Frothy Ruminations

Bill Murray talked to the Daily Mail, in a rare interview, on all sorts of topics.

I’ll come back in Ghostbusters III only if I get to be a ghost.
I said to them, ‘I’ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.’ So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film.
The first 45 minutes of the original Ghostbusters is some of the funniest stuff ever made.
The second one was disappointing, because the special-effects guys took over. I had something like two scenes – and they’re the only funny ones in the movie.

Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1248557/Bill-Murray-Actors-high-salaries-travel-trouble-known.html#ixzz0exEXQFKF

In the somewhat-distant future, people use robotic likenesses of themselves to go out into the world and, you know, interact with other robotic likenesses. Crime’s declined to the point of mockery, until the son of the inventor of these robotic likenesses – surrogates, if you will – is murdered. FBI guy Bruce Willis stoically investigates the crime by actually going out in the streets and looking for clues.

Agent Greer (Willis) is world weary and sort of burned out. Like everyone else, he spends his time in his own house, experiencing the outside world via his surrogate. His wife Maggie (Rosamund Pike) does the same; they don’t even share a bedroom anymore. The surrogates cannot die, you see; or, rather, they can be damaged beyond repair but to no ill effects of their operator. Until a young man dies when his surrogate is shot by an unknown assailant. Then it is on! Because the company that manufactures the surrogates, VSI, has long claimed that the operators cannot be killed if their surrogates are harmed. Intriguing!

It might all have something to do with The Dreads, a group that disdains the use of surrogates and wants people to return to the days when they did junk for themselves. (99% of the world’s populace uses surrogates, although I’m not sure how this is so.) Led by a mysterious man called The Prophet, The Dreads have their own little enclave, shut off from the rest of the world, and they have the motive to take out the son of the inventor. Or at least the inventor. It’s not really clear.

Greer and his partner, Agent Peters (Radha Mitchell) are called to the scene of the murder, but they quickly discover that their suspect has a superweapon that can wipe out surrogates easy as pie. After a blast from the weapon kills five cops and sends Greer to the hospital, his boss takes him off the case (of course) and suspends him. With his surrogate destroyed, Willis must leave the house (no!) and solve the murder! Is it all a big conspiracy? Yes.

Surrogates is a lot like The Sixth Day, only with no Arnold Schwarzeneggar and with robots instead of clones. It’s lightweight sci-fi, which is almost the worst kind of sci-fi. I mean, action and effects are fun, but they better be really groundbreaking if the underlying plot is convoluted and/or nonsensical. There’s supposed to be some kind of theme about how people should learn to live on their own again, but the truth is that the society presented in the movie isn’t really all that plausible to begin with. We’re already at a stage where people do a lot of interacting online instead of in person, but the people who do nothing but interact online are generally the least healthy of them all, mentally and physically. And yet this surrogates-only behavior is really widespread, to the point where you wonder how anyone could even have the strength to operate the surrogate when all they do for themselves is walk down to the bathroom. If that.

There’s too much wasted talent here as well. James Cromwell plays the inventor, and he’s barely on screen; he’s not old enough to play bedridden people, is he? Then there’s Ving Rhames as The Prophet. Throughout the movie, the spectre of The Prophet is raised time and time again, as if somehow his presence will really tie everything together (conspiracy, you know), but ultimately it’s as if he wasn’t even needed. Rhames is given virtually nothing to do.

And finally, those who do have something to do waste their time. Willis sleepwalks through this one – it’s not as if he’s never played a world-weary cop before – and although he’s onscreen a lot, he’s overshadowed by ridiculous CGI effects. For example, in the trailer we see a car slam into the side of the one in which Willis is a passenger (as himself, not as his surrogate). Willis/Greer is fine (why?), but more importantly the crash looks completely fabricated.

Then there’s Mitchell, as Greer’s partner. She doesn’t quite have the gravitas to play a serious role (that is, a role other than that of a damsel in distress or a love interest); she’s no law-enforcement official. But worse than that, she overacts anyway. But maybe it just looks like overacting next to Willis, who mistakes understated for glum.

It’s not that Surrogates is bad, but it’s surely not very good, either. It’s completely forgettable, pretty much like The Sixth Day is forgettable. Or I, Robot, for that matter, or most other low-rent sci-fi that stars high-rent talent.

Surrogates: **

But we knew that from his constant Titanic crowing. King of the world, indeed.

Word comes that the Avatar director is mad because the actors in his billion-dollar-making movie weren’t recognized for acting Oscars.

“People confuse what we have done with animation,” Cameron told THR at the PGA Awards. “It’s nothing like animation. The creator here is the actor, not the unseen hand of an animator.”
.
.
[producer] Landau explained that they needed to make clear that the system they used represents a new way to use “motion capture” photography, or as Landau puts it, “emotion capture.”

