Archive for August, 2009
Next Halloween to be in 3D
Posted by frothy in News/Rumors on August 31, 2009
I haven’t gotten around to watching Rob Zombie’s Halloween II, which premiered this past weekend. Liked his first take, although it’s certainly not the original John Carpenter film. Whatever, it’s a different guy with a different take, and it’s all good. I don’t see why we can’t have both visions.
Anyway, even with H2 not winning the weekend (I suppose the stultifying Inglourious Basterds did), the film’s studio plans to make a third film – in 3D. The new movie would come out in 2010.
The article says that Weinstein Studios is developing the 3D sequel to continue to capitalize on the current 3D craze, which has been somewhat lucrative for studios. Of course, the article also claims that “For The Final Destination,this weekend’s No. 1 movie, theaters with at least one 3-D screen earned 3.25 times as much as those that showed the movie in 2-D only, according to distributor Warner Bros.” Well, of course it earned more; the tickets cost more. The theaters add in the cost of the glasses, even if you bring your own.
Anyway, let’s recap. The original John Carpenter series ran eight films. The Zombie series has two films in it, with each sort of mirroring the first two of the Carpenter series. The third film in the original series, Halloween III: Season of the Witch, had little to do with the first two – new characters, new director and writers, and Michael Myers makes only a token appearance, anyway. So a third film in the new series wouldn’t need to ape the third in the original one, really.
Weinstein has also said that Zombie will not be involved in the third film, a fact that Zombie himself has confirmed.
A couple of things to take away from this. I like 3D, if it’s used efficiently. Movies that build a story around 3D effects tend to be awful, but movies that take good stories and then add 3D to them can be damn good. So 3D might really work for this new film (to be called Halloween 3D, apparently).
Then again, Zombie is not involved. One thing that’s made the first couple successful, to a point, is Zombie’s unique visual style. Sure, he goes overboard, but so does Terry Gilliam. Zombie’s movies are certainly not dull, right? So without him, the new guy would have a lot to measure up to. If the Weinsteins get a no-name guy, will that mean that the 3D effects will be center stage, rather than a good complement? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Yes, I will review that.
Posted by frothy in Housekeeping on August 30, 2009
Recently, I have received emails asking if I would be so kind as to review a new release (or a movie being released on DVD).
Let me be as clear as I can: Yes. Yes, I will.
It’s probably obvious that I don’t do this for a living (i.e., I don’t make money from it). Nearly evey movie I review here I’ve paid for. Most are Netflix movies, some are theatrical releases. Some are sneak previews accessible by anyone, if you know where to go (coughFilmMetrocough). I don’t enjoy any special privileges for this.
That said, if you’re an aspiring filmmaker – or even a jaded old professional – feel free to send me a screener of your movie, and I will honestly review it here. The fact that you would be sending a free copy will not affect the review in any way.
In fact, I recently reviewed two movies that were sent to me as advance screeners (one was premiering on DVD, the other had played a film festival or two). Both were free, but the two reviews were wildly variant.
Anyway, just a housekeeping note. Along the right-hand side of the website’s main page is a little Contact link, so if you have a movie you want to push on me, click that to email me.
469 – Inglourious Basterds
Posted by frothy in Inglourious Basterds on August 30, 2009
Tarantino’s latest, a WWII revenge tale, is also his most disappointing, somehow managing to be like a bowl of plain oatmeal: tough to stomach, lumpy in spots, and ultimately flavorless.
I confess to being a full-throated fan of Quentin Tarantino. (We both come from solid video-store-employee stock, you see.) I have enjoyed all of his films, including the ones he wrote but didn’t direct. And I have to say that compared with his other works, Inglourious Basterds falls short of all of them.
The (fictional) story is about a group of Jewish Americans recruited by one Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) to hunt Nazi soldiers and, well, scalp them. Raine’s Basterds are very good at their jobs (Raine’s required 100 literal scalps from his crew), and their notoriety has spread. The team is assigned by the Americans to rendezvous with a German actress/double agent named Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), who has discovered that the location of the premiere of Joseph Goebbels’ latest propaganda film has been moved from the vast Ritz theater to a smaller venue in Nazi-occupied Paris.
