I told you earlier that the trailer for John Woo's "Red Cliff" brings out the man in you. Well now you can get it on pay-per-view advanced screening (a little pricey at 9.99).
I was feeling a bit testosterone-y yesterday and I rented it. I'm now feeling a little punch drunk at the sheer number of dead Chinese Warriors all bleeding profusely from the pixels of my new flatscreen. The battle sequences are "Gladiator" to the 3rd power. Woo was always been a great action director and while this film doesn't break much new ground there's enough whirling, flying, slicing and spinning martial arts moves to give a fan of the genre a fix that will last a good long while.
But this is also a film about the strategy of warfare as much as it is about the actual fighting. It's about wind and women and spying and germ warfare and ancient battle formations. Fun. Fun. Fun. Now I'm not myself an expert in the field of Chinese Battle epics (my man with his thumb on the pulse of Asian cinema has yet to see it) so I may be off base but this seems to me to be about as good as a Chinese Feudal War Epic gets. You should see it.
"Red Cliff" is not in theatrical release yet so pay-per-view is currently your only option, but I'm told that it will soon be coming to an Art House near you. If you're a huge fan of the genre, you may want to wait for the big screen option. That would be an awesome sight.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
For Wild Things, With Love
If you read the post about Pixar you know that my thesis there was that those folks know how to tell a story for and to a modern child. I have an addendum to the thesis. They know how to tell a story to a well adjusted modern child. Spike Jonze and screenwriter Dave Eggers know how to tell a story to an angst-filled and lonely child with anger issues. And boy do they have it down.
Lonely and angry, that's Max, the protagonist of "Where the Wild Things Are". You see him trapped in a house with two females who I'm sure love him but who have their own troubles. So Max chooses isolation and imagination. Problem is, isolation only breeds more loneliness. And imagination, well, it gets him into trouble. Max is not a kid who is reachable by those Pixar puppies with funny voices or neat life lessons. Like many kids, Max is angry and Max lashes out.
That brings up the central problem to "Where the Wild Things Are". This imaginatively told tale, with rich characterization and subtle technique (at least when dealing with the adult portion of the program) has an audience problem. Who is this story meant for?
You see when Max retreats to a faraway island of imagination, it's a dark place with over-sized monsters that are given to eating strangers. They consider throwing clumps of hard dirt at your head to be the height of entertainment. There are threats in this world. Real threats. On screen, the threats are externalized by big scary monster-like puppets who aren't exactly soft and cuddly. They're just as angry as Max. But as adults we know that these monsters are internal, demons that threaten Max's safety just as much as if they were external, say some dark stranger with candy.
So let me try to answer my own question by telling you who this movie is not for. It's not for most young children. It is violent and disturbing and a parent needs to exercise caution. True most parents underestimate their kids but in this case, there is really a thin line between understanding and nightmarishness. Most kids, I think don't need this kind of storytelling. But the ones who do, may find "Where the Wild Things Are" to be a life-changing experience.
As for adults, I found myself sitting through this movie admiringly, thinking why am I here? This wonderful tale is not really a story meant for me. A parent or Grandparent with a kid age oh, seven to twelve, now they have a reason to see this. I have never seen any movie that so gently but thoroughly explains a child's point of view, especially an angry child. I wonder what a child psychologist might say about this film? My guess is that they'd say it's about time.
The reason for a guy like me to see this film is more esoteric. It's easy to see why this film is the darling of critics like A.O. Scott or Mahnola Dargis. It is rare for ANY movie to get these kind of emotional complexities right. For me, I can watch this movie as a cinephile, a lover of film. Nuance, complexity, allegory, an academic's dream. Rare indeed to see oversize puppets illuminate the human condition.
In Max are the seeds of cinematic teen rebellion that manifest itself in James Dean and Sal Mineo in "Rebel Without a Cause" or later in Jake LaMotta in "Raging Bull".
But here Max is young. We can hope that he escapes the celluloid fate of those characters.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is a great film but I am not the audience that will find it most resonant. For those young people with whom it does strike a chord, it will be a film they cherish for a lifetime.
Parents don't be lazy on this one. See it first, before you dump the kids off for a matinee.
Lonely and angry, that's Max, the protagonist of "Where the Wild Things Are". You see him trapped in a house with two females who I'm sure love him but who have their own troubles. So Max chooses isolation and imagination. Problem is, isolation only breeds more loneliness. And imagination, well, it gets him into trouble. Max is not a kid who is reachable by those Pixar puppies with funny voices or neat life lessons. Like many kids, Max is angry and Max lashes out.
