"Classics" that have not aged well

The summer movie series at the Victoria Theater in Dayton goes by the name, the Hot Times Cool Films series, but I and others tend to give it the informal name of the "classic movie series."

Lately, though, I've found out that the word "classic" does not fit every movie in the series. Twice this year, Victoria has shown films many people have called "classics." Yet after watching two titles in particular this season, I can only ask, "Really?"

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid: I first saw this film at home several years ago and liked it quite a lot. Seeing it on the big screen, however, seemed to rob it of its luster.

Don't get me wrong. I like the film. It's a  good movie. It has a lot to recommend it. It's beautifully shot by the great Conrad L. Hall, who won an Oscar. (He would win two more, for Sam Mendes' American Beauty and Road to Perdition.) The chemistry between Paul Newman and Robert Redford is undeniable. The scene that constantly gets shown in clip-fests - the jump into the gorge - is a great scene.

However, one scene does not a great movie make. And one of the chief reasons is that practically every frame SCREAMS "late 60s." The chief offender here is the "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head." scene. It's cute, but it's the prime example of what Roger Ebert called "The Semi-Obligatory Musical Interlude."

Scene in which soft focus and slow motion are used while a would-be hit song is performed on the sound track and the lovers run through a pastoral setting. Common from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s; replaced in 1980s with the Semi-Obligatory Music Video.

The song won the Best Picture Oscar, and it's the kind of win that rankles me. I prefer it when a song actually serves the movie and isn't just window dressing, or a song to slow-dance to with your sweetie. Sure, "Raindrops" is a fun little tune, but the scene in the film has absolutely NOTHING to do with advancing the story. Zippo. Not only does the scene stop the movie cold, it even focuses on the wrong pair. It's Redford and Katharine Ross who are the couple - yet the scene shows Ross and Newman goofing around on a bicycle. Quite honestly, I think Sam Raimi made better use of the song in Spider-Man 2.

And it's not just the pastoral scene that feels off. The violence at the end, which is quite bloody, seems stolen from Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, which came out at the same time. That's dates the George Roy Hill film too.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Newman and Redford's follow-up film, The Sting, deserved to win Best Picture, but it's a much more entertaining film that doesn't seem quite so musty as Butch and Sundance do.

National Lampoon's Animal House: Victoria dubbed this film a "new classic," but neither word is accurate.   For a comedy with its reputation, I was surprised at how little I laughed.

Part of the problem may be my general distaste for the "drink all night, party every day, screw everything that moves" frat culture. The film revels in it. But another part of the problem is that even though it's set in the early 60s, it looks and feels VERY late 70s, from its flat lighting to its Studio 54-era hedonism. That just doesn't play as well now.

Most of my laughs came courtesy of John Belushi, who was a force of nature in this film (and pretty much everything else he did). But I didn't care about anybody else, aside from Karen Allen. If Victoria had to show a wild John Belushi movie from the same period, they would have been better off booking The Blues Brothers. Heck, they would have been better off booking Steven Spielberg's infamous 1941, which is not very good, but is better than its reputation suggests - and it's funnier than Animal House.

Robin Williams liked to joke that "If you could remember the 60s, you weren't really there." It seems the same is true of the late 70s. Animal House is called a classic mainly by people who say the word "man" after "classic." And how funny it is, I think, is directly proportional to how much beer you drank or pot you smoked in college (or high school).

Now it's discussion time. What "classics" didn't seem so classic when you finally saw them?  Perhaps we could make an anti-classics thread to go along with the classics one I intend to revive later.

Fire away at the overrated!

REVIEW: Salt

Salt preposterously entertained me. 

Much like the Bond movies it's so eager to emulate, Salt is often ridiculous and unbelievable - but most of the time, that's part of the fun. I found myself saying, "Yeah, right" a lot during the film - and that did indeed feel right. Suspension of disbelief, when it's executed well, can be thrilling, and it was in this movie, even when my eyes were rolling about as much as one of the stuntmen (or women).  

The other thing that struck me about this Angelina Jolie caper was how much it felt like a throwback. Oh, sure, it has many modern trappings, but the straight-ahead cleanly shot and edited action was rather refreshing when shots in some action movies don't last longer than two seconds. 

It really pays to take notice of the credits. Three names stood out to me. Chief among these was director Phillip Noyce, who is best known on these shores for the two Harrison Ford Jack Ryan movies, Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger. He's a very solid action helmer, and this, I think,  is his best American film. 

Another name that stood out was cinematographer Robert Elswit. He's best known as Paul Thomas Anderson's regular DP, but he's also a very capable action shooter, having lensed the 1997 Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies. And one of the editors is Stuart Baird, Richard Donner's regular editor who cut Casino Royale, the best Bond film of at least the past 30 years.

Their contributions make the action in Salt fun to watch. It felt almost old school in a way, watching action scenes in which I could tell who was slugging whom. That stands out in the era of whiplash editing that so marred the last Bond entry, Quantum of Solace, and pretty much any movie directed by Michael Bay. 

Where Salt does come up a little short is in the humanity department. The gambit of Kurt Wimmer's twisty screenplay is that it doesn't want us to know for sure where Salt's allegiance lies, and that makes the story intriguing for awhile - but it also makes the character somewhat impenetrable. The saving grace is Jolie's considerable charisma - she made me want to root for her by sheer force of will. 

I'm not sure if Salt has done well enough to warrant a follow-up, but I woudn't mind at all, especially since the future of the Bond franchise is uncertain. Her first adventure was like one of his martinis - I wasn't all that stirred, but I was definitely shaken. 

GRADE: B+

Director vs. Director, Round 1

My Facebook friend and fellow movie buff Justin Wasson has come up with a fun game on Facebook wherein he pits various directors against each other, and then his Facebook friends choose one over the other and the directors narrow down through the rounds. Kinda like NCAA brackets for movie geeks.

I had fun casting my votes in the game, so I thought I would list the various "fights" and rationalize my choices.  I don't think there's any real rhyme or reason to pit a particular director over another, although I'm convinced that one particular fight HAS to be for comic effect.

Wes Craven vs. Richard Donner: Both quality directors in the horror and action genres, respectively.  I tapped Donner, because Donner has never made a movie as allegedly bad as Shocker or Vampire in Brooklyn.

Quentin Tarantino vs. John Carpenter: QT certainly has more buzz lately, while Carpenter  has been inactive for awhile. Carpenter hasn't made a truly decent movie in decades, but he gets the nod on the strength of classics like Assault on Precinct 13 and Halloween. Tarantino, while indisputably one of the most important directors to gain prominence in the 90s, has gown increasingly adolescent and self-indulgent. And yes, that includes the overrated Inglourious Basterds, which is a "handful of scenes in search of a real movie," as Leonard Maltin aptly put it.

John Landis vs. Robert Rodriguez: This one was a bit tough for me. Landis' career is much longer in the tooth, but Rodriguez has been in a bit of a slump lately. Still, I went for Rodriguez for his visual and low-budget ingenuity.