Unbeknownst to von Hammersmark and the Basterds, the young owner of the new venue, played by Melanie Laurent has her own plans for the premiere; she and her lover will set the theater on fire, killing all the high-ranking Nazis inside, including Goebbels and Hitler.
There are also two other smaller stories (all four dovetail in the end, of course). An SS officer, Colonel Landa (Christoph Waltz), known as “the Jew Hunter,” has a Jewish family murdered on a remote farm in France, where they are being hid. Naturally, the one person who escapes his wrath that day grows into the young theater owner. Also, a German sharpshooter, now a national hero, is the subject of Goebbels’ new film and is himself trying to woo the young theater owner.
My first problem with the movie is the revenge factor itself. In order for me to root for a protagonist who’s exacting revenge, I need to a) sympathize with their plight and b) believe that the punishment they’re meting out is suitable. And although there’s plenty of style to this film, I don’t think that the Basterds met either of those criteria. In fact, it would be one thing if this were a straightforward (and straightfaced) revenge flick, like Death Wish, but Pitt and his fellow Basterds take far too much glee in torturing and dissecting Nazis than I’m comfortable with. Their mirth seems not only out of place, it seems kind of sick minded and unnecessary.
My second problem is just as insidious: the casting of Brad Pitt. I am a fan of Brad Pitt’s work, as I am of Tarantino’s. I think he can turn in good work when he wants to – that is, when he’s not playing the sly, smarmy character he sometimes lapses into in movies like the Ocean’s films. And that’s what he does here. He’s not just a superspy who’s in charge of an elite commando unit, he’s just a thuggish jerk who’s really no better than the villains he’s mowing down. On top of that, Pitt uses a ridiculous southern drawl that sounds exactly like someone trying to sound like a southern backwoods hillbilly mountain man: made-up, well over the top, and really grating to the ears. Killing natsies, indeed. I just think that a better actor, in this case, would have lent more gravitas to the role; Pitt’s Raine feels like everything in the movie’s supposed to be a big joke.
Overall, I was surprised to find few real twists or any memorable dialog (other than the laughable lines that Pitt overplays, seen in the trailers and previews anyway). Tarantino is known for slick, clever dialog, especially quick patter, and none of that was evident here. The twist – such as it is – is amply evident to everyone except the characters themselves.
At 153 minutes, Inglourious Basterds is as long as most other Tarantino films, but without crisp dialog and tightly staged action scenes, it drags on. In some scenes (a standoff in an underground bar is well shot), this works, but overall there’s just far too much down time.
Inglourious Basterds: **
468 – The Uninvited
A bedridden mother dies under mysterious circumstances, and shortly thereafter her widower hooks up with the nanny who had been taking care of her. Then the youngest daughter comes home from the asylum, where she’s been since her mom died/was killed. Was the nanny somehow involved in the mother’s death? Is the daughter still completely insane? Is the twist worth your time? Maybe, maybe, and no.
All of the standard horror cliches seem to be in order. The daughter, played with waifish glee by Emily Browning, returns to her family having been deemed fit to reenter society after the trauma of her mom’s death in a fire. Her spunky older sister Alex, played by Arielle Kebbel, is angry at Anna for having “abandoned” her (i.e., gone off the deep end and gotten herself committed), but she still cares enough about her sister to let her know that Rachel the nurse, played by a particularly wooden Elizabeth Banks, has been getting mighty close to the girls’ father, played with crusty cluelessness by David Strathairn. Close enough that Rachel and papa Steven share a bed now, and it soon becomes clear to the girls that Rachel has even grander plans to permanently join the family.
Much of the plot has to do with Anna and Alex trying to find information about Rachel. Where does she come from? Is she a psycho? Did she have something to do with their invalid mother’s death? What about the neighborhood boy? He seems to know a lot as well.