That brings up the central problem to "Where the Wild Things Are". This imaginatively told tale, with rich characterization and subtle technique (at least when dealing with the adult portion of the program) has an audience problem. Who is this story meant for?
You see when Max retreats to a faraway island of imagination, it's a dark place with over-sized monsters that are given to eating strangers. They consider throwing clumps of hard dirt at your head to be the height of entertainment. There are threats in this world. Real threats. On screen, the threats are externalized by big scary monster-like puppets who aren't exactly soft and cuddly. They're just as angry as Max. But as adults we know that these monsters are internal, demons that threaten Max's safety just as much as if they were external, say some dark stranger with candy.
So let me try to answer my own question by telling you who this movie is not for. It's not for most young children. It is violent and disturbing and a parent needs to exercise caution. True most parents underestimate their kids but in this case, there is really a thin line between understanding and nightmarishness. Most kids, I think don't need this kind of storytelling. But the ones who do, may find "Where the Wild Things Are" to be a life-changing experience.
As for adults, I found myself sitting through this movie admiringly, thinking why am I here? This wonderful tale is not really a story meant for me. A parent or Grandparent with a kid age oh, seven to twelve, now they have a reason to see this. I have never seen any movie that so gently but thoroughly explains a child's point of view, especially an angry child. I wonder what a child psychologist might say about this film? My guess is that they'd say it's about time.
The reason for a guy like me to see this film is more esoteric. It's easy to see why this film is the darling of critics like A.O. Scott or Mahnola Dargis. It is rare for ANY movie to get these kind of emotional complexities right. For me, I can watch this movie as a cinephile, a lover of film. Nuance, complexity, allegory, an academic's dream. Rare indeed to see oversize puppets illuminate the human condition.
In Max are the seeds of cinematic teen rebellion that manifest itself in James Dean and Sal Mineo in "Rebel Without a Cause" or later in Jake LaMotta in "Raging Bull".
But here Max is young. We can hope that he escapes the celluloid fate of those characters.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is a great film but I am not the audience that will find it most resonant. For those young people with whom it does strike a chord, it will be a film they cherish for a lifetime.
Parents don't be lazy on this one. See it first, before you dump the kids off for a matinee.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Girding The Loins-Asian Style
I only saw the trailer, and I may be behind the times on this, but John Woo (THE Asian action director) has a film coming to American screens soon. It's called "Red Cliff" and let me tell you guys, this one will make your man parts all tingly. A huge sweeping battle epic with millions of CGI'd Chinese warriors set in 3rd century China, oh and did I mention it's John Woo? The trailer looks fantastic. It was released in Asia in 2008 and already has a zillion Asian awards (Best Foriegn film-Japan, Art direction, costume design, special FX, even an acting award from the Hong Kong equivalent of the Oscars) I hope it lives up to my already-sky-high expectations. Men--eat sausage, drink beer and see this movie. Charles are you listening?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Midnight madness
I have GOT to buy a video camera. With a marketing plan that out hexes "The Blair Witch Project", the latest late night sensation is "Paranormal Activity". One house, one camera,a few unknown actors and a million jump scares later, this $15,000 fright fest has scared up 11.5 million in Box Office. Let me repeat the numbers. 15 thousand.
11.5 million. Sigh. Screw it. I'm ready to sell my integrity on Craig's List. Okay, not really.
