Archive for August, 2008

Roger Ebert gets mad at a departed coworker

This isn’t really movie related at all; it just happens to involve perhaps the most influential movie critic of our time, Roger Ebert. Ebert, who’s had scores of medical issues in recent years, writes for the Chicago Sun-Times, and recently one of the paper’s sports columnists threw a fit after quitting the paper in a huff. (There’s a lot of history with the departed writer, but none with Ebert himself, to my knowledge.)

Anyway, Ebert wrote a letter to Jay Mariotti, the whiny ex-scribe, that’s been circulated around the S-T newsroom. And so I reprint it here as well, h/t Deadspin:

Dear Jay,

What an ugly way to leave the Sun-Times. It does not speak well for you. Your timing was exquisite. You signed a new contract, waited until days after the newspaper had paid for your trip to Beijing at great cost, and then resigned with a two-word e-mail: “I quit.” You saved your explanation for a local television station.

As someone who was working here for 24 years before you arrived, I think you owed us more than that. You owed us decency. The fact that you saved your attack for TV only completes our portrait of you as a rat.

Newspapers are not dead, Jay, and this paper will not die because you have left. Times are hard in the newspaper business, and for the economy as a whole. Did you only sign on for the luxury cruise?

There’s an old saying that you might have come across once or twice on the sports beat: “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.”

Newspapers are not dead, Jay, because there are still readers who want the whole story, not a sound bite. If you go to work for television, viewers may get a little weary of you shouting at them. You were a great shouter in print, that’s for sure, stomping your feet when owners, coaches and players didn’t agree with you. It was an entertaining show. Good luck getting one of your 1,000-word rants on the air.

The rest of us are still at work, still putting out the best paper we can. We believe in our profession, and in the future. And we believe in our internet site, which you also whacked as you slithered out the door. I don’t know how your column was doing, but we have the most popular sports section in Chicago. The reports and blog entries by our Washington editor Lynn Sweet have become a must-stop for millions of Americans in this election year. After a recent blog entry I wrote about the Beijing Olympics, I woke up at 5 a.m. one morning, when North America was asleep, and found that 40 percent of my 100 most recent visitors had been from China. I don’t have any complaints about our web site. So far this month my web page has been visited from almost every country on earth, including one visit from the Vatican City. The Pope, no doubt. Hope you were doing as well.

You have left us, Jay, at a time when the newspaper is once again in the hands of people who love newspapers and love producing them. You managed to stay here through the dark days of the thieves Conrad Black and David Radler. The paper lost millions. Incredibly, we are still paying Black’s legal fees.

I started here when Marshall Field and Jim Hoge were running the paper. I stayed through the Rupert Murdoch regime. I was asked, “How can you work for a Murdoch paper?”

My reply was: “It’s not his paper. It’s my paper. He only owns it.”

That’s the way I’ve always felt about the Sun-Times, and I still do. On your way out, don’t let the door bang you on the ass.

Your former colleague,

Roger Ebert

1 Comment

And finally, the finals

Two grande dames of the silver screen, particularly in recent years. They played against type – and each other – in 2006′s thrilling Notes on a Scandal (they were each nominated).

So who’s the better?

,

No Comments

Tim Burton’s birthday: Geritol candles?

Director Tim Burton is – gasp – 50. Woot.com came up with 10 Movies Tim Burton Can Make Now That He’s Turned 50.

Here’s the entire list, since it’s just, ahem, a list:

1. Big Fish Who Drive Around With Their Radios Turned Up Too Loud
2. Consistently Sleepy Hollow
3. The Nightmare Before Lunch
4. Planet Of The… The… Helen? What Are Those Things That Make That Noise? Eating Fruit And… Zoos And… They Climbed That Building In That One Movie, You Know The One
5. Pee Wee’s Adventure That Was A Lot More Respectful Than You Kids Today
6. Batman Tries To Remember Where He Parked
7. Gallstone Attacks!
8. Charlie And The Fat Kid Who Dies In The Chocolate, That’s What They Should Have Called It, You Know, Back In My Day Movies Weren’t All Feel-Good Like They Are Today
9. Prune Juice
10. Hey, Have I Ever Made One With Johnny Depp Cutting People’s Hair? I Bet That Would Be Pretty Good

No Comments

406 – Vicky Cristina Barcelona

When will Woody Allen get over his ridiculous obsession with the pretentious rich? It used to be that he wrote for the masses, albeit the educated, urbane masses. So maybe he just needs to get back to his New York roots (again), but for the love of Gene Shalit, could he please stop turning in such bland crap?