Aside from the godawful acting, there’s little suspense. That is, the suspenseful scenes are telegraphed loudly and neatly far enough ahead of time that one is perfectly prepared when, say, someone pops up out of nowhere. Watching this movie is like watching Scream as a straightforward horror movie. You’re supposed to be astonished at every turn in these movies, aren’t you? As in, Oh no! I didn’t know he was involved! Or no! Don’t kill the maid! Or something? But not here. The only astonishing thing here is that it drags on as long as it does. When you do get to the supposed twist, everything falls into place way too neatly. It’s practically a Wizard of Oz ending. You know, when the Good Witch tells Dorothy that she had the power to get back to Kansas all along? That’s what it’s like when a packaged ending works. The Uninvited is an example of a packaged ending that simply doesn’t work. I can’t explain further without giving away the ending entirely (not that it would matter much), but let me put it this way. The way this is supposed to work, after you get the twist you’re supposed to be able to think back to various clues strewn throughout the movie and go, “oh yeah! that does make sense!” But here, when you get to the so-called twist, you don’t experience an epiphany, you experience relief. Thank goodness it’s all over so we can get on with out lives.
Everyone seems a little out of his or her element. Strathairn is given little to do than to disbelieve his daughter(s) and look, well, grizzled. Not a good look for him. Banks, better known for her comedy work, isn’t suitably chilling as the supposed villainess; she’s a little too perky and not even a little bit creepy. The girls are simply not talented enough to do anything with the pedestrian, obvious dialog they’re given to work with.
The Uninvited offers virtually the same old setups, the same old actions and reactions, and even the same old music. It’s uninspired horror fluff.
The Uninvited: **
Avatar trailer
There’s a 16-minute preview (I hesitate to call it a trailer) of James Cameron’s new movie, Avatar, that was presented at Comic-Con this year.
Here’s the first official trailer, about two minutes long. Cameron has been working on this movie for 14 years, and it’s the first nonfiction film he’s done since Titanic. Will it be worth the wait? It’s a sci-fi thriller about humans getting involved in an intrastellar war, and it supposedly has its roots in the works of Asimov and Bradbury. I think the CGI looks a little too animated -- that is, it’s like watching a good cartoon, rather than a live-action movie. So I don’t know what to think. It certainly looks bombastic, and that’s not meant as an insult.
467 – Frost/Nixon
Posted by frothy in Frost/Nixon on August 20, 2009
Most people of a certain age remember where they were when Richard Nixon announced his resignation in 1972. Fewer remember his series of one-on-one interviews with British talk-show host David Frost in 1977, in which Nixon tried to paint a rosy picture of his Oval Office days in an effort to rehabilitate his image with the American people. Ron Howard’s take on the mercurial fallen king and his puffball interviewer is evocative, compelling drama, no matter how you feel about the disgraced former leader. Frank Langella’s commanding performance as Nixon more than makes up for any plot predictabilities.
By 1977, Nixon was living in semi-seclusion in a villa in southern California, recovering from a bout of phlebitis. His literary agent, Swifty Lazar (Toby Jones) mentions that David Frost had contacted him, looking to interview the former president. Believing this could be his one chance to show America that he wasn’t as bad as the so-called liberal media made him out to be, Nixon leaps at the chance (as well as the fee of $600,000).
From Frost’s perspective, an interview of Nixon could do nothing but catapult him to superstardom. He had begun his show-biz career as a stand-up comic and had parlayed that success into a few talk shows. His interview subjects had never had the gravitas of a former president, however, and he was known for his puff pieces more than anything else. His success had been restricted to Britain and Australia, as a previous attempt to break through in the States had fallen short. So he needed these interviews to really work out well.
Funding, though, was a serious issue. All of the promises of monies had been contingent on sufficient sponsorship, and one by one companies declined to buy ad time. Eventually, Frost financed the four interviews himself (including paying for equipment and labor).
For several months, Frost worked with two top researchers, Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt) and James Reston, Jr. (Sam Rockwell), and they craft several solid, journalistically sound questions for the former leader. The Frost and Nixon camps also agreed that Watergate would comprise only a portion of the interview subjects. Foreign policy, Vietnam, and other pursuits would take up most of the interview time.