Let’s put this to rest: the reason that Sam Worthington didn’t get a Best Actor nomination was that Sam Worthington is a horrible, horrible actor. If Avatar didn’t have pretty 3D, it would have been seen as a pretty lame movie with some decent effects. In no way, shape, or form was the actual acting any good. Even from Sigourney Weaver.

So, in short: James Cameron can expletive a deleted.

Thanks to a powerful groundswell of support from our Facebook friends, the Oscars broadcast on March 7 will be live blogged! (If you’re not sure what that means, ask someone under 40.)

(Note: No write-ins allowed.)

With bone-jarring explosions and a heartfelt theme of overworked, stressed-out soldiers, The Hurt Locker is easily one of the top movies of the year. It’s absolutely overflowing with tension as the selfless members of an elite bomb squad in Iraq are constantly beseiged by conflict: from civilians, from unseen enemies, and among each other. Jeremy Renner, as the unit’s new leader, is in particular fearless and unswerving, with a gutsy tenacity that shakes you to your core.

The Bravo Company is a bomb-disposal unit operating in Baghdad, Iraq. Sgt. William James arrives to head the group after its former leader, Sgt. Thompson, is killed in action. James quickly proves to be a man who moves to the beat of a different drummer, sometimes ignoring communiques from his fellow squad members, throwing caution to the wind. A freewheeling cowboy, James appears on the surface to be all rebellious bluster, but it soon becomes evident that his cockiness masks due caution and an almost unparalleled ability to remain cool under tremendous pressure.

Make no mistake about it. War movies in the past have alternately shown soldiers as gung-ho blocks of wood or somewhat-vulnerable human beings, but few have shown how cool some true leaders can be when things get hot – physically and psychologically.

Picture this: a car is afire in the middle of a town square. A bomb is feared to be inside. A soldier, part of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal unit, dons a heavy-protection suit and ambles to the fire. He extinguishes the fire with foam and then carefully opens the doors. Then methodically goes through every element of the car to find the bomb’s triggering mechanism. This sound pressurized to begin with, doesn’t it? Now picture that soldier surrounded by unseen assailants. There are only two other men on his team; their job is to provide cover for him, keeping their eyes and ears peeled for any suspicious activity. Could be that the young man on the neighboring rooftop isn’t aiming a camera lens at the fire, he’s aiming a gun. Or maybe he’s signaling someone else, someone who has the actual trigger. And these aren’t just people who are actual terrorists, it’s also people who just plain don’t want the Americans in their towns anymore.

As James’ methodical madness saves the day again and again, his actions have varying effects on his mates. Sgt. Sanborn is a straight-arrow soldier who respects the rules of the game (i.e., he has no time for James’ shenanigans), while young Spc. Eldridge seems to take a little more of a shine to his superior. In any case, there is also a side plot of a young boy whom James befriends. Is this boy as genuine as he seems (in his cynical exploitation of soldiers’ DVD needs), or is he merely a tool in someone else’s shed? One of the underlying messages of the movie is that the soldiers have virtually no one they can really trust; every innocent could be a bringer of death, no matter how young and no matter how fragile.

Before this movie, Kathryn Bigelow was probably best known for movies like Strange Days and Point Break. And being married to James Cameron, whose name you might recognize as well. Both of those movies were pretty solid action movies, but they owed a lot more to their stars – Ralph Fiennes and Patrick Swayze – than to their direction. But Bigelow easily trumps herself here, and possibly all of the movies to come out in 2009 (including a little picture by her ex, Cameron). The Hurt Locker is so well shot (by Barry Ackroyd) and directed that you feel as if you are mere yards away from every potential skull-shaking explosion. The movie is shot in almost a verite’ style, so you feel like you’re right on top of the action, something that’s crucial for intense movies like this (and less so for comic-book action movies like Mission:Impossible).

The Hurt Locker is simply a masterful movie, filled with compelling drama and roaring action. It’s never dull, even as our soldiers employ a bit of introspection among each other. It’s sentimental but not overwrought; blink and you’ll miss the theme of how all this stress affects the characters mentally. Most importantly, movie is packed with such tension that you’ll be sweating in the safety of your living room (or theater), barely able to breathe until Sgt. James can disarm one of the many bombs in the movie. The Hurt Locker juxtaposes brutal violence with elegant, although intermittent, bouts of humanity (and not just by the soldiers). It’s utterly compelling, fascinating, and highly entertaining, and it’s got a great chance to win Best Picture next month.