Tony Scott vs. Terry Gilliam: This one, on the other hand, was easy. Even on an off day, Gilliam is more interesting than Tony Scott on an on day.

Tim Burton vs. Bryan Singer: I went with Burton, who has more of a personality (in several senses of the word) - even though the disappointment of Alice in Wonderland is still fresh.

Martin Scorsese vs. James Cameron: Marty trumps EVERYBODY. Simple as that.

Brian De Palma, vs. Michael Mann: Mann, for the very simple reason that he has never made a movie as wretched as The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Oliver Stone vs. George Lucas: I have a feeling people may stone me for this (rim shot), but I pick Lucas. Stone may be more visually bold (and reckless),  but Lucas made Star Wars, and that fact remains, despite the existence of Jar Jar Binks.

The Coen Brothers vs. David Fincher: Both great, but I went with the Coens for their versatility. Fincher's style is easily imitated. The Coens' is not, because they keep switching up their game.

Gus Van Sant vs. Steven Spielberg: Van Sant may be hipper, but few people are as visually intuitive as Steven.

Ridley Scott vs. Christopher Nolan: Nolan is the best director of the last 10 years, hands down. Scott has been maddeningly inconsistent, especially in the last 10 years.

Robert Zemeckis vs. Spike Lee: A bit of a tough call. Both, at their best, are stellar. So that's why if either one misses, it tends to stand out. I go with Zemeckis, who has missed less often, and who I really wish would go back to making live action movies and drop this motion capture obsession.

Francis Ford Coppola vs. Sam Raimi: I have to say I was dismayed when Justin told me Raimi won this round. Nothing against Raimi, and I suppose you could use my De Palma logic and claim that Raimi has never made a movie as bad as Jack. The other side of that coin, however, is that Raimi has never made a movie as good as The Godfather. Come ON, people! Have a sense of history!

Robert Altman vs. Michael Bay: If you pick Bay over Altman, you should never be allowed to watch a movie again. Ever.

The Wachowksis vs. Kevin Smith: Smith is better storyteller, because he's a better writer. However, since this contest judges directing, I have to go with the Wachowskis. Even when their movies are messes, they're ambitious messes.

Ron Howard vs. Guy Ritchie: When you make a movie as allegedly bad as Swept Away, you're automatically disqualified.

Justin has already posted Round Two (did so as I was typing this), so I will post on that later. For now, I feel inspired to go watch Zemeckis' Used Cars, which I have not seen in awhile, and the one film of Chris Nolan's I've not seen: Following.

Every movie I've seen so far in 2010

My apologies for being so remiss in posting to this blog lately. My job has kept me quite busy so that I write/edit all day, and then I'm out of energy to write/edit some more when I am at home.

I think what I will do is start to write shorter posts just to keep the blog going more often - and you know, I really should revive that long-dormant Favorite movies project that was so much fun earlier this year.

At least that's the plan for now. I seem to change my methodology every few months, so consistency is not my strong suit! ;) And honestly, I haven't seen a whole lot lately - most of my theatrical viewing has been repeat visits to Inception, which I have now seen five times.

I still need to review Salt, which was actually quite good, but that's a project for another day. For the moment, here's a quick and easy idea: Since I JUST compiled a half-year best-of list, it only follows that I should post a half-year movie viewing list. This is everything I've seen so far this year, on the big screen and the small.

Now I'm off to watch Hush ... Hush, Sweet Charlotte, since I just recently saw Whatever Happened to Baby Jane,  the other Robert Aldrich film featuring two cat-fighting movie idols, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Charlotte features Davis and Olivia de Haviland. Sounds almost as tasty.

1. It's Complicated    B
2. Up in the Air         A+
3. Sherlock Holmes    C+
4. Avatar     A+
5. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus B
6. The Lovely Bones B+
7. Leap Year B-
8. Crazy Heart A-
9. Edge of Darkness B+
10. A Single Man D
11. Shutter Island  x3 A
12. Precious A-
13. The Blind Side B+
14. Inglourious Basterds B
15. Up A+
16. A Serious Man A+
17. The Hurt Locker A-
18. An Education A
19. District 9 A
20. Alice in Wonderland C
21. Green Zone B+
22. How to Train Your Dragon A
23. Chloe  B+
24. The Ghost Writer B+
25. The White Ribbon B+
26. Diary of a Wimpy Kid B-
27. Blade Runner B
28. Ink D+
29. Richard Garriott: Man on a Mission B+
30. Sleep Dealer B+
31. Godzilla vs. King Ghidora C+
32. Star Trek A
33. Galaxina F
34. 2010 B
35. The Runaways B+
36. Hot Tub Time Machine B
37. Kick-Ass B+
38. Iron Man 2 B
39. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo A
40. Greenberg C
41. Robin Hood C+
42. Shrek Forever After B+
43. Splice B+
44. Singin in the Rain A+
45. Get Him to the Greek B-
46. Some Like It Hot A+
47. Toy Story 3 X2 A+
48. Sherlock Jr. A+
49. Seven Chances A-
50. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? B+
51. Waking Sleeping Beauty A
52. Knight and Day C-
53. The Music Man A
54. All About Eve A+
55. Psycho A+
56. Despicable Me A-
57. Inception X5 A+
58. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid B
59. The Girl Who Played with Fire B+
60. Salt B+

On the small screen

1. The Girlfriend Experience B
2. Dodsworth A
3. The Heiress A+
4. The Fox and the Hound B+
5. The Great Mouse Detective B+
6. The Private Lives of Sherlock Holmes A-
7. The Major and the Minor B+
8. A Guy Named Joe B
9. Moonlight Serenade C
10. Baby Doll B+
11. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof A-
12. The Paradine Case C+
13. Deception A-
14. Cleopatra (1934) B+
15. In the Loop C-
16. Seven Days in May A-
17. Lady for a Day A-
18. Zero Hour! B
19. Confederate States of America C-
20. The Diary of Anne Frank A-
21. Life After Tomorrow A-
22. American Pimp B
23. 3 Godfathers A-
24. Where the Truth Lies B
25. The Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer B
26. Bugs Bunnny Superstar   B+
27. The Uninvited B
28. The Nun's Story A
29. Broken Embraces B+
30. Summertime B+
31. Red Cliff B
32. A Foreign Affair A-
33. Targets A
34. Seconds A-
35. Make Way for Tomorrow A
36. Annie Oakley B+
37. The Eastwood Factor B+
38. Rumble Fish B-
39. Peggy Sue Got Married B
40. Tetro  A-
41. New Moon C
42. Picture This A
43. Reds B+
44. American Madness A
45. Only Angels Have Wings B+
46. Wild Boys of the Road B+
47. The Old Man and the Sea B

My half-plus year 8 best list

More than once I've complained about what a lousy year it's been for movies. I kept thinking this was probably the weakest film year I've experienced since I really started keeping track in the early 1990s.