The interviews did not go well initially, as Frost was quickly in over his head with the old pro; Nixon barely let his questioner get a word in edgewise, dominating the conversation with rambling, empty replies. Not until the final session, ostensibly about Watergate, did Frost gain an edge, and his pursuit bore plenty of fruit. In that final session, Nixon claimed that not only had he not broken the law in covering up the Watergate scandal, his actions were by definition not illegal – because he was the president. (This was a defense later used by another, even more mendacious administration.) By the time of this claim, Nixon’s attitude had transformed from supreme confidence to wilting acquiescence to Frost; he was, by the end of the talks, a broken man – and his public persona never really recovered.
A couple of quick points. Although this is really told from Frost’s viewpoint, the movie is all about Richard Nixon’s attempt to save face; the film makes no bones about this. Also, although Michael Sheen is excellent as the seemingly benign Frost, it’s Frank Langella who turns in the performance of a lifetime (he was nominated for an Oscar, as was director Ron Howard and the film itself). It’s tough to do a real-life character like Richard Nixon without submerging oneself in caricature; the man was nothing if not imitable. But anyone can do a Nixon impression (Oliver Platt does one in this film); Langella simply embodies the aging demogogue with a rich, crusty take of a man clinging desperately to a fleeting moment of redemption.
Howard’s expert direction shows up in subtle ways, such as his use of silence. Most directors just can’t help but add some pop song to the background of every scene, as if the acting itself won’t be enough to deliver the required emotional impact. Silence, in the right hands, can be golden, and Howard picks his moments well.
So even if you clearly recall these fabled interviews (which have been largely lost to the mists of time, what with worse monsters than Nixon coming down the road) and therefore know how they played out, you should find much to like about the presentation and the characterizations contained within. Some of the proceedings may seem a little cliched (the phone call between Nixon and Frost just prior to the final interview, or the mere fact that Frost saves his own bacon in the final interview), but they’re not plentiful enough to offset the stark portrayal of a broken, desperate man.
Frost/Nixon: ***1/2
Have you ever seen The Day the Clown Cried?
Posted by frothy in News/Rumors on August 18, 2009
Not likely. Only a small handful of people have seen the 1972 Jerry Lewis film, which isn’t even completely edited. It’s been sitting in a vault for the better part of four decades now.
Why, you ask? Here’s your plot. A selfish clown is sent to a concentration camp by the Nazis in Germany and is forced to lead unsuspecting children to the gas chamber.
Sounds like a real humdinger, doesn’t it? It would have been quite the switch for Lewis, who was what guys like Robin Williams and Jim Carrey would later become, a slapstick, unserious actor. This, he presumably hoped, would be his ticket to more-serious roles.
But it wasn’t to be. You can find the whole story here at Film Buff, but in a nutshell the rights to the movie reverted to the author during production, and she wasn’t going to sell ‘em again. Lewis (who was also directing) used some of his own money and completed the film, but no one would distribute the thing without having the right to do so.
And so it sits in Lewis’s vault. It might be shown at some point long after he’s passed on, after his heirs have ceased fighting over it. Even so, it’s not just Lewis who’s holding it up, it’s the rightsholder, author Joan O’Brien. So we’ll likely never see this.
It’s probably just as well. The movie could never match the backstory, could it? If this had actually been released in 1972, it would have been nothing more than a footnote to a Hollywood legend’s career, but since we can’t have it, we want it.
Where the Wild Things Are is where I wanna be!
Maurice Sendak’s legendary, beloved book Where the Wild Things Are was one of the very first children’s books to explore dark emotions. A boy named Max, neglected by his parents, acts out horribly, leading his mom to call him a Wild Thing.
Adapting children’s books to movies is a delicate, difficult task. You can’t make the book too childish, else only the littlest ones would want to see it. You want to capture the spirit of the book in an audiovisual medium, and it’s a complicated process.
Anyway, Spike Jonz (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation.) is the man in charge here. Trailer below. I am really, really, really anticipating this movie (October 16). Catherine Keener plays Max’s mom, and she’s usually brilliant. The costumes look wonderful, and the tone is sweet and wondrous. Look at this trailer! It’s fantastic.
