Rise of the slumbering blogger: Catching up filmically

Saturday I cleaned up real cobwebs at my house. Today I clean off virtual cobwebs on this blog. Many distractions have set in that put me out of the swing of things. Now it's time to get back into the swing of things and not look back - except for this update on the big-screen movies I've seen since I've last posted. And I'm including films I've seen in the classic series in Dayton and Columbus.


One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest A+
One of three movies to win the top five Oscars of Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Screenplay. The writing of this film becomes all the more impressive once you realize the book was written from the point of view of the Chief

Winnie the Pooh B
Sweet, gentle fun - a very pleasant throwback to the Disney movies of old, with this entry being animated by the A-crew at the Mouse House. It rarely manages to be more than pleasant, but that seems appropriate for such an assuming character as Pooh. Eeyore (voiced by Pixar's Bud Luckey) provides most of the laughs.







Cowboys and Aliens C+


Indiana Jones and James Bond in the same movie. How can it miss? By being saddled with a confused script that manages to be overwrought and half-baked at the same time. It's fairly decent as a Western, but the more aliens there are, the more unfocused it gets. Very disappointing.

Beginners A
With its often whimsical tone and its scattered chronology, this picture could have gone wrong in all sorts of ways but holds steady, thanks mostly to strong performances by Ewan McGregor, Christopher Plummer and Melanie Laurent in a story about a man struggling to come to grips with his father coming out of the closet late in life. It's especially nice to see Laurent get a good vehicle after her breakout in Inglourious Basterds.

The Adventures of Robin Hood A+
You simply cannot fully appreciate this movie until you've seen it on the big screen with a crowd applauding Errol Flynn's every swashbuckle.

Crazy Stupid Love B+
A terrific cast including Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Marisa Tomei and Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone powers this episodic ensemble piece about love lost and found in unlikely places. The performances help overcome some slightly ungainly writing, especially an icky subplot about a teenage girl's crush on a 40-something.

The Wizard of Oz A+
Once again, you simply cannot fully appreciate this movie unless you've seen on it on a big screen in a packed house with Technicolors that are practically blinding.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes A-
 What seemed like a misguided idea for a reboot has turned into the summer's most pleasant surprise. Special effects movies often fail because the effects are more interesting than the humans, but in this context, it's actually quite appropriate.  Terrific motion capture work by Andy Serkis (AKA Gollum AKA King Kong) and smartly choreographed action sequences make this trump not only the Tim Burton remake, but even the 1968 original as well.

The movies that say Summer to me

Netflix's Facebook feed asked a fun question on Monday, the first day of summer: What's the first movie you think of when you think of summer?

For me, that would be George Lucas' American Graffiti, mainly for its evocative use of the Beach Boys' "All Summer Long" over the end credits.

Me being movie nutty, however, I never can leave any movie-related question, so let me toss out a few more, in no particular order.

Jaws - Of course - although not because it made me afraid to go into the water. I was afraid to go into the water anyway. Can't swim to this day.

Do the Right Thing - Spike Lee's seminal, searing drama about a hot day in Brooklyn (understatement)  is certainly one of the movies that best conveys a sense of heat - in more ways than one.

Lawrence of Arabia - Speaking of a sense of conveying heat ...

Miracle on 34th Street - I kid you not. Sure, it's a Christmas movie - but what many people don't know is that technically, it's a summer movie. It came out on May 2, 1947. True story.

Rear Window: Heat is an important factor in the story. Remember the shot of the thermometer and the sweat glistening on Jimmy Stewart's face?

Gunnison: It's about time you got married, before you turn into a lonesome and bitter old man. 

Jeff: Yeah, can't you just see me, rushing home to a hot apartment to listen to the automatic laundry and the electric dishwasher and the garbage disposal and the nagging wife... 

Gunnison: Jeff, wives don't nag anymore. They discuss. 

Jeff: Oh, is that so, is that so? Well, maybe in the high-rent district they discuss. In my neighborhood they still nag. 

What movies make you think of summer?  

PS - Lest anyone think I forgot one of my favorite movies from last year, 500 Days of Summer - it's totally cheating to pick a movie with the word "summer" in the title! ;)

Are movie stars dead?

No, no, I'm not referring to the obituaries or to those morbid celebrity death pools. I'm referring to the notion made in this Guardian article that movie stars don't have the cache they once did.

But is that really true?

No doubt, the appeal of movies these days seems to be based more on concepts than stars. Avatar, for instance, which didn't do too badly for itself, made a lot of its money on its event status - it was the movie that people HAD to see. Sigourney Weaver was probably the biggest "name" in it, but I doubt her fame sold that many tickets. I don't remember the ads ever mentioning her - the one name the ads did mention was the director - James Cameron.