Then I looked over my list. Yes, this year has been a disappointment. There were "blockbusters" that underwhelmed like Knight and Day, critical hits like Greenberg, which I found intolerably alienating, and a whole mess of E-ticket releases that I never even bothered to see, like Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice (bad year for Jerry Bruckheimer). 

Nevertheless, as I began to list every film that got at least an A-, I was pleased to recall that there has been a goodly amount of great stuff this year. That's thanks partly to my affinity for animation, and partly to the fact that I deliberately waited to compile the list so that it would have a little extra "kick." 

Those of you who get the reference I just made know I have to start my list with ...

1. Inception - I've seen this movie three times already, including one viewing in IMAX. I will probably see it at least twice more in theaters. I don't believe that I'll ever be able to take it all in - and that's the highest compliment I can give it. As is the case with all truly great movies, this one is a knockout that feels like I'm seeing it for the first time - even if it's for the third time.

2. Shutter Island: This got fairly respectable reviews when it was released - and I think that considerably underrates it. Yes, it's partly because I'm a fiend for Scorsese. It shows him having delirious fun with multiple styles, and DiCaprio gives one of his very best performances. Like Inception, it not only holds up on repeat viewings, but actually seems better with each new one.

3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: When I first saw this engrossing thriller, it reminded me of David Fincher's Zodiac, which I also saw as a movie made with a modern touch, but with one foot stuck firmly in the gritty look of a 1970s thriller like The Parallax View. So I was delighted when I learned that Fincher is prepping the American remake, which stands a chance of being as good as the original. Whoever plays Lisbeth will have a hell of a task trying to emulate Noomi Rapace's electric performance. The follow-up, The Girl Who Played with Fire, while solid, is not nearly as compelling. but I still can't wait to see The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

4. Toy Story 3: The last 30 minutes or so of this film wound up my emotions more than any film this year.

5. Waking Sleeping Beauty: A marvelous documentary that recaps how Disney animation rose from a moribund state to become a powerhouse once again.

6. How to Train Your Dragon: How did DreamWorks make the best movie in its roster? By taking a page from the Disney/Pixar playbook and putting the Lilo & Stitch directors at the helm.

7. Despicable Me: How did Universal suddenly come up with an animated hit? By being the flat-out funniest film of the year.

8. Crazy Heart: This story of a down on his luck and washed up singer follows a fairly predictable path, but it resonates thanks to the performances by Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Colin Farrell, who didn't get as much mention as he should have.

Not bad, not bad at all. I sure hope it wasn't all just a dream.

Uh-oh ...

REVIEW: Despicable Me

Despicable Me must go down as the worst-titled film of the year - because no movie in 2010 has made me laugh more than this one.

Not even Toy Story 3, you might wonder? No, not even Toy Story 3. Mind you, Toy Story 3 is a much richer and cleverer work. But only Despicable Me has given my diaphragm such a workout.

Even before the movie came out, I had a sneaking feeling it was a canny little number. The first trailer (the one with the deflatable pyramid) wasn't all that funny - but it was just bizarre enough to make me wonder what the heck it was.




Then, Universal  hit on their masterstroke - they started emphasizing the little yellow minions in their ads - "Those guys are really funny," I thought. "There must be something to this movie."



And indeed there was. Although it works best as a comedy, it's not just a laugh machine. Despicable Me has a surprisingly strong emotional core that sort of sneaked up on me. As I laughed  throughout, I found myself caring quite a lot about the characters, which was surprising considering how broadly they're drawn.

The pro-antagonist Gru (Steve Carell) and the con-antogonist Vector (Jason Segel) are both hapless wanna-be villains who think they're like Lex Luthor but are really more like Wile E. Coyote - clever, to be sure, but not as masterful as they think they are. And to make matters even worse, both of them have parental problems - Vector has daddy issues and Gru can never seem to please his mother, caustically voiced by Julie Andrews in a wonderful bit of casting against type.

Between all of them are three orphans whom Gru ends up "adopting" so he can use them to get at Vector. Predictably but endearingly, Gru finds himself falling for them - and so did I.

In fact, I liked the girls so much that I wish they were better defined. Their personalities, compared to most of the other characters, are a bit sketchy. The oldest, Margo (Miranda Cosgrove, AKA iCarly) is the kinda brainy one, Edith (Dana Gaier) is the loopy middle kid and little Agnes (Elsie Fisher) is the hyper, adorable one with a yen for unicorns. They're lots of fun, but had their characters been fleshed out a little more, the movie might not have faded from my mind as much as it did.

Still, the abundance of laughs, especially from the hysterical minions, compensate. They steal scenes in the first, second and third dimensions.  (Along with Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon, this film is one of the few that actually benefits from 3D). The more "human" they try to act, the funnier they are.  Not bad for a bunch of little guys who look like Comtrex capsules.


GRADE: A-

INSTANT REVIEW: Inception

Inception feels like many other movies I've seen before. And in so doing, feels like nothing I've ever seen before.

It's a little bit Matrix. A little bit Shutter Island. A little bit 2001. A little bit Vertigo. A little bit On Her Majesty's Secret Service. A little bit Royal Wedding. A little bit Salvador Dali. And more than a little bit M.C. Escher. And it's a lot Christopher Nolan. If he's not the best director we've got, he's certainly the one with the most vibrant imagination.

I'm not even going to attempt to describe the plot. To do so would be sheer folly. And it's not really necessary anyway. The plot isn't truly what makes the movie run. More than anything else, Inception is a remarkable sensory experience.

There will be some who will throw up their hands and exclaim "I don't get it." This is not a movie for people whose minds easily wander. This is not a movie for people who like their entertainment to be as disposable as their popcorn bags, It's not for people who need to be spoon-fed explanations, and it's certainly not for people who can't stand endings that don't tie everything up in a bow.

For others, however, who can open their minds and widen their eyes, Inception is the dream that keeps on dazzling. It has one of the most amazing senses of push-pull I've ever experienced at the movies. It confounds and it correlates. It delights and it dismays. It disorients and delineates. It stupefies and it stabilizes. It contracts and compacts. But whatever it does, it always amazes.

It may seem insane or irresponsible to crank out a review at 3:30 in the morning just after seeing it. But there was no other way. I had to get my immediate thoughts out in what  you're reading. I had to do my best to capture the rush of those two and a half hours while it was still racing through my mind.

To say it's the best movie of the year really can't do it justice. Inception demonstrates more potently than any film in recent memory the wonderful power that only motion pictures can wield. It's the most movie movie of the year. When you see it in a theater - and if you love movies you must - you will see, and feel, what I mean.

GRADE: A+

The sound of darning your socks and a split personality is the same!

Having just returned from Psycho, I thought I would share another fun personal connection it has - with the Beatles.

Now, Psycho came out a full two years before the Beatles released their first record. But it had a marked effect on at least one of their best-known songs.