(Plus Jonz got Sendak’s approval! Sendak sez the movie captures the spirit of his book!)
Talkin’ Spideys 4 and 5
Posted by frothy in News/Rumors on August 17, 2009
Interesting article on Hitfix about Spider-Man 5 and Spider-Man 6. (Spider-Man 4, which is in preproduction, opens in 2011.)
As some of you may recall, I thought Spider-Man 3 was pretty awful. And ordinarily, when the third movie in a series really stinks, they don’t make a fourth, but apparently 3 made a buttload of money. Not literally. So we’re stuck with 4. And 5. And 6.
Here’s a fascinating take-away, though. Sam Raimi, Tobey Maguire, and Kirsten Dunst are contracted only through Spider-Man 4. So the studio is working on 5 and 6 as reboots. A reboot allows the studio to retell a story without tripping over earlier facts; the writers are less constrained by backstories.
But this is just precautionary; I’m guessing that the principals will sign up for more Spideys. The reason they’re working on 5 and 6 now, though, is that the studio doesn’t want there to be a huge wait between 4 and 5 and 5 and 6. So it’s best to start on them now and then change things up as needed later.
466 – District 9
Posted by frothy in District 9 on August 15, 2009
Producer Peter Jackson’s tale about extraterrestrial refugees stuck living in a slum in Johannesburg, South Africa is an inventive, chilling, and thoughtful look at race relations. Or maybe it’s just an exciting bit of sci-fi that turns the old invaders-from-space cliche on its ear. Can’t it be both?
The aliens have been living in District 9 for 28 years, and things have gotten bad for them. Crime is way, way up, and everyone lives in abject poverty. The downward spiral is so devastating, in fact, that the government has decided to forcibly move all of the aliens (over a million of them) to a new set of camps, ostensibly safer, cleaner living quarters. But the man designated as the chief evictor, Wikus Van de Merwe (Sharlto Copely), is inadvertently exposed to the aliens’ biochemistry – and he begins to turn into one of them!
Intelligently shot in a pseudodocumentary style, the movie opens with an interview with the workmanlike, nepotistic Wikus, a man who happily goes about his job of telling aliens (all of whom understand English and Afrikaans), despite little training in dealing with the new species and little regard for diplomacy or his own safety. Wikus thinks he’s stumbled upon the find of a lifetime when, while evicting an alien and his son, he finds a capsule filled with a viscous black fluid; when it sprays into his face, his DNA begins to transform him into a sort of half-man, half-alien hybrid.
But lest you think this is just about Wikus turning into an alien and then being pursued and persecuted by the government, rest assured there are a lot of explosions, and killer robots, and weapons of mass distruction. It’s sort of like watching the 1983 miniseries V combined with the video game Doom, really. For half of the movie, you’re suspicious of the aliens (who are analgous to the black population in SA, at least during the apartheid era), but you’re also distrustful of Wikus, who seems like a naive idiot bureaucrat who has no real idea of the danger he’s in or of the consequences of his actions.
I think that what really makes this work is the cinematic style of on-the-ground, cinema verite action. When Wikus is running from shanty to lean-to, being shot at by a plethora of pistol packing contractors, you can almost feel the heat pulsating off his mutating body. Wikus is desperate, but not heroic or saintly; that is to say, he doesn’t have this sudden epiphany about how horrible the aliens have been treated. After all, he’s just another dim-witted pencil pusher who happens to be the son-in-law of the CEO of the contractors hired to move the aliens. So I guess what I’m saying is that he’s just the sort of guy you wouldn’t like at all under normal circumstances. Which these clearly are not.
The viral marketing of District 9 led to a lot of chatter (and hype) about the movie, but thankfully this is not another Cloverfield; that is, it’s pretty damn good. Very good, in fact, with an excellent, not overly optimistic ending, believable characters (both alien and human), crisply plotted action, and lots of explody things. And again, the realistic approach to telling the story makes you feel as if you’re watching the whole thing spool out on a low-rent version of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, only Anderson Cooper is a dorky white guy. In other words, exactly the same.