11.5 million. Sigh. Screw it. I'm ready to sell my integrity on Craig's List. Okay, not really.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Box Office Oct.9-10-11
Here are the numbers:
Film/weekend Gross/Total Gross/Weeks in Release
1. Couples Retreat/$35,340,000/$35,340,000/1
2. Zombieland/$15,000,000/$47,801,000/2
3. Cloudy with a
Chance of Meatballs/$12,000,000/$96,251,000/4
4. Toy Story/ Toy Story 2/$7,674,000/$22,676,000/2
5. Surrogates/$4,115,000/$32,573,000/3
6. The Invention of Lying/$3,370,000/$12,327,000/2
7. Whip It/$2,800,000/$8,766,058/2
8. Fame/$2,556,000/$20,041,739/3
9. The Informant!/$2,210,000/$29,853,000/4
10. Tyler Perry's I Can
Do Bad All By Myself/$1,540,000/$50,410,000/5
11. Love Happens/$1,439,440/$21,224,855/4
12. Pandorum/$846,000/$9,541,386/3
Film/weekend Gross/Total Gross/Weeks in Release
1. Couples Retreat/$35,340,000/$35,340,000/1
2. Zombieland/$15,000,000/$47,801,000/2
3. Cloudy with a
Chance of Meatballs/$12,000,000/$96,251,000/4
4. Toy Story/ Toy Story 2/$7,674,000/$22,676,000/2
5. Surrogates/$4,115,000/$32,573,000/3
6. The Invention of Lying/$3,370,000/$12,327,000/2
7. Whip It/$2,800,000/$8,766,058/2
8. Fame/$2,556,000/$20,041,739/3
9. The Informant!/$2,210,000/$29,853,000/4
10. Tyler Perry's I Can
Do Bad All By Myself/$1,540,000/$50,410,000/5
11. Love Happens/$1,439,440/$21,224,855/4
12. Pandorum/$846,000/$9,541,386/3
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Modern Love
The Romantic Comedy, capital R, capital C. Is there any film genre more bogged down in the formulaic and familiar than the Romantic Comedy? That's rhetorical-the answer is no. But even with my low tolerance for cinematic regurgitation I'm always game for a half-way decent rom-com. What they lack in unpredictability they often make up for in charm. All you have to do to is go with it. Sure woman like Meg Ryan (he said, dating himself) or Sandra Bullock or Katherine Heigle have trouble finding dates. That's right, Michelle Pfeiffer looks like a frumpy waitress and would be lucky to get the short-order cook (again, the age thing). Yeah, whatever.
This year, however, brought us some interesting twists in the straight and narrow rom-com freeway. "Away We Go" had merit. (See the September post) But the two I want to focus on in this post are "The Proposal" and "500 Days of Summer".
"The Proposal"-
This is a romantic comedy that does it the old-fashioned way. It is as formulaic and predictable a movie as they come. I liked it. Why? I'm sitting here hoping the reasons come to me before my typing fingers catch up to my brain. Well here are three reasons- Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Betty White. What is it about Sandra Bullock that makes her so damned watchable on screen? She's attractive yes, funny, yep. She can act when required (though in most of the material she chooses it's not really necessary), I'm left with that thing that people say about actors when they know they really should be harsher but can't seem to muster enough bile. Sandra Bullock is likable. So shoot me, she is. It's charm. It's delivery. It's cute. It's groin appeal. It's a big white-toothed smile. Alright, it's a cop out, but it's also true. Then match her with a likable guy who can also deliver a punch line and you can forgive a lot of plot contrivance. It's really difficult to quantify on-screen chemistry, but what ever it is and however you measure it Reynolds and Bullock seem to have it. Now for Betty White. She has forgotten more about comedy than all those idiotic Saturday Night Live clowns will ever know and at eighty something she can still deliver the goods. She is funny and not just in a cutesy Granny kind of way. She's funny in a skilled comic timing sort of way. That's why I asked everyone to comment on whether or not she deserves awards consideration. Whatever your opinion, she's a National Comic Treasure. That's why "The Proposal" found success. Audiences tell all the snobby cinematic pundits what works. It's made like 160 mill. I'd say that's a definitive decision.
"500 Days of Summer"-
Likability will not be discussed in the conversation about "500 Days of Summer". Oh, it's likable, the leads are likable, supporting cast for the most part very likable.
It's just that I don't have to rely on that stuff here. Here I can talk script because this film can take it. The script is that good. The film is that good. It is rare that a romantic comedy can be talked about as a great film, especially lately. This one can indeed. One of the best films of the year? Easy. Changing the genre? A case can be made.
In "Shakespeare in Love" Judi Dench (in the guise of Queen Elizabeth One) poses a question. "Can the true nature of love be revealed in a play?" Of course that was Romeo and Juliet. Few films about love are actually that ambitious(maybe "Love Actually"). I think "500 Days of Summer" makes the effort.
Okay I'm going to talk about a structural devise in this film but don't get scared off. This film is a blast to watch. Here goes. Each segment of the film let's you know which day in the relationship your about to see. The numbers roll to say Day 1 or Day 278 or Day 450. It tells you exactly how far along this 500 day relationship is, which allows the filmmakers to play with the time line. The tentative early days, the passionate and silly beginnings, the decline. They juxtapose the stages of modern love against one another and reveal the early hints of attraction, and the early hints of trouble. The result dissects the relationship and pins it out like a frog in biology class. It lets us see the guts. It exposes the inner workings. It's brilliant. It's easily my favorite script of the year. A rom-com that reveals the true nature of the modern relationship? Good God. It's alive! The genre is ALIVE!.