Here is the title sequence of Psycho, with probably the most influential film score of all time - and criminally, composer Bernard Herrmann wasn't even nominated for an Oscar - nor were any of his other scores. But take a listen.



Now take a gander at this - this is the Beatles' Eleanor Rigby, from 1966 - but it's the strings only, as arranged by George Martin.



Draw your own conclusions.

The day I met Janet Leigh/Marion Crane/Marie Samuels

I have a very personal connection to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, which I will see this weekend at the Hot Times Cool Films series at the Victoria Theatre. I greatly identify with part of the movie.

No, no, no, not THAT part of it. But I am very lucky to be able to say I had the great honor of meeting Janet Leigh, who shocked the world by **SPOILER ALERT** dying before Psycho was even half over.

What follows is the column I wrote for the Middletown Journal, shortly after she passed away in 2004.


I was especially saddened to hear of Janet Leigh’s death Sunday, not only because she was a great actress, but because she was a great person, too.

Believe me, I know. I had the great pleasure of meeting her in 1995, when she came to the Neon Movies in Dayton to introduce screenings of three of her most famous films, “The Manchurian Candidate,” “Touch of Evil” and, of course, “Psycho.”

Many actresses would bristle if their most famous line was “AAAAAAAHHHHH!” But not Janet. She knew full well that shower scene was her ticket to immortality, and she wore it like a badge of honor.

Janet held Alfred Hitchcock in such high regard that even though most people who worked with the Master of Suspense called him “Hitch,” she insisted on referring to him as “Mister Hitchcock.” She delighted in telling people that decades after she spent a week filming that scene, she would only take baths.

And it was her most famous film that inspired an act of generosity I will never forget.

The theater manager had wanted to book a 35-millimeter print of “Psycho,” but Universal’s distribution people were only willing to give the theater a 16-millimeter print that wouldn’t even fill up the movie screen.

The manager didn’t want to use Janet as any kind of “trump card,” but he felt he owed her an explanation as to why she’d be introducing a 16-millimeter print of her best-known movie.

“Is that right?” Janet said upon learning of the dilemma. “Let me see if I can’t talk to someone about that.”

That she did. Boy, did she ever.

She contacted Lew Wasserman, one of the old super executives of Hollywood who was a god at Universal. If Wasserman asked for something, you delivered.

So Universal delivered to us the master print of “Psycho” — the one used to strike other prints, the one the president gets if he wants to see it. So not only did we get our 35-millimeter print, we got to see “Psycho” in the best possible way, with no scratches and with Janet Leigh gracing us with her presence.

I exchanged a few pleasantries with Janet, posed for a photo with her and asked her to sign a copy of a Hitchcock book I had. She spelled my name wrong — “Erik” — but a guy can’t and didn’t complain in the face of the immense favor she did us. Just being in the same room with someone who worked with Hitchcock, Orson Welles, James Stewart and Judy Garland, among many others, was reward enough.

Thank you, Janet. Hope you’re enjoying a warm bath up there.

How a movie buff spends the 4th of July

Over the long holiday weekend I watched a quartet of movies, some of which were very appropriate Independence Day viewing, and one of which was more than a little ironic Independence Day viewing,.

American Madness: I finally caught up with this early Frank Capra picture, the only one I hadn't seen from a DVD box set containing many of the director's gems. It stars Walter Huston as a scrupulously honest bank president who is overwhelmed when the bank is robbed and customers jam the lobby trying to withdraw their money. It's a very underrated little gem, which packs quite a lot of power into 76 lean minutes. One can see prototypes of Capra themes, including some very strong foreshadowing of It's a Wonderful Life. GRADE: A

Sidenote: The DVD box set contains an outstanding feature-length documentary called Frank Capra's American Dream, with interviews ranging from Martin Scorsese to Robert Altman to Oliver Stone. And it's hosted and narrated by the director whose work most strongly resembles Capra, Ron Howard. Well worth seeking out.

The Music Man: The movie musical started to fall out of fashion in the 60s, but this particular entry is one of the best of a decade that presented one bloated epic after another. It feels a little long at times, but Robert Preston's Energizer-bunny performance as Harold Hill more than makes up for any lulls. He's an absolute wonder; it's a crime he wasn't Oscar nominated. Meredith Wilson's songs must cram in more syllables per minute than any other legendary Broadway show. Ye gods! Fun movie geek trivia - the cinematographer was Robert Burks, who shot many of Hitchcock's best-known works, including Vertigo and To Catch a Thief. In fact, the movie he shot immediately after this one was The Birds. How's THAT for a segue? GRADE: A 

Only Angels Have Wings: Slightly lesser Howard Hawks, which is to say it's really quite good if not quite excellent. The story, which details the trials of a ragtag group of pilots who fly dangerous missions, veers too often from its best asset: the romance between Cary Grant and Jean Arthur, who was adorable in every movie she made. Even so, it benefits from outstanding aerial photography and a great ensemble. It's a bracine reminder none of us will ever be as fortunate as Grant, who gets to romance both Arthur and Rita Hayworth. Great problem to have. GRADE: B+


Reds: File under Fourth of July viewing, Ironic. Warren Beatty's 1981 epic about John Reed and Louise Bryant being swept up in the Russian Revolution, is ambitious to a fault. While the actor/co-writer/director's passion is undeniable, he bites off more than he can chew, trying to David Lean, Elia Kazan and Woody Allen all at once. The sprawling epic loses focus and momentum too often, but it has individual moments that are very powerful, and his tactic of interviewing real-life witnesses, and interspersing them throughout the film. was a masterstroke. As I have said before, I would much rather watch a film that tries too hard, than one that does not try hard enough. GRADE: B+

Sorry, kid, I heard it sucks. Pick something else?

Well, the arrow seems to be pointing in the right direction, at least.

Pop quiz, hot-shots: You hear a movie your kid really wants to see is bad. What do you do?

No, that isn't meant to be a belated tribute to Dennis Hopper. It's a real question in light of the collective retching that has greeted M. Night Shyamalan's The Last Airbender, based on the much-loved Nickelodeon cartoon.

You don't have to have kids to know that parenting involves a lot of sacrificing - and for many moms and dads, that means putting up with  kids movies in which the adult appeal is, shall we say, limited.

With Airbender, however, the situation is a little different than usual. This isn't something like Marmaduke or the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, which usually don't resonate with anybody who got past middle school. For one thing, I've heard a number of adults talk about how much they enjoy the show. For another, Shyamalan has a fan base that is mostly adult.

Unfortunately, that fan base has been steadily dwindling since The Village, and the reviews of The Last Airbender indicate the spiral continues to swirl downward. Consider:

The Last Airbender keeps throwing things at you, but its final effect is, in every way, flat. - Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly.

The story is a much more serious problem, a run-on, overstuffed narrative that feels like a very long prologue for a climax that never comes. - Liam Lacy, The (Toronto) Globe and Mail

If ever a film was born under a bad sign, "The Last Airbender" is it. As the blues lyric goes, if it didn't have bad luck, it wouldn't have any kind of luck at all. - Kenneth Turan, The Los Angeles Times. 