The Hurt Locker: ***1/2

Well, it’s that time again: Oscar nominations! Now, in the past one of the big knocks on the Academy has been that it showcases movies that most people haven’t seen and will never see. You know, the highfalutin, high-class snore-inducing dramas.

The Academy is sensitive to your whining, though! This year, instead of five Best Picture nominees, you get – are you ready – TEN! Ten wonderful nominees! AH AH AH!

Tough luck, every other category. Still just five for you.

Let’s take a look at the nominees in the main categories.

Winner: The Hurt Locker. Which I haven’t seen yet, probably tomorrow night. Avatar has all the money, and maybe that’ll give voters some pause – since the big box-office winners rarely win these things. Or maybe the voters will realize that the movie wasn’t much more than its astounding special effects. The Hurt Locker has also been a darling of critics and their myriad awards. On the other hand, maybe one of those highbrow dramas will win, like A Serious Man or An Education, both of which I found to be flawed and pretty boring.

Winner: Bridges. Here’s my logic. Clooney and Freeman were both superb (though some may have felt that Freeman was doing an impression of Mandela, not so much acting), but they have both won previously. Renner and Firth are either newbies or are still largely unknown to an American audience. Bridges has been nominated five times now – over almost 40 years! – and hasn’t won. This might be his year.

Winner: Bullock. Streep has won before (duh), and although her Julia Child was spot on, the movie was kind of blah. Mirren won recently with The Queen. Mulligan should be just happy to be there, since her character was so irredeemably stupid anyway. I think the compelling story and the gut-wrenching, heartbreaking performance by Sidibe has a real chance, but the sentiment is too strong for Bullock.

Winner: Bigelow. It’s not always the case, but generally if the movie wins, the director wins. Now, I don’t know what criteria the voters use, but I have my own set. What made Avatar great (to most people)? The effects, not necessarily the direction. Inglourious Basterds was Tarantino’s weakest ever, too clever by half, starting with the ridiculous title. Reitman is an up and comer, and he has a good chance as well, as does Daniels, but I think this is Bigelow’s to lose – though I’ll never quite forgive her for Blue Steel. Oh, and did you know she and Cameron are exes? It’s true.

Winner: Waltz. He was easily the best past of Tarantino’s witless gorefest. (Damon, by the way, gave nothing more than a silly accent.) Tucci deserves a lot of recognition in his role as the creepy murderer of Saoirse Rohan – he’s really spellbinding – and Plummer gets his first nomination in his fifty-year career, but the buzz has long been for first timer Waltz, who’s a veritable newcomer to the US as well.

Winner: Mo’Nique. Those of us who thought she was nothing more than a sassy comedian have been proven wrong. Mo’Nique, in a completely unflattering role sold herself as a legitimate actress. Conventional wisdom tells us that Farmiga and Kendrick will cancel each other out – after all, how can one be the best of the year if she’s not much better than someone else in the same movie – and Kendrick was sweet in Up in the Air, but she’s hardly onscreen compared with Farmiga, who was excellent. Gyllenhaal ties her brother in the nomination race, and here she fills the role of Just Happy to Be Here.

Hackman and Han Solo shortly before their duel to the death.

I swear I am not making that up. Today, Gene Hackman, perhaps the greatest actor of his generation not named Brando or Nicholson, is an octogenarian. He wasn’t one yesterday; this is new for him.

You may remember Mr. Hackman from such movies as The French Connection, Hoosiers, The Poseidon Adventure, Superman, and Unforgiven. The man made a career out of playing leading men, weird characters, genial supporting roles, and so on. And, of course, he was half the impetus behind the famed Caine-Hackman theory.

80 years old! Now, Hackman retired from the business a few years back (after 2004’s Welcome to Mooseport, which was a bomb), but when he retired I didn’t think of him as being as old as he was. He always seems to energetic and virile. I’m going to go out on a limb, though, and say he won’t be coming out of retirement, unless it’s for a cameo here and there. (Maybe Ocean’s 14? Heh?)

Here are some of Gene’s best:

Bonnie and Clyde (1967). You may recall this as a Warren Beatty/Faye Dunaway movie, but Hackman is in fine early form as Clyde’s brother Buck.

The French Connection (1971). One of the best cop movies ever stars Hackman as Popeye Doyle trying to stop a drug-smuggling ring (why don’t they call it “druggling”?). Features one of the best chase scenes on film, too.

The Poseidon Adventure (1972). As the unorthodox priest Frank Scott, Hackman looks like he’s having a great time. You know, except for the ship being upside down and all.

The Conversation (1974). One of the most underrated – and perhaps the best – films of the seventies. Hackman is Harry Caul, a surveillance expert who gets a little too involved in a subject.

Night Moves (1975). Here, he’s private eye Harry Moseby, hired to track down the missing daughter of a fading actress. Melanie Griffith plays the daughter. Great mystery.