A final note about "500 Days". It has a kick-ass song song score. Not just any film can pair up "The Smiths" with a karaoke version of Nancy Sinatra's "Sugar Town". Oh, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are fantastic too. Recommendation enough?
This year, however, brought us some interesting twists in the straight and narrow rom-com freeway. "Away We Go" had merit. (See the September post) But the two I want to focus on in this post are "The Proposal" and "500 Days of Summer".
"The Proposal"-
This is a romantic comedy that does it the old-fashioned way. It is as formulaic and predictable a movie as they come. I liked it. Why? I'm sitting here hoping the reasons come to me before my typing fingers catch up to my brain. Well here are three reasons- Sandra Bullock, Ryan Reynolds, Betty White. What is it about Sandra Bullock that makes her so damned watchable on screen? She's attractive yes, funny, yep. She can act when required (though in most of the material she chooses it's not really necessary), I'm left with that thing that people say about actors when they know they really should be harsher but can't seem to muster enough bile. Sandra Bullock is likable. So shoot me, she is. It's charm. It's delivery. It's cute. It's groin appeal. It's a big white-toothed smile. Alright, it's a cop out, but it's also true. Then match her with a likable guy who can also deliver a punch line and you can forgive a lot of plot contrivance. It's really difficult to quantify on-screen chemistry, but what ever it is and however you measure it Reynolds and Bullock seem to have it. Now for Betty White. She has forgotten more about comedy than all those idiotic Saturday Night Live clowns will ever know and at eighty something she can still deliver the goods. She is funny and not just in a cutesy Granny kind of way. She's funny in a skilled comic timing sort of way. That's why I asked everyone to comment on whether or not she deserves awards consideration. Whatever your opinion, she's a National Comic Treasure. That's why "The Proposal" found success. Audiences tell all the snobby cinematic pundits what works. It's made like 160 mill. I'd say that's a definitive decision.
"500 Days of Summer"-
Likability will not be discussed in the conversation about "500 Days of Summer". Oh, it's likable, the leads are likable, supporting cast for the most part very likable.
It's just that I don't have to rely on that stuff here. Here I can talk script because this film can take it. The script is that good. The film is that good. It is rare that a romantic comedy can be talked about as a great film, especially lately. This one can indeed. One of the best films of the year? Easy. Changing the genre? A case can be made.
In "Shakespeare in Love" Judi Dench (in the guise of Queen Elizabeth One) poses a question. "Can the true nature of love be revealed in a play?" Of course that was Romeo and Juliet. Few films about love are actually that ambitious(maybe "Love Actually"). I think "500 Days of Summer" makes the effort.
Okay I'm going to talk about a structural devise in this film but don't get scared off. This film is a blast to watch. Here goes. Each segment of the film let's you know which day in the relationship your about to see. The numbers roll to say Day 1 or Day 278 or Day 450. It tells you exactly how far along this 500 day relationship is, which allows the filmmakers to play with the time line. The tentative early days, the passionate and silly beginnings, the decline. They juxtapose the stages of modern love against one another and reveal the early hints of attraction, and the early hints of trouble. The result dissects the relationship and pins it out like a frog in biology class. It lets us see the guts. It exposes the inner workings. It's brilliant. It's easily my favorite script of the year. A rom-com that reveals the true nature of the modern relationship? Good God. It's alive! The genre is ALIVE!.
A final note about "500 Days". It has a kick-ass song song score. Not just any film can pair up "The Smiths" with a karaoke version of Nancy Sinatra's "Sugar Town". Oh, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel are fantastic too. Recommendation enough?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
September redux
It's October! According to my Walgreen's it's Christmas time! Oh wait. Anyway, here's a list of the films I blogged about in September. Go back and check them out.
Away We Go
Inglourious Basterds.
Adventureland
The Hangover
Sin Nombre
Star Trek
Watchmen
Pandorum
Every Little Step
Julie and Julia
Sunshine Cleaning
Thirst
Life During Wartime (Upcoming)
The Hurt Locker
Precious (Upcoming)
Away We Go
Inglourious Basterds.
