankenstein monster of a movie. Parts of it are wild and fun; other parts are lumbering and ungainly. The uneven second half has made people unjustly compare the film to gargantuan misfires like Last Action Hero and Wild Wild West. Unlike those movies, however, Hancock works, partly because it’s such a strange animal.
The movie starts out as you might expect from the ads: Hancock (Will Smith) is a superhero who isn’t much of a hero. Sure, he usually stops the bad guys and saves the day, but he makes a heck of a mess doing it. When he stops a vehicle full of armed men, he does so by digging his feet into the highway and ripping the road apart.
Even worse than his destructiveness is Hancock’s attitude. He doesn’t give a rip what people think of him or his “heroics.” When he saves a motorist from getting hit by a train, he tells the other drivers, “Ok, you people who were blocking the intersection? Y’all are idiots.”
Enter public relations man Ray Embrey (Jason Batman), who’s fascinated by Hancock and wants to redeem him. His solution: have Hancock turn himself in to prison, allow the crime rate to skyrocket and let Hancock do his stuff when he’s needed most. Most of this material is very funny and clever.
That’s only about half the movie, though. At a crucial point, Hancock becomes an origin story, and Charlize Theron, playing Ray’s wife, becomes much more central to the plot. It’s a rough shift in tone. Like a car that’s suddenly been jammed into the wrong gear, Hancock loses momentum, lurching forward when it’s not sputtering to a stop.
Part of the problem is that the screenplay by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan isn’t fully worked out. After establishing a fun and creative idea of the shiftless hero, the movie more or less drops it and morphs into a bizarre, half-baked story that makes less sense the more you think about it. This is the rare summer movie that could actually stand to be longer. Running only about 90 minutes, Hancock might have been better had it had time to develop the ideas it forms in the second half.
For all the second half’s mistakes, though, it’s still weirdly fascinating. Theron brings a fierce yet touching presence to the movie, and Smith’s charisma is, as ever, irrepressible. It’s fun to see him put a spin on his unflappable persona. Peter Berg, a director with undervalued talent, keeps the energy level high, even when the film loses focus.
Hancock is imperfect, but I’m much more interested in a movie that aims high and sometimes misses, than one that aims low and plays it safe, like The Incredible Hulk. This movie may not be super, but it’s heroic enough.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Today’s DVDs: Drillbit Taylor, Vantage Point
Today’s DVDs bring us two flawed but decent spring entertainments.
Drillbit Taylor: Widely regarded as the clunker in the Judd Apatow factory, the movie does take too long to get going, because at firt it doesn’t realize the kids who need protection from a bully are the real stars, not the less funny adults. When the kids move front and center and start cracking the jokes, the movie works, if only just so. Full review: GRADE: B-
Vantage Point: This gimmicky thriller that covers an assassination plot from several points of view gets a touch too frenetic, and the more frenetic it gets, the more ridiculous it gets. Even so, there’s enough energy in the movie to make it a solid programmer that doesn’t aim too high, but still scores. Strong editing from Stuart Baird (the first two Lethal Weapon movies; Casino Royale) helps a lot. GRADE: B