Does anyone else remember when Allen had a real knack for snappy dialog? For characters who seemed as real as the veins on your hand? When his movies were clever, not predictable? When each movie contained a rich, vibrant atmosphere that drew from both negative and positive aspects of The Big Apple? Or did I dream about all of those movies?

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a big dud. It’s about a love/lust pentagon that involves titular friends (Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johannson), on vacation in the titular town, who encounter Bohemian painter Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem). But Vicky’s engaged to a sanctimonious tool (Chris Messina), and then Juan Antonio’s unstable ex-wife (Penelope Cruz) shows up as well. And it being Spain, everyone’s got lust on the brain, and there’s plenty of partner swapping.

To begin with, the movie’s far too talky. True, many of Allen’s early movies were just as reliant on dialog, but in those cases – I’m looking your way, Annie Hall and Manhattan – the dialog was florid and witty. Here it’s dull and placid. So you get these long stretches where two of the characters, whomever they are, will talk, and talk, and talk endlessly about whatever their current situation is, without doing much about it. These people are the poster children for passive-aggressive behavior; even when they do act on something, it’s devoid of passion and meaning.

Except, of course, when Cruz shows up. Before we even meet her, Maria Elena is shown to be idolized by Juan Antonio, even after she stabbed him with a knife. She’s shown as this fiery charmer with whom the charming Juan Antonio had a love-hate relationship, and when Cruz finally does appear onscreen, you can see the attraction and tension between them. This is partially because of how well Bardem and Cruz work together here but also because the other actors have virtually no charisma, not even the free-wheeling, carefree, doesn’t-know-what-she-wants Cristina (Johannson).

But it’s not just the talkiness and the lack of passion, it’s the fact that this is a Woody Allen movie that behaves more like a John Badham movie, a movie that is virtually indistinguishable from other movies in the genre 0 in this case, romantic melodrama, I assume. On the plus side, it’s not as horrendous as Allen’s Match Point, which started out as a romantic melodrama and then inexplicably transformed into a deranged-stalker/murderer movie, but that doesn’t make this a good movie by any stretch.

Perhaps it’s a bit unfair to compare this to Allen’s old movies, since everyone evolves, but I do wish he’d come back to writing about middle-class characters instead of these well-to-do, conceited knuckleheads. Watching his upper-class fables reminds me more of Merchant-Ivory dramas than anything else, and perhaps we should leave those movies to the likes of Merchant and Ivory, or Whit Stillman. This is a costume-drama period piece sans costumes or, uh, a period. It’s wildly predictable – you can guess the sexual permutations about 20 minutes early – and a boring footnote to the master’s long career.

**

, , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Wait, what? Restarting Superman? Again?

Okay, so technically Superman Returns wasn’t a reboot of the series, since it more or less followed the other four Superman movies timewise, if not plotwise. After all, it was about Supes coming back, not, uh, beginning. But for all intents and purposes, the movie was a reboot of the franchise, since there hadn’t been a bona fide new Superman movie since 1987′s distasterous Superman IV: the Quest for Peace.Now, Superman Returns wasn’t bad at all, really. Right from the beginning, the movie grabs you with outstanding visual effects, as Superman has to stop a jumbo jet from crashing. The casting of Brandon Routh was spot-on, too, because he more or less looked like Christopher Reeve, which helped the viewer psychologically connect the movie to the earlier ones.

Turns out, though, that the movie was expensive and didn’t make much. Well, you run that risk when you spend $270 million on a movie. But regardless of the whys and wherefores, the powers that be appear to be considering heading back to Supes’ roots, a la Batman Begins. They could reexplore how he arrived on Earth after the demise of Krypton and follow his escapades as a strapping lad in Smallville.

But here’s the thing. Showing Batman’s beginnings was necessary to reintroduce the character to a new generation of moviegoers, a way to jump start a new round of movies. Superman Returns already accomplished that for the Man of Steel. I guess with attitudes like this one (riiiiiiight near the very end of the article), the studio will want you all to forget Superman Returns ever existed.

Which I’m happy to do if they in turn donate the $200 million that the movie did make to charity. That’s what Superman would do.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Mock me, sexy Jesus! Hamlet 2 trailer

“Hamlet 2?” asks Brie Marschz (Catherine Keener). “Didn’t everyone die at the end of the first one?”