Superman (1978). Have you heard of this one? Yeah, this was before that Routh guy. Hackman plays Baldy McBalderton, aka Lex Luthor.

Under Fire (1983). Hackman’s a journalist in war-torn Nicaragua in ‘79. Scary and very riveting.

Hoosiers (1986). Dennis Hopper’s comeback role as an alky b-ball junkie, but it’s Hackman as coach Norman Dale who’s the real show here. Inspiring, even if you don’t care for college hoops.

Mississippi Burning (1988). Hackman’s an FBI agent who investigates the murders of three black civil-rights activists, along with fellow agent Willem Dafoe. Dafoe’s the straight-arrow dude, and again Hackman is the offbeat partner.

Unforgiven (1992). Clint Eastwood’s great, great western features Hackman as the bad guy, Little Bill Daggett, who runs the town of Big Whiskey. It’s an arresting, poetic film about the ethical ambiguity of the old West. First in a slew of westerns for Hackman.

The Firm (1993). First of several JOhn Grisham adaptations for Hackman. He might be the bad guy, I can’t remember now.

Crimson Tide (1995). Hackman is Captain Ramsey of the nuke sub Alabama alongside Denzel Washington as his XO. Tensions mount. It’s basically The Caine Mutiny.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). Hackman’s the titular head of this weird family, which includes Anjelica Huston, Luke and Owen Wilson, Gwyneth Paltrow, and even Danny Glover.

If you don’t care for movies, then I recommend you don’t become a fan of our site on Facebook. You won’t like it if you do. It’ll be boring. It won’t even be snarkable. It’ll just annoy you, but not to the point of commenting on anything.

Now, as for the rest of you…. you should fan the site.

According to unnamed super-duper secret sources, Gremlins will be remade soon. Yippee, you might say. It’ll be in 3D. You know, like the new Ghostbusters and virtually every other remake on the schedule.

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/exclusive-gremlins-will-rise-again-in.html

A lonely astronaut, nearing the end of a three-year hitch on the Moon harvesting helium, begins to hallucinate. And then things get weird. Duncan Jones’ thoughtful sci-fi is exceedingly well done, with a truly terrific performance by Sam Rockwell. It’ll seem a little murky and perhaps too esoteric for those who prefer explosions in space (there are none in this film), and it’s not a particularly fast-movie film, but it’s ultimately a joy to watch.

Sam Bell (Rockwell) works for the Lunar Corporation, a conglomerate that harvests helium from the crust of Earth’s moon for use on Earth as an energy source. Sam’s been stuck on the Moon for nearly three years, and he’s getting a little antsy – all he has for companionship (aside from TV reruns) is the base’s computer, GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey). He has human names for each of the harvesters and other equipment, but there isn’t much in terms of external stimuli to keep him occupied. And then one day, while examining the harvesters, Sam has what we might call an out-of-body experience, if we were feeling particularly punny that day. And suddenly those remaining couple of weeks don’t seem so uneventul – or lonely – after all.

I’m reminded of a line from 2010, paraphrased, “You see, something’s going to happen. Something wonderful.” The speaker there couldn’t tell Heywood Floyd what was going to happen, just as I certainly can’t tell you what’s happened to our man Sam or what it means for his mission.

In most thinky sci-fi movies, there comes a time when the protagonists figure out what’s going on, and then they spend the rest of the film trying to do something or other before they run out of time. It takes Sam a long time to accept the information he’s just learned, all physical evidence to the contrary, and by the time he understands what can be done he’s become so weakened that he can’t think straight. And that sort of adds to the veil of intrigue, too; is Sam hallucinating, or is what he knows to be real actually real? In fact, the movie really tries to get us to question what’s real and what’s not real. Is something real because of how it makes us feel? What if you found out this very second that essentially nothing you thought was real has any grounding in reality? Bet you’d feel pretty stunned and bummed.

More kudos: Rockwell is so amazing in such a challenging role, showing range so far flung that you’d almost think it wasn’t the same actor. Sort of like Bruce Dern in Silent Running or Gary Lockwood in the progenitor for these close-in, nonactiony space movies, 2001. His performance is so nuanced and so elegant that he should get awards recognition, but in these times of overmarketing and promotion, it’s not likely that an independent film would be so recognized. Also loved the passionate, majestic score by Clint Mansell. Very much reminiscent of John Williams’ legendary scores, full of pomp and import.

I think people who love mysteries and people who love movies set in the vast emptiness of space will really like this movie. It’s a lot of fun to watch. Rockwell, who’s been good in many things, is pitch perfect here, and the story is compelling stuff, too.

Moon: ***