Memo to Disney: And no one lived happily ever after

I just read the story on the LA Times Website that says, in a nutshell, that Disney is shelving fairy tale stories for the foreseeable future. I hope to Tinkerbell that's not true. 


The article says 

""Films and genres do run a course," said Pixar Animation Studios chief Ed Catmull, who along with director John Lasseter oversees Disney Animation. "They may come back later because someone has a fresh take on it … but we don't have any other musicals or fairy tales lined up." Indeed, Catmull and Lasseter killed two other fairy tale movies that had been in development, "The Snow Queen" and "Jack and the Beanstalk."

Now, in fairness to Mr. Catmull, after this piece was published, he had this to say on  Disney's Faceboook page: "A headline in today’s LA Times erroneously reported that the Disney fairy tale is a thing of the past, but I feel it is important to set the record straight that they are alive and well at Disney and continue this week with Tangled, a contemporary retelling of a much loved story. We have a number of projects in development with new twists that audiences will be able to enjoy for many years to come."


As Grumpy might say "Hah! Mush!" 


Quite frankly, I find Mr. Catmull's about-face more than a little suspect. Consider his quotes in a previous LA Times piece: 

“We did not want to be put in a box,” said Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, explaining the reason for the name change. “Some people might assume it’s a fairy tale for girls when it’s not. We make movies to be appreciated and loved by everybody.”

And 

Pixar’s movies have been huge hits because they appeal to girls, boys and adults. Its most recent release, “Up,” grossed more than $700 million worldwide.

“The Princess and the Frog” generated considerably less — $222 million in global ticket sales to date.

“Based upon the response from fans and critics, we believe it would have been higher if it wasn’t prejudged by its title,” Catmull said.

Hmm. Sounds to me like Mr. Catmull has been less than 100 percent supportive of fairy tales in the not-too-distant past.Was he misquoted then too?

Here's something else that makes me suspicious: Consider this LA Times article that predates the others. 

John Lasseter said: “One of the first decisions we made, when [Pixar and Disney Animation Studios President] Ed Catmull and I came to Disney was to return to the sincere fairy tale,” Lasseter said. “I never quite understood why Disney hadn’t made a sincere fairy tale since ‘Beauty and the Beast.’ My two nieces would dress up in princess outfits all of the time. I realized there was this huge audience out there for this.”

Lasseter said this only about a year ago.  And now all of a sudden Disney is turning its back on fairy tales?  What gives? My suspicion is this: I notice that quotes about the Disney company lately come more from Mr. Catmull, who seems to be listening too hard to the marketing suits. We haven't heard much from Lasseter lately. I know he came in to co-direct Cars 2, and that may be eating up his time, but my educated guess is that Lasseter was stung by the relative underdperformance of The Princess and the Frog, and so has faded into the background - publicly, anyway. 

I wouldn't be at all surprised that someone at Disney (maybe even Lasseter?) saw today's LA Times story, and said "WHAT??!??!" So now Catmull is backpedaling, saying "No, no, no, that's not what I meant!" 

I really hope it's not, Mr. Catmull. Because if the LA Times piece was correct, then that saddens and angers me. 

In the LA Times Story, an "expert" is quoted thusly: "By the time they're 5 or 6, (girls are)  not interested in being princesses," said Dafna Lemish, chairwoman of the radio and TV department at Southern Illinois University and an expert in the role of media in children's lives. "They're interested in being hot, in being cool. Clearly, they see this is what society values."

Oh really?

If the fairy tale is really so uninteresting to little girls, why did Disney just re-release Beauty and the Beast on disc? And if girls really don't like fairy tales anymore, who do so many of them pack the Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutiques at the parks? They're not all under 5 years old, either. 


You say in the newest LA Times piece: "If you say to somebody, 'You should be doing fairy tales,' it's like saying, 'Don't be risky,'" Catmull said. "We're saying, 'Tell us what's driving you.'" If that's true, sir, and fairy tales really are out of fashion, isn't presenting a fairy tale itself a risk?

There is no doubt we live in constantly changing times. There is no doubt that tastes have changed over the years. Some of us may be lamenting the fact that this isn't our world anymore. It happens when you get older. 

But little girls will always be little girls. And there are many girls who are still little at heart even if the rest of their body is bigger. 

I really hope Mr. Catmull means it when he says the fairy tale isn't really dead at Disney. It wasn't so long ago that Roy Disney blasted the company for being rapacious and soulless. For awhile it seemed that Disney seemed to find its soul again. But now, I get the distinct feeling the bean-counters are riding herd. If Disney really does abandon fairy tales, it won't just be soulless. It will have broken a lot of hearts. 

Pull out the other glass slipper, will you? 