And when every movie that gets green-lit these days seems to be a sequel or a remake, it seems clear that studios are less interested in selling who than selling what.

But are movie stars really THAT irrelevant? Take Shutter Island, for instance. OK, maybe that made some of its money from its twisty ending, but would it have done as well if say, Mark Ruffalo were the lead instead of Leo DiCaprio?

And what about this year's biggest hit so far, Alice in Wonderland? The story of Alice sold a lot of tickets, as did the 3D (however weak that may have been). But would it be as big as it is without Johnny Depp? I don't think so.

And then there are those highly touted "failures" like Duplicity,  often cited as one of the harbingers of the death of the adult movie. OK, it didn't do as well as it could or should have, but would it have gotten the attention it did get without them?

Perhaps the best way to answer these queries is to pose another - when you choose a movie, what question is on your mind? Is it "What's it about?" Or is it "Who's in it?"

Just askin.'

Best movie vs. Favorite movie - what's the difference?

When I commented on reader Rob's list he submitted to the favorite movies project, he pointed out "First off, I'll say my list is very much a 'favorites' list and not a 'best' list. It's very much about what films have really grabbed me and less about the technical merits of the film."

I understood him perfectly well. After all, I myself titled the project FAVORITE movies. And like Rob, I will always favor emotional impact over technical merit. But thinking back on my own list, it seemed to be more of a "Best-Of" ranking than a favorites list.

What's the difference? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. The most common delineation seems to be that best = prestigious and favorites = fun, but that seems simplistic. My list blurs the line between the best films and my favorites.

For example, A Hard Day's Night falls into both camps for me. I believe it to be the best rock film ever made. And it's also the most fun for me because well - it's a Beatle movie, dammit. With Beatlemania like mine, it would be unnatural if it didn't make the list.  

Then there's Citizen Kane. Many people cite it in best-of lists because of its technical and narrative innovations, as well they should. But there's much more to the film than that. I also think it's a lot of fun. Sure, it has weighty themes and its moments of melancholy, but every time I watch it, I can feel the glee with which Orson Welles made the film, knowing he was breaking all the rules. Kane is both a best film and a favorite film for me.

Sometimes "favorite" also tends to mean "most compulsively watchable." If I followed that definition, my list would look decidedly different. It would be a lot less democratic. It might contain a whole bunch of Hitchcock films, (like Rear Window) Scorsese pictures (Goodfellas) or Disney movies (Beauty and the Beast). Diversity would go out the window.

But I get also a charge out of the movies that are either emotionally punishing (Raging Bull) or fascinating enigmas (2001) because I love the craft on display. And I was the nut who saw Schindler's List five times in the theater, trying to approach it analytically -  and failing every time when the tears started to flow.

When I start a blog with a query, I often end up answering my own question, but I really don't think I have this time. For me, the distinction between "best" and "favorite" will never be concrete. There will always be overlap.

So let me ask you  - what, for you, is the difference between a favorite movie and a "best" movie? Is there a difference?

How to live-blog the Golden Globes?

Everyone,

The Golden Globes are on Conan O'Brien's favorite network at 8 p.m. tonight, so I thought I'd ask my readers a question.

I was going to try to live-blog them like I have done for the Oscars in the past. In other words, I'll post to the blog as the awards are handed out and offer insightful and sarcastic commentary.

But how best to do it? Should I do it all in one post and refresh it, like EW does for their live blogs, or should I do separate posts for each category, as I have done in the past? What method do you think is better?

My favorites: Film score and composer - what are yours?

Notice how the title of the post is singular - film score and composers, rather than the plural film scores and composers.

That's quite deliberate. Some time back I thought about authoring a post listing my 10 favorite film scores and some of my favorite composers. A truly comprehensive, well-considered list would take some time, however. so that list will have to wait for a future date - if, indeed, I can ever settle on THE 10 greatest scores.

I WILL say however, that picking out my favorite film score and composer is beyond easy. My favorite score is the one for what is probably my favorite film, Vertigo, and the composer is the legendary Bernard Herrmann.
 
Here's the theme from it:



But my favorite piece from the film is the "Scene d'Amour," with Kim Novak's achingly beautiful reveal, as seen here (NOTE: DO NOT watch this if you have not seen the film - it contains major spoilers).