And those are some of the KINDER notices. Also consider:

This colossal folly, the fiasco of the summer of 2010 — gives us all a ringside seat at the sight of Mr. “I See Dead People’s” career gurgling down the drain. - (the other) Roger Moore, the Orlando Sentinel

The Last Airbender is dreadful, an incomprehensible fantasy-action epic that makes the 2007 film “The Golden Compass,’’ a similarly botched adaptation of a beloved property from another medium, look like a four-star classic. - Ty Burr, the Boston Globe.

The Last Airbender is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented. - Roger Ebert

Now, I can guess what some of you are thinking. Kids don't care what a bunch of grumpy old men critics think. Many adults don't either, alas. Still, there is a dilemma here.  With this property, and with reviews this bad, you can't chalk this up to a "kid-view vs. adult-view" dispute.


So what do you tell a child who has been chomping at the bit to see this? I expect many parents to take the kids, let them make up their own minds and hope for the best. A colleague of mine saw the movie with her family and reported that the film, while not great, was not nearly as bad as the critics have said.


But there are two sides to every story. At this time of writing, its Yahoo users grade (Read: Average Joes)  is C+. That's not too good for graders who tend to be generous. They give Knight and Day a B+, for Pete's sake.  And A.O. Scott of the New York Times wrote: 

"An astute industry analyst of my acquaintance, who is 9 and an admirer of the Nickelodeon animated series on which the movie is based, offered a two-word diagnosis of its commercial prospects on the way out of the theater: 'They’re screwed.'"

But right now, the only person who could persuade me to see the movie is an utterly charming niece of mine. Were it my own kid, though, I would gently but firmly suggest, "Why don't we see Toy Story 3 again, OK?" 

The summer in a nutshell

Here is the clearest sign so far that this summer has sucked: 

A movie theater near me has 20 screens. It is playing 8 movies. The lineup?

The A-Team: I've heard it's more like the D-Team.

Grown-Ups: I've heard even Sandler fans don't like this one.

Iron Man 2: Decent, but no more than that. 

The Karate Kid: Maybe if I'm really bored. I can think of better ways to spend two and a half hours.

Knight and Day: I already jousted with this stinker.

The Last Airbender: One can only hope so, based on the stench emanating from the reviews.

Toy Story 3: YAY!

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse: I am of the wrong age and gender to be persuaded. Saga my ass.

20 screens. 8 movies. 2 worth seeing. Any questions?

REVIEW: Toy Story 3

No one needs me to tell them to see Toy Story 3. Even if I were still writing pre-release reviews, no one would need me to tell them to see Toy Story 3.

By now, with Pixar, the question has become not "Is it good" but "How good is it?" Having just seen the movie a second time, I find myself sighing with a happy sadness at how wonderfully this story has come to a close.

I won't waste space going into the plot. This is a movie in which the less you know about the story, the better it works. However, you should know that this is the darkest of the Toy Story movies - and perhaps even Pixar's darkest film of all. It's not that big a stretch to call it The Empire Strikes Back of animated movies. The ending may not be as harsh, but our pals go through some harrowing moments on their way there.

The sometimes foreboding tone may catch some viewers off guard. Toy Story 3 is less genteel than its warmer, fuzzier predecessors. I will argue, however, that this is appropriate to the story Pixar needs to tell. It's about growing and  putting the past behind you. For both the toys and their owner Andy, it's about coming to grips with an uncertain future and a bigger world that is often frightening. And for the toys in particular, it's about facing a kind of mortality. It's the question that was inevitable - what do they do once they've outlived their usefulness?

Perhaps I'm making it sound a bit "heavy." Make no mistake, there's still an abundance of fun to be found here. But one could fairly argue the story gets a little too downbeat. I wish the movie had spent more time with an adorable little girl named Bonnie who has an imagination at least as big as Andy's. Getting to know her toys better might have counterbalanced all the drama.

But even that excess is redeemed by moments of brilliance. Toy Story 3 offers many delightful homages to prison break movies, and the film has some wonderfully inventive fun finding out what happens when you take the potato out of Mr. Potato Head. The beginning of the movie also marvelously recalls the beginning of the original Toy Story. 

But is is the ending of this movie that makes it an instant classic, flaws and all. To complain too much about this movie is to split hairs. From the heart-stopping climax to the heart-filling denouement, the third act of Toy Story 3 is absolutely pitch perfect. It is as moving an ending to Toy Story 3 as the "Married Life" sequence was a beginning to Up. It's not the best movie of the trilogy - that distinction still belongs to Toy Story 2 - but it is the most surprising, and the most emotional movie of the bunch. I can't get it out of my head, or my heart.

GRADE: A+


Note: I've seen the film both in 2D and 3D. As was the case with Up and last year's Toy Story double feature, the 3D is effective but inessential. Director Lee Unkrich is on record is saying that it works either way. The choice - and the money - is yours.

REVIEW: Knight and Day

I always thought the barrage of disdain directed at Tom Cruise was overwrought. Yes, the man said and did some very stupid things in recent years, but I didn't think he lost his judgment for what made a good film.

At least, not until I saw Knight and Day.

This lumbering mess of a movie steps wrong from the very first frame, and rarely steps right ever again. Watching the trailers, I had thought this action/romantic comedy would be told from the point of view of Cameron Diaz, playing a woman who unwittingly gets caught up in Cruise's spy world.

But no. Knight and Day begins with a shot of the back of Cruise's head. And my first thought was "What the hell?" That wouldn't have been so bad, except the movie switches its point of view about as often as it switches locations, which happens in every other scene. The film has no compass. It doesn't know whose story it should be telling, it isn't sure what tone to take (Mission Impossible? James Bond? Charade? True Lies?)  and it doesn't know what to make its characters think or feel with any kind of consistency. And the sum of all that is, it doesn't know how to be very entertaining. 

This was a real disappointment coming from director James Mangold, who is usually a solid craftsman with such strong films to his credit as Walk the Line and the 3:10 to Yuma remake. However, I'm forced to admit that on the evidence of this film, he's one of those directors who is only as good as his screenplay. And the screenplay for Knight and Day is the most witless one that Cruise has been attached to since Cocktail. 

It's not the stars' fault. Cruise works hard, as he always does, but he's not doing anything he hasn't done before. In this movie, he's coasting, however energetically. Diaz usually brings a fair amount of charm to her roles, but the script makes her character into such a dingbat, it's hard to sympathize with her. 

Worse yet, this is the kind of movie that thinks its viewers are such dingbats that it actually shows a shot of the Brooklyn Bridge - and then flashes the title "Brooklyn, New York" on the screen. (Facepalm.) Yes, the movie knows it's kinda stupid, but for it to think the audience is that dumb is unforgivable.