I’m seeing tepid response to this movie online, but I love the concept. Steve Coogan plays a failed high school drama teacher and failed actor who decides to write a new play in order to save his theater department. The play? Hamlet 2, of course.

Hamlet 2 includes appearances by Jesus, Satan, the President, to name a few. Plus there’s a time machine involved, which is almost always movie gold.

Elizabeth Shue appears as herself. See, in the movie, Elizabeth Shue, tired of all the negativity associated with acting in movies, leaves the business to become a school nurse. That’s a huge plus in my book – I love it when Hollywoodites possess the self-awareness to make fun of themselves plausibly. (That is, not Cruisian.)

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

I am far nerdier than you will ever be. Deal with it!

Check this out. I’m so nerdy that I know how many movies I’ve seen. Everyone does that, right? Right? It’s not weird or strange at all. Why, I’m sure everyone else has a neat little database with all that information in there, and … Wait, where are you going? Stay a minute! I wanted to tell you that we’re closing in on a huge milestone of epic proportions, on the same level as Pete Rose breaking Ty Cobb’s record! Or that Bolt dude breaking the land-speed record!

I’m talking about my 3,000th movie. We’re at 2,996 right now. Coming up in the NF queue are Far from Heaven, Rush Hour 2, and Rush Hour 3. However, I could deign to watch something else in the meantime. Oh, there’s always so many movies to watch and so little time. I think I have two more on the DVR at home, recorded from TCM.

2 Comments

Playboy! Harry Potter! Together in the same post

Entertainment Weekly gives us 11 movies with a Playboy connection of some kind.

Yes, Harry Potter 6 got moved. So they issue an apology (but they’re not changing their minds…) (IGN)

Top 10 voyeuristic movies (Scene Stealers)

And finally, there’s the omnipresent talk of a Poltergeist remake. And the usual whining about how it would ruin the universe, or something. (Hollyscoop)

, , , ,

No Comments

405 – Shoot ‘Em Up

It’s late at night. An obviously very pregnant woman stumbles past a man sitting on a bench. A beefy guy with a gun follows, mumbling obscenities at the woman. The bench sitter sighs, and after a moment heads into the alleyway after them. A billion gunshots are fired, forty heptillion gallons of blood are spilled – but none by our hero – and we’re off and running on a quirky, gore-filled adventure that’s alternately clever and stupid. Mostly stupid. Really, really stupid. Mr. Smith (Clive Owen) finds himself the unwilling caretaker of the newborn, but if you think he’s just going to go on the run from whoever was shooting at the now-dead momma, you’re in for a surprise. No, Mr. Smith is more like Mel Gibson’s character in the underrated Payback, wherein Mel beats the holy crap out of everyone in his path just to get back some money he was owed. Mr. Smith simply shoots or stabs (sometimes with a carrot, and we all know how deadly those can be) everyone in his path just to find out who’s shooting at him and the baby. He’s not alone, though; since everyone knows guys can’t do the rearing-babies thing, he recruits an old flame who happens to be a lactating prostitute (Monica Bellucci) to take care of lil’ Oliver. Bellucci, perhaps most famously seen in the Matrix movies, is the prettiest wooden drugstore Indian you ever did see. All she can do is purse her lips, puff up her chest, and nurture, nurture, nurture, as literally and graphically as you might imagine.

See, Shoot ‘Em Up isn’t just dumb, it’s profoundly dopey, with crazy stunts that aren’t even remotely rooted in reality. This might be okay if the movie were animated, but as the characters all exist in what appears to be the normal world, all you’re left with is a swarm of implausibility and ridiculousness.

Owen is earnest, but he’s obviously much more talented than the script allows him to be; Mr. Smith is a comic-book character who doesn’t even get bloodied himself until an hour into the mess, whereas the total body count (bad guys, of course) is somewhere around 100 people. Remember those old ninja films where the bad guys in black would surround the good guy and then take turns beating him down? That happens here, only there’s no beating down, just a lot of standing around and getting shot. In fact, no joke here, the chief bad guy (Paul Giamatti, also playing below his station) has scads of opportunities to waste Smith throughout the movie, but true to movie-villain form he decides to deliver soliloquies about how freaking awesome he and his plan are. Unreal. He stands there, preening and gloating, giving Smith ample time to get away. And this happens not just once, no, this happens many times. Dumbest. Villain. Ever.