Ah, but that's still not my favorite piece of Herrmann music. And no, it's not the shower music from Psycho, brilliant as that is. That's the most INFLUENTIAL piece of film music, but it's not my favorite. My favorite film theme - the one that I dream of conducting in front of an orchestra someday - is the theme to Hitchcock's North By Northwest. Just thinking about it thrills and exhausts me.



And just think: None of Herrmann's Hitchcock scores - not a single one - was ever even NOMINATED for an Oscar. That, to me, is the Academy's most galling oversight.  (Herrmann did win an Oscar for The Devil and Daniel Webster, but still ...)

Finally, here's the clip that prompted me to write this post: a VERY nifty collection of Herrmann scores that serves well to remind us he wasn't just Hitchcock's guy.



So what are your favorite Herrmann scores? For that matter, who are your favorite film composers and what are your favorite film scores? Let's turn this into a REAL free-for-all! Comment away! 

Suspense movie? Horror movie? Which is which?

This weekend, I'm heading to HorrorFest III at the Little Art Theatre in the little town of Yellow Springs near little old me. Looking at their lineup ....

(Begin echo-y "recorded in a vault" voice) 

I got to thinking ,,,,


(End echo-y "recorded in a vault" voice) 

Just what IS a horror movie anyway?

Sometimes it's easy to tell. Any of the Saw movies? Sure. The original Night of the Living Dead? Oh, yeah. The Exorcist? Again, gets my vote for the scariest movie of all time.

But then there are movies, and certain directors, who blur the lines. The Birds, for instance, is in the 'thon, but I've never really thought of if as a horror movie - I call it a "suspense thriller." Same goes for Psycho, even though it's often referred to as a "horror" film. Maybe that's just because Hitch was and is the Master of Suspense, so I have a hard time thinking of any of his movies as "horror." 

Is it buckets o' blood? Psycho and The Birds are two of Hitch's bloodier efforts, but I don't think blood alone makes a horror movie. I feel pretty comfortable calling John Carpenter's original Halloween "horror" but most of that movie's effectiveness relies on Hitchcockian suspense, not actual blood and guts.

The Silence of the Lambs had a fair amount of blood in it, and it certainly gave me the shakes, but I've never called it a "horror" movie either, but a "psychological thriller." And what about Paranormal Activity? Or Blair Witch? Both are called horror but have very little actual blood.

By now I've confused myself, but hopefully I'm not confusing you. I pose the queries: What, to you, makes a horror movie? When does a "suspense thriller" cross the line into being a horror film?

Questions for me, question for you

 or

My thanks again to everyone who sent in suggestions on what to include in this new blog. I will most definitely continue the discussion of classic movies. My DVR is always jammed with films recorded from Turner Classic Movies. I often say that if that were the only channel I had, I would be quite fine with that. Coming soon: Reviews of Deception with Bette Davis and Claude Rains, and of Grand Hotel, the only movie to win a Best Picture Oscar - and no other Academy Award.

And if you ever have any titles you'd like me to review, I welcome suggestions.


I especially like the idea of a Q&A column in the style of Roger Ebert's Answer Man. While I would never claim to possess even half the depth of Roger's knowledge, I think this could be fun.

So take a look at his Answer Man page and see if you can come up with any questions for me. You  may do so by leaving a comment below or by emaling me directly if you're the shy type.

First off, though, I have a question for you. What theatrical movie should I review next?

Usually, the answer to that question was pretty easy. If I was in doubt, I would just review the film with the highest screen count. Now, however,  since I am no longer attending screenings and paying my own way, considerations are different.

I had been sort of interested in seeing Couples Retreat, the new vacation-gone-wrong movie with Vince Vaughn, Kristen Bell, Jon Favreau, Kristin Davis and Malin Akerman. Having scanned the icky reviews, however, my enthusiasm has waned. And nothing else opens this weekend.

Of the films I haven't seen, the one I am most curious to see is Ricky Gervais' The Invention of Lying, but word on that is mixed. I'm torn between seeing the more current film and what's probably the more interesting film. Which would be more helpful to you? Suggest, please.

Hello to all my new readers!

I am delighted to see that so many people have been checking out my new digs here today after my announcement that the original Sir Critic on Cinema is closing up shop. Thank you all! I maintain an email notification list; if you would like to be on it, drop me a line at sircritic@gmail.com

So I'm going to take this opportunity to put a question to my visitors, both old and new - what would you like to see in this new blog? What would keep you coming back to it? How could I make it stand out among the multitude of movie blogs? What topics would you like to opine about? And why in the world is a Showgirls 2 even a remote possibility?

OK, that last one is more rhetorical than anything else. But I'll entertain answers on that too. Anything goes. Suggest! Recommend! Comment! Discuss! Question?