I'm still rooting for Cruise to fall back into the public's good graces, but to do that, he needs to take on less star vehicles in which he plays "Tom Cruise," and try more supporting roles that really test his mettle, like Magnolia. He also needs to avoid lame projects like Knight and Day. 

GRADE: C-

Disney, Buster, Davis and Crawford - together at last!

I had quite  a variety of retro moviegoing experiences this weekend, veering from two silent Buster Keaton comedies to the Grand Guignol/Grand Dame camp of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane to the fall and rise of the Mouse House.

It all started Friday night at Columbus' classic movie series at the grand Ohio Theatre. First up was a double feature of Keaton's Sherlock Jr. and Seven Chances.

I've always been more of a Chaplin man than a Keaton man, but there is simply no denying Keaton's inventive genius. Sherlock Jr., in which Buster plays a wanna-be detective and movie projectionist who literally stumbles into one of the movies at his theater. It's still absolutely dazzling 86 (!) years later - not to mention hilarious. You can even watch all 45 minutes of it here if you like.



Seven Chances isn't quite as good, since it's a little slower, but it's still extremely entertaining, particularly at the climax when an avalanche of rocks AND an avalanche of would-be brides threaten to overtake him.




Enhancing all of this was live organ accompaniment by the uber-talented Clark Wilson, who would make amusing musical choices (such as "We're in the Money" during the reading of a will) and even sound effects like a car horn. If you can ever go to a silent film with live musical accompaniment, DO IT - there's really nothing quite like it.

Sherlock Jr. A+/Seven Chances A-

After that, I stayed on to see the late show of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, the Joan Crawford vs. Bette Davis bitchfest (or at least the one that made it to the screen). To give you some idea of just how nasty  it is, consider this: Crawford is the NICE one. Davis makes even Faye Dunaway's  caricature of Crawford in Mommie Dearest seem like Minnie Mouse by comparison.

I'd stop well short of calling it a great movie - there are too many "Why doesn't she just ..." moments for that. Still, I can see why it has its reputation as kind of a camp classic, and it is perversely enjoyable to see these two rumble. Now I think I'll put Hush ... Hush Sweet Charlotte (with Davis and Olivia de Havila, also directed by Robert Aldrich) in my Netflix queue.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane: B+

Finally, I returned to Columbus the next day to see the documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty. This tells the story of Disney animation, from its low point in 1985 when The Black Cauldron was outgrossed by The Care Bears Movie, to the high commercial point of The Lion King in 1994. Being the Disney buff that I am, I only wished this were even longer with even more detail, but it does an excellent and even-handed job of telling this story fraught with wonder and drama. The archival footage, particularly relating to The Little Mermaid, is wonderful. It plays at the Landmark Gateway theater in Columbus through the July 4 weekend.  GRADE: A


Speaking of Disney, yes, I have seen Toy Story 3, but I want to wait to review it until I get another look at it. It takes some surprising turns (I think it plays better if you know going in that it's actually rather dark), but it's pretty much as wonderful as everyone says it is. Coming soon, to a movie blog near you ...

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! ;)

Adults like animation? Who'd-a thunk it?

Normally by this time I would have written a review of Toy Story 3, but I am waiting so I can see it with my favorite young artist and her fine folks. Rarely has my patience been so steely. ;)

In the meantime, I came across this post on EW's Popwatch blog, in which writer Josh Young marvels at the fact that a showing of Toy Story 3 drew - GASP! - mostly adults!?!??!?!

Really? You're just NOW finding out that adults can enjoy animated movies without the company of a child, EW? I've been aware of this fact for decades. About as long as your magazine has been around, in fact.

And I'm not talking only about myself, an admitted sucker for animation. I was noticing that adults were attending animated movies as far back as Beauty and the Beast. I saw that movies 6 or 7 times in theaters and noticed a number of adult couples there without any kids in tow. It was a date movie for them. And this was 19 years ago

Granted, the always high quality of Pixar's productions probably has  increased adult willingness to view animated movies without kids. But this is hardly a new phenomenon. And Pixar isn't even the only party responsible for this. As Young does point out, the works of Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away, Ponyo, etc.) have had an impact as well.

There's also something to be said for the fact that many people who saw the original Toy Story as kids in 1995 are flocking to the third chapter as well - they grew up along with Andy. In fact, the voice of Andy in all three movies, actor John Morris, is now a 25-year-old graduate of UCLA's Theater Arts program. (I hereby apologize for making some readers feel old.)

But really, anyone who has paid attention to Pixar knows the studio doesn't make films for children - they make films for everyone. If they made films solely for children, they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are.

It is true that a lot of people tend to ghettoize animation as being "just for kids." I often hear fathers complain they don't get to see anything in the theaters except for "kids movies." If they're talking about crap like Marmaduke, I sympathize. If they're talking about Pixar, I don't feel sorry - and neither, I suspect, do the fathers.

Brad Bird, the writer-director of The Incredibles and Ratatouille, once said in an interview (by EW, as it happens):

I can't tell you how many times somebody will come to me and say, ''My kids really love your work.'' And then you go, ''But you like it too, right?'' And they go, ''Oh, I love it.'' But they don't ever lead with that. It's like the kids are their beard to get them into the theater. Or people will say, ''I'm happy about this film because I have a 5-year-old.'' And I'm like, Well, congratulations, but I didn't make this for the 5-year-old. I made it for me, and I'm not 5. I can't think of one other art form that has its audience so narrowly defined. If you work in animation, people tell you, ''Oh, it must be wonderful to entertain children.'' Yes it is. But that's 10 percent of the audience I'm going for.

Yes, EW, adults can enjoy animated movies without kids - and it's time people stop being surprised by that.

Weekend viewing catch-up: Splice, Rain, Greek and more

After a few moribund weeks, my moviegoing habits roared back to life last weekend, even if the theatrical movies themselves didn't quite roar - well,except for one - at the very beginning.

On the big screen

Get him to the Greek: The latest product of the Judd Apatow machine turns out to be one of the weaker efforts. It's decent enough, with a few inspired routines. Russell Brand's gleeful and brave tastelessness makes him fun to watch, and Rose Byrne matches him so well as his female counterpoint rock star, I wished the movie had used her more. Unfortunately, the script is missing the heart that made Forgetting Sarah Marshall by the same director so winning. Jonah Hill is miscast as the straight man, and Elizabeth Moss, playing Hill's girl, is used even less well than Byrne . I laughed enough to recommend it slimly, but not enough to see it again. GRADE: B-

Singin' in the Rain: Caught this at Columbus' classic film series. How classic is this film? "Moses Supposes" got applause at my screening. "Moses Supposes!" To say nothing of the ageless "Make 'Em Laugh" or the title number. GRADE: A+