There’s a running gag about how Smith loves carrots (and hates everything else in the world; he’s like a stand-up comedy act in Hell); he uses them in inventive ways during his attacks on the faceless bad guys: as missles, as sharp instruments of death, as ways to catch a falling handgun, and so on. None of these usages makes Smith any more appealing as a character. They just make me think he must have great eyesight.

There’s even a brief homage to the scene in Raising Arizona when Nicolas Cage leaves the Huggies in the middle of the road and goes back to get ‘em at full speed. Well, maybe it’s not an homage, because my guess is that the makers of Shoot ‘Em Up would never have bothered watching a movie with such superior stunts and chase scenes. Yes, even the stunts are moronic, because one mustn’t merely suspend disbelief, one must throw it off a cliff and laugh maniacally.

Oh, and there’s some kind of story about harvesting babies for their bone marrow, but obviously no one gave much thought to the plot, which serves only as a device for people to get shot at as if in the middle of a treacherous game of Contra on the old eight-bit Nintendo system.

Director Michael Davis offers little reason for anyone to watch his movie, other than a brief topless glimpse at Bellucci during her sex scene with Owen – not spoiling anything there, when there’s one hero and one girl, they’re going to sleep together at some point. It’s a movie law.

*1/2

, , ,

1 Comment

Final four time!

It’s taken a while to get through this tourney, mostly because not enough people read this for there to be sufficient votage. But. Rather than have it drag on too long, I have closed Round Two.

Marisa Tomei and Cate Blanchett defeated Anna Paquin and Dianne Wiest, respectively, by a couple of votes each. Juliette Binoche trampled Catherine Zeta-Jones. Judi Dench beat Marcia Gay Harden.

So here’s what we have! Mind you, don’t vote for Binoche simply because she has a foreign-sounding name.

, , ,

No Comments

Come into my parlor… SPLAT! (Spider Baby, 1968)

Three adult siblings, each with the mental capacity of a ten-year-old, live in an elderly house in the middle of Nowheresville, cared for by the family chauffeur, Bruno (Lon Chaney, Jr.). When their father dies, distant relatives come swooping in to try to shunt the sibs out of the way so they can claim the house and its contents (buncha old stuff) for their own. But since greedy people always get their comeuppance in the movies, you can bet they’re not going home with much, if at all. Muahaha.I would be shocked if anyone reading this site suddenly held up his or her hand and said, “Hey, I’ve heard of this!” Because you haven’t. You know it, Seymour from Little Shop of Horrors knows it, and even leprechauns know it. Spider Baby is as obscure as you can get, although the presence of two known entities in the cast (Chaney, Jr and Sid Haig) does raise the level of recognizability from “Huh!?!?” to “Huh.”

The movie was completed in 1964, but it wasn’t released until 1968, owing to financial difficulties on the part of the producers. This was as common for low-budget horrors then as now, because generally the people making these things weren’t swimming in cash – they just wanted to make enough to make another one just like it, or something. At any rate, this was an early venture for director/producer Jack Hill, who turned out to be a huge influence on Quentin Tarantino. Big shock there, right? Cheap 70s’-era schlock was basically what Tarantino watched back in the day.

The big question is whether the film’s held up well over the past 40 years: Yes, it has. Right from the git-go, with an outstanding theme song (sung by Chaney, Jr.), the film doesn’t grip you so much as throttle you within an inch of your life. Chaney, Jr. himself is awesome, yes, but equally great are the actors playing the sibs: Beverly Washburn, Jill Banner, and Haig. Only the latter had much of a career after this movie, though; Haig was in scores of blaxploitation movies and other shoestring-budget films back in the day, and lately he’s been in Rob Zombie’s ultraviolent movies. But here, he’s the simple Ralph, a character who has no lines, so Haig has to emote by action and expression, and he’s very menacing.

The full title of the movie is “Spider Baby, or the Maddest Story Ever Told” – a real artifact of the sixties if there ever was one. And truth be told, there’s no actual Spider Baby in the movie, but spiders do figure rather prominently. As does stabbings and incest. So, yeah, maybe, just maybe it’s not for everyone. If you’re a good parent, maybe you don’t let your kids see this black and white horror film. And maybe if you’re an extra-special awesome parent, you let him or her watch it, because 99% of the violence is offscreen and the incest is only hinted at.

***

, , , ,

No Comments