Top marks for this cunning, compelling firestorm of daring rescues, anguished parenting, and against-all-odds derring-do. Most sci-fi thrillers take the easy way out of having their people run screaming from scene to scene, pursued by evil robots wielding machetes, with there are no hidden layers and just a constant onslaught of aural assaults. District 9 eschews those trappings for a more bare-bones, gritty film.
District 9: ***
465 – Cowboy Killer
Posted by frothy in Cowboy Killer on August 13, 2009
In the 1970s, drive-in movies were all the rage. Movies were produced cheaply and titilated their audiences with guns, half-naked women, and a lot of squinting. Blood flowed freely. People didn’t expect much, so they were happy with what they got. All they wanted was background noise while they got busy with their significant others.
The oddly titled Cowboy Killer (why not Killer Cowboy?) might have fit okay in that era. Might have. It’s cheaply made, with plenty of fake-looking blood, a threadbare script, and performances that range from wooden to hamminess. People could pull up in their Chevy Novas and smooched while this junk played on the big screen. But here in the 2000s, it’s just a crappy horror film that looks like it was made in someone’s basement with a legion of blowup dolls. It’s the kind of movie that telegraphs a flashback scene by dissolving a scene into and out of pure white.
Now, there were movies in the 1970s that were so bad that one could almost enjoy them ironically. Many of these movies were directed by legendary schlockmeister Al Adamson, a man who gave us such classics as Blood of Ghastly Horror and Angels’ Wild Women. Those movies were really, really bad, but compared with this one they were hotbeds of hilarity.
Don’t believe me? Here’s a sample quote: “You crossed the line like a cow out of order!” Makes no sense.
So some cowboy is running around a small, podunk town killing people for no good reason. A couple of cable guys (!) are trying to find him, because apparently he didn’t pay his bill. (Really.) The cops can’t track him down; the sheriff fires two of them when they insist on following up on slim leads (yes, he asks for their guns and badges). The town drunk knows all about the killer, but no one believes him. The town’s resident psycho killer wants to glom onto the cowboy’s fun and games. And there are multiple trips to strip clubs.
But none of this is ironic. This is all straightforward. So either it’s an extremely subtle, clever joke, or it’s really, really awful. Stupefyingly awful. I posit that the former is a theoretical impossibility, because there’s not one ounce of cleverness in this picture. There’s even a character named Jeffrey Dalmer. Yes, Dalmer. Again, either the makers of this film were riffing off Jeffrey Dahlmer, intentionally misspelling the name, or they simply had no idea how to spell it. And considering the lack of wit throughout the movie, I’ll wager on the latter there.
Movies that are cheaply done can still have some chilling effects – see The Blair Witch Project, for instance. You can do a lot with a little. But not here. In one scene, the killer slams a car hood on a victim’s head. Immediately – the first slam! – the woman is dead and a bloody mess. Look, he’s not that big; a slam would have knocked her out, perhaps. And not once does she even cry out. And this is after she stupidly put her head under the hood to check her dipstick, on account of the cowboy didn’t want to get his hat dirty. Oh boy.
I also love how the cowboy’s “western” accent comes and goes. It’s there when he says “podner” and “ain’t,” and that’s it.
This movie is almost exactly like pro wrestling, except with less blood and less-intricate storylines. It’s as if the director just followed some people around and told them to improvise every scene, but no one had ever had an acting lesson but thought they were the greatest since, like, Coolio, or something.
Apparently the movie had a budget of $50,000. I spent the entire movie trying to figure out where that money went. It’s not in the acting, the directing, the filming, the soundtrack, or the effects. Maybe they blew it all on whoopie cushions and trips to the strip club.
Here’s another sample quote: “I’m gonna set his horse on fire and then eat it!” Is that supposed to be a threat? To the horse, maybe.
I don’t know what else to say about this movie. It’s an interminable bore, not dumb enough to be funny and not smart enough to be interesting. It’s not even smart enough to know it’s not very good; it looks like it desperately wants to be taken seriously, but it’s not pretty enough for the Westminster Show, let alone the prom.
Cowboy Killer: *





People Had This to Say