Splice: In a way, I can see why the mass audience rejected this eerie tale of science gone awry. The story of two maverick scientists who create sort of a female Frankenstein bites off more than it can chew thematically, making for some fuzzy character motivations. The movie also suffers from failure of tone in its last act, which resorts to conventional horror shocks. That's disappointing because most of the way, the film is quite effective, owing a great debt to the work of David Cronenberg, who knows a thing or two about gooey Canadian horror. Leads Adrien Brody and Sarah Polly work very well together. For those who like their sci-fi/horror offbeat, this one is worth a look, even if it's not as good as it could be. GRADE: B

On the small screen

New Moon: It's not quite so bad as many critics said it was. The basic story of vampires meeting werewolves work, even if it is old hat, and the performances are fine, but it's undone by Chris Weitz's overly showy direction, and by laughably lame dialogue that makes Avatar seem like the work of Billy Wilder. Note that I dispensed with that "Twilight saga" BS. GRADE: C

Make Way for Tomorrow: Criterion recently rescued this Leo McCarey picture from obscurity, and bless them for that. It's a wonderfully charming and heartbreaking tale about an elderly couple that's forced to separate and live with their children, who don't put much stock in their elders. If this movie had pointed things to say about the marginalizing of senior citizens in the 1930s, just imagine what it would say about the modern era. When McCarey won an Oscar for the much better known The Awful Truth, made the same year. he said, "Thanks, but you gave it to me for the wrong picture." I don't know about that, but I do know this is a gem worth discovering. GRADE: A

Picture This: Netlfix's Instant feed unearths another gem, this one a short but excellent documentary on the making of Peter Bogdanovich's classic The Last Picture Show. The film usurped the lives not only of the people who lived in Archer City, Texas, but of the people who made it. When director George Hickenlooper turns his cameras on the making of the sequel Texasville 20 years later, he finds some of the old wounds still remain. Hickenlooper co-directed Hearts of Darkness, the excellent look at the chaotic making of Apocalypse Now. Clearly, he has a knack for movies about movies. GRADE: A


Note: Toy Story 3 comes out this weekend. I am unsure when I will get to see it, but I promise you I will review it as soon as I can.

Summer fizzle/Blog fizzle

My apologies for not posting much of late. I've become the Interim Lifestyle editor at work, and I've been doing quite a lot of learning and juggling this this week. Hence, that leaves me with little opportunity to write a post of much length or coherence once I get home. 

It doesn't help that so far this is the most blah moviegoing summer I can remember. I haven't seen anything theatrically since Shrek Forever After, and that was more than two weeks ago - an eternity in my own little world. However, I do hope to see Get him to the Greek and Splice this weekend - and of course I will review Toy Story 3 at the earliest opportunity after it comes out June 18. (Paul McCartney's birthday, and Roger Ebert's too - the Pixar folks sure can pick em.) 

In the meantime I've been amused by all the hand-wringing and labored analysis over why this summer's box office is lagging. Uuuuuuuhhhmmmmm ... could it be the movies don't look that interesting? And if they don't look that interesting to me, imagine how they must look to Joe or Jane Average. One of my favorite film writers, Anne Thompson, cuts through the muck in this post.

Summer Fizzle: Audiences Avoid the Blahs, Inception Pops (Video Featurette) - Thompson on Hollywood

I'll be back as soon as my work schedule and brain power allows. 

Oeuvres: Francis Ford Coppola

Since Coppola's latest film, Tetro arrived via Netflix, I decided to catch up on a couple more of his films that I hadn't seen: Rumble Fish and Peggy Sue Got Married. And since I did that, I decided to write this blog post. reviewing all of his films I'd watched. Here's a man with one of the most diverse - and frustrating -filmographies.

Finian's Rainbow: Not even the presence of Fred Astaire can rescue this mess of a film, made especially intolerable by Tommy Steele, playing the single  most annoying character in any movie musical. With misfires like this, Camelot and numerous others, it's no wonder musicals died in the late 60s. GRADE: D+

The Godfather: Absolutely deserves its reputation, even if I like Goodfelllas better as far as Mafia pics go. GRADE: A+

The Conversation: Gene Hackman delivers a masterful portrait of a lost soul as a surveillance expert who gets in way over his head, and Coppola masterfully builds tension in this paranoid thriller. And to my ears, this is the movie that most owes its success to its amazing sound design, created by the great Walter Murch. GRADE: A+

The Godfather Part II: I don't take the oft-held position that this film is superior to the original, but it's still excellent. It's even better in the Godfather Saga edit, which assembles the stories chronologically. Unfortunately, that version is not available on DVD.  Coppola was on a real roll here. GRADE: A+

Apocalypse Now: Flawed? Yes. Still a spellbinding, shattering experience like no other? Absolutely. It was so shattering in fact, that I still believe Coppola left a part of himself in the jungle, as he has not made a masterpiece since. The Redux version, though fascinating, drags too often, so it's worth an A-, but the original still rates an A+. (For more fascinating viewing, see Hearts of Darkness, one of the best filmmaking documentaries ever made.)

One from the Heart: Neither the horrendous misfire critics initially said it was, nor the misbegotten masterpiece revisionists have claimed, this ambitious musical stumbles as often as it impresses. I'd much rather see a film that suffers from trying too hard (which Coppola often does) than one that suffers because it doesn't try hard enough. GRADE:  B

The Outsiders: Visually powerful but dramatically uneven, the movie is most notable for kick-starting the careers of so many actors, including Patrick Swayze, Diane Lane and Tom Cruise. GRADE: B

Rumble Fish: Beautifully shot in black and white and well-acted by a great cast, but a bit too self-consciously pretentious to be fully effective. GRADE: B-

Captain EO: Minute for minute, I believe this 3D Michael Jackson extravaganza is still the most expensive movie ever made. Eat your heart out, James Cameron. Overwrought and dated, but fun. GRADE: B+

Peggy Sue Got Married: Kathleen Turner's strong performance overcomes a muddled script, and an awfully misguided performance by Coppola's nephew, Nicolas Cage, whose character might have actually been touching had he not sounded like he had clothespins pinching his testicles. GRADE: B

Tucker: The Man and his Dream: One of Coppola's better late-career efforts, aided by a great Jeff Bridges performance, and the subject of a derailed dreamer, with whom the director obviously identifies. GRADE: B+

New York Stories: Alas, Coppola's contribution to this omnibus film, "Life Without Zoe," is without much merit. Pretty but pointless. The Scorsese and Allen shorts far outshine it. GRADE: D+

The Godfather Part III: No, it's not nearly as good as the first two, but it's also not the lamentable misfire many make it out to be. It's still very powerful on the whole, even with Sofia Coppola's miscasting. GRADE: B+

Bram Stoker's Dracula: Worth it for the grandiose visuals, but not for the muddled story. And Coppola's gift for directing young actors thoroughly deserted him when it came to Keanu Reeves. GRADE: B-

Jack: Coppola's nadir. Not only is the film an unfunny spin on Big, but it bears none of  the director's hallmarks at all. It's hackwork that might as well have been directed by Dennis Dugan. GRADE: D

John Grisham's The Rainmaker: Not terribly memorable, but it was one of the better Grisham adaptations that were ubiquitous at the time. GRADE: B

Tetro: Coppola returns to form, making the sort of independent, offbeat film that his protege George Lucas has always said he wanted to make. It's not completely successful - I'm still reeling over the way Coppola stacks the deck a bit too high in the third act. Still, as so many Coppola films are, this one is about the trials and tribulations of a broken family - and it's beautifully filmed and performed. Even with the film's shortcomings, it thrilling to see Coppola reinvigorated. GRADE: A-

Those darned kids movies

After the weakest May in my moviegoing memory, the theaters come back to life with two films I plan to see this weekend - the Judd Apatow-produced Get Him to the Greek and the horror flick Splice, starring Sarah Polley, which means it will have some degree of intelligence.