Adventureland
The Hangover
Sin Nombre
Star Trek
Watchmen
Pandorum
Every Little Step
Julie and Julia
Sunshine Cleaning
Thirst
Life During Wartime (Upcoming)
The Hurt Locker
Precious (Upcoming)
Betty White
It looks like there's going to be a big campaign for Betty White in "The Proposal" this coming award season.(Supporting Actress category) I'm a SAG nominator this year. What do you think? Worthy of a nomination? She's a wonderful comedienne, granted. Is the performance one of the five best of the year? Should her career (mostly TV) factor in? Feed back requested.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Pixar Principle
Pixar is on an incredible run. Its last three films, Ratatouille, Wall-e and Up, are going to be classics of the animated genre (Ratatouille is still my favorite-the greatest Rat movie of all time, and there's been more than you think).
So why does Pixar get this so right? I think it's because it totally and completely understands the MODERN child. (Some have said that it's because nobody in the entire Pixar outfit has entirely grown up themselves-I can't really bear witness to that but it sounds like a pretty good theory) The Disney model, you know, the Princess is in peril but hark! her Prince is near to save her and then marry her, seems pretty irrelevant to today's kid who is much more sophisticated in their story comprehension capability. No more "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" for this generation.
This gives Pixar a much broader palate to work with. In "Up", the much talked about montage of a young Carl and Ellie meeting, falling in love, losing a baby and just living a life is the perfect example of speaking to children without speaking down to them. Children get that there has been a family tragedy even if miscariage isn't part of their vocabulary. Something bad has happened, we see it. But we see it in long shot. We don't intrude on the Fredrickson's privacy. Children don't need the harsh emotion but they do know what's happening. It is elegant in it's simplicity,
beautiful for both children and adults and the essence of Pixar's genius.
The young scout in "Up" has a life filled with modern complications as well. He's lonely, looking for someone or something to connect with. That role traditionally went to a Dad. But Dad's not there. That's a modern dilemma. "Up" is a film that understands the problems that children need worked out on a screen today, in this generation. It's a company that knows great storytelling. Dust off another spot for an Oscar, Pixar.
So why does Pixar get this so right? I think it's because it totally and completely understands the MODERN child. (Some have said that it's because nobody in the entire Pixar outfit has entirely grown up themselves-I can't really bear witness to that but it sounds like a pretty good theory) The Disney model, you know, the Princess is in peril but hark! her Prince is near to save her and then marry her, seems pretty irrelevant to today's kid who is much more sophisticated in their story comprehension capability. No more "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" for this generation.
This gives Pixar a much broader palate to work with. In "Up", the much talked about montage of a young Carl and Ellie meeting, falling in love, losing a baby and just living a life is the perfect example of speaking to children without speaking down to them. Children get that there has been a family tragedy even if miscariage isn't part of their vocabulary. Something bad has happened, we see it. But we see it in long shot. We don't intrude on the Fredrickson's privacy. Children don't need the harsh emotion but they do know what's happening. It is elegant in it's simplicity,
beautiful for both children and adults and the essence of Pixar's genius.
The young scout in "Up" has a life filled with modern complications as well. He's lonely, looking for someone or something to connect with. That role traditionally went to a Dad. But Dad's not there. That's a modern dilemma. "Up" is a film that understands the problems that children need worked out on a screen today, in this generation. It's a company that knows great storytelling. Dust off another spot for an Oscar, Pixar.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Box Office Snapshot
Here are the current numbers:
Film/total gross/ weeks in release
1. Surrogates/$17,247,690/1
2. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs/$63,800,538/2
3. The Informant!/$21,798,471/2
4. Fame/$11,113077/1
5. Pandorum/ $408,279/1
6. Love Happens/$15,449,370/2
7. Tyler Perry's I
Can Do Bad All
By Myself /$45,185,425/3
8. Jennifer's Body/$13,043,423/2
9. Inglourious Basterds/$114,966,326/6
10. 9/$27,683,021
11. All About Steve/$30,278,413/4
12. Julie and Julia/$90,878,860/8
Film/total gross/ weeks in release
1. Surrogates/$17,247,690/1
2. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs/$63,800,538/2
3. The Informant!/$21,798,471/2
4. Fame/$11,113077/1
5. Pandorum/ $408,279/1
6. Love Happens/$15,449,370/2
7. Tyler Perry's I
Can Do Bad All
By Myself /$45,185,425/3
8. Jennifer's Body/$13,043,423/2
9. Inglourious Basterds/$114,966,326/6
10. 9/$27,683,021
11. All About Steve/$30,278,413/4
12. Julie and Julia/$90,878,860/8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)