There is one movie coming out this weekend, however, that I would never see - not even if I had a kid. And no, I don't mean Killers, although I wouldn't subject a kid to that either. I'm talking about Marmaduke.

I turned up my nose at the movie even before I saw one frame from it. I hate to pre-judge films, but the director's name alone was enough to make me roll over and play dead - it's Tom Dey, the hack behind films like Shanghai Noon and Failure to Launch, which are nondescript at best and unwatchable at worst.

Then I read the review by Christy Lemire, one of the film critics of the Associated Press. She describes one scene thusly:

We know we're in trouble early when Marmaduke (voiced byOwen Wilson) climbs into bed with his owners, Phil (Lee Pace) and Debbie (Judy Greer), and promptly passes gas, prompting one of many exasperated, sitcommy cries of "Marma-DUKE!"

I know, I know, kids think farts are funny. "Pull my finger" and all that. Har-de-har. But c'mon - when a movie fills the air with flatulence, it might as well be in Smell-O-Vision.  Fart jokes are a clear sign of a movie bereft of imagination. It's lazy writing that offers nothing to kids other than a cheap laugh that any fool could get with the old armpit routine. Raise your hand if you're sure.

What bothers me even more than the fart jokes are parents who take their children to any piece of junk movie with bright, pretty colors and people who fall over each other. Sure, the kid may like it. Young kids aren't very discriminating. But parents should be. It drives me up the wall when I hear some parent say "Well, it wasn't very good, but little Joey liked it."

So let me get this straight - it's OK for a movie to be lame as long as a kid likes it? What does that say about us as parents? Isn't that essentially the same principle as feeding kids a bag of cotton candy instead of even a pizza?

If/when I ever have kids, I don't intend to subject them to junk just so they'll be quiet for 90 minutes. That can be done just as easily with a quality movie. If I had a child now, I would tell him or her to wait a couple of weeks until Toy Story 3 comes out.

I know not every movie can be Pixar quality. But Bridge to Terabithia quality would be nice. Or even Diary of a Wimpy Kid quality. The latter may not offer much for adults, but it at least tries to have some imagination. I want a movie that would make my son or daughter draw pictures immediately after seeing it - not just make them laugh mindlessly.

Maybe that makes me a curmudgeon. And maybe this is all too easy for me to write, not having had to deal with the Puss in Boots "Pleeeeeeeeze?" expression, or, on the other end of the scale, the temper tantrum.  But I would want my kids to have the best, and that includes the movies they watch.

Lemire puts is beautifully at the end her review: "The 7-year-olds in the audience won't know or care. But they deserve better."

So who should helm The Hobbit?

So Guilliermo del Toro bailed on The Hobbit. So now the question becomes, who bails out the franchise and steps in to direct?

The logical alternate is, of course, Peter Jackson, and contrary to initial reports, Jackson has said he would direct in a pinch.

But what if Jackson doesn't feel the pinch? Who else could step in. I'll tackle some of the suggestions that have been bandied about.

In no particular order:

Christopher Nolan: I love his work, but his strength in the Batman movies has been his melding of the real with the fantastic. I'd love to see him try, but the whole Tolkienkein world seems too otherworldly to suit his style.

Tim Burton: He's undoubtedly at home in the fantasy realm, but his work has been uneven lately. I don't trust him, I'm sorry to say.

Paul Thomas Anderson: Hoo boy. This has to be a joke suggestion. His Hobbit would be something unique, no doubt, but it seems foolish to contemplate what clearly ain't gonna happen.

Alfonso Cuaron: Seems the most logical choice. He can clearly handle big-budget fantasy, as he proved with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, still the best film of that series to date. And since he and del Toro are simpatico, he might be easily persuaded.

Baz Luhurmann. WOW. The mind boggles. Tolkien by way of Moulin Rouge. Strongly doubt it will become reality, but the idea is tantalizing.

Ron Howard: Not as iffy an idea as some might think. Some say he has no distinct style. Those people don't pay close attention. Still, the last time he did a big fantasy, the result was the rather iffy Willow.

Steven Spielberg: Clearly, he could handle it, but clearly he wouldn't. Besides all that, his visual style seems too distinct for the world Jackson has already built. This just seems like the default choice for people who can't name any other director. Besides, Spielberg and Jackson are already collaborating on Tintin.

Ridley Scott: No. Robin Hood managed to be undercooked and overwrought at the same time. The man needs to recharge his batteries.

Neill Blomkamp: After Curaron, Jackson's protoge who made District 9 seems the next most logical choice. He's got skills. But is he ready to tackle a project this huge?

David Yates: I rather doubt he would go straight from wrapping two Potter films at once to two Tolkien films at once.

Pedro Almodovar:  Ay de mi. No es probable.

Kenneth Branagh: Interesting idea. I always thought he would do well with Potter. But he's busy with Thor.

Darren Aronofsky: VERY interesting idea! He's able to hop from genre to genre, going from the fantastic (The Fountain) to the gritty (The Wrestler). Still, Tolkien doesn't seem like his best fit.

Alex Proyas: Can create amazing images as evidenced by The Crow and Dark City. But then there was the ludicrous Knowing ...

 Wes Anderson: Too quirky.

James Camron: Nah. By now he prefers to make up his own worlds.

Sam Raimi: Raimi actually considered directing this, as I recall, but considering how much fun Drag Me to Hell was,  I still think it's best for him to regroup some more after losing Spidey.

Wolfgang Petersen:  Why not? He did a pretty good job with The Neverending Story.

Peter Weir: This is the suggestion I am most intrigued by. Weir's particular strength is immersing us in atmosphere, whether it be the artificial world of The Truman Show, the sea of Master and Commander, and the Amish of Witness. Still, somewhat like Nolan, he seems best at working with earthly worlds, not fantastical ones like Middle Earth.

Whom would you like to see direct The Hobbit? Can you suggest anyone I've not covered here?

Really pithy DVD reviews redux

Out today

Alice in Wonderland: This made more than $300 million. I have no idea why. Full review: GRADE: C

The Wolfman: Most critics said "Hi-ho silver, AWAY!" So I didn't bite.