Oeuvres: Tony Scott - including Unstoppable

Sometimes I can't figure out whether Tony Scott wants to be taken seriously or not. At his best, he's one of the most solid action directors we have. His visual sense is so strong that even his terrible movies look great. However, his narrative sense often does not measure up to his visual sense. If he's handed a weak script, Scott can do nothing to save it, and he comes across like the bargain version of his brother Ridley. If he's handed a strong script, however, Tony is very much his own man. He sees-saws between the two extremes, making for one of the most uneven filmographies in the business,

The Hunger: Scott's first film as a director is very typical of his early work. It has visual style to spare, but it doesn't make a lick of sense, even for a vampire movie with Catherine Deneueve and Susan Sarandon. It's a Skinemax movie with better cinematography and a lot of blood. GRADE: C

Top Gun: Scott made his name with one of the most seminal movies of the 80s. Notice I said "seminal," not best.The story is as deep as a birdbath and as predictable as thunder after lightning. But the actors are appealing and the action scenes are fun.  It's junk - but it's entertaining junk. GRADE: B

Beverly Hills Cop II: I have sort of a soft spot for this movie because it was one of the first times I was able to identify a director by the visual style. That doesn't mean it's actually any good. The first movie was a very funny comedy with a few good action scenes. The second movie was a by-the-numbers action flick where the jokes blew up too. GRADE: C

Revenge: Quentin Tarantino counts this boring, turgid, pretentious slop one of Tony Scott's best movies - which just goes to show there's no accounting for QT's taste. GRADE: D+

Days of Thunder: Pick your automobile-related put-down. Top Car or Formula One. Either of them fits. GRADE: C

The Last Boy Scout: I only watched about the first half hour of this, before I realized Netflix had it in the wrong aspect ratio, but I saw enough to know that Tony should never, ever direct a sports-related movie again. Unfortunately, he did.

True Romance: Talk about a rebound. Working from a script by Tarantino, Scott turns in a wild ride. Tarantino's voice sounds out loud and clear, but so does Scott's eye - and the result is one of his most purely entertaining films. GRADE: A-

Crimson Tide: The rebound not only continues but soars with this underwater battle of wills between Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington. One of the best submarine movies ever made - and Scott's best film to date. GRADE: A

The Fan: Rebound? Never mind. Scott followed up his best film with his worst, a preposterous, thematically ugly film pitting De Niro's psycho versus Wesley Snipes' stuck-up ballplayer. The only thing I can say in favor of this piece of shit is that it's well shot. GRADE: D-

Enemy of the State: Scott rebounds again with this taut techno-thriller about Big Brother's electronic eye watching you. Maybe the director should have made more movies with Gene Hackman. GRADE: A-

Spy Game: The teaming of Robert Redford and his metaphorical son Brad Pitt was entertaining enough but should have been much better. It might have helped if Scott hadn't made me so dizzy with all the swooping helicopter shots. GRADE: B-

Man on Fire: Scott's visual style went into Oliver Stone-like overdrive here, with wild cutting and hallucinatory visuals. The tone is sometimes ugly and off-putting, but as revenge thrillers go, this one is better than many. GRADE: B

Domino: There's a good story in the life of the former socialite turned model Domino Harvey, but Scott buried it with the same visual fireworks he used in Man on Fire, and this time they smother the story. Keira Knightley tries hard, but she's miscast. GRADE: C-

Deja Vu: Sure, the story is ludicrous, but Scott seems to have a knack for hi-tech stories. The action scenes are thrilling and even rather inventive, which helps overcome the thin dramatics. GRADE: B+

The Taking of Pelham 123: This hostage train thriller pitting Denzel Washington against John Travolta made for a great battle of wills but only an OK action movie - the end result was curiously subdued. It didn't help that the original film with Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw is far superior. GRADE: B

Unstopptable: One might think that Scott would have wanted to avoid trains after Pelham underwhelmed. Thank goodness he didn't, because this time he really gets a train movie right. Yes, it's similar to Speed in that both are about imperiled vehicles, but what sets Unstoppable apart is that there's no human villain. The machine is the nemesis - which allows Denzel Washington and Chris Pine to team up very effectively.  I only wish Scott hadn't thought he was Paul Greengrass in that he got too happy with the qucick-zoom, a visual tic that distracts from a very strong story. GRADE: B+

He said/She said: Alice in Wonderland

I reviewed Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland when it was released in March. My colleague and reviewing partner Hannah Poturalski only recently caught up with it, and has posted her critique.

Perhaps because she was not as familiar with the world of Alice as I was, she enjoyed the movie much more than I did. I found it Burton's weakest film to date, writing:

There are many things to admire in this film. Wasikowska is excellent as Alice - all at once vulnerable, yet crafty and determined. Helena Bonham Carter devours the scenery with relish as the Red Queen, Unlike other reviewers, I rather liked Anne Hathaway's icy take on the White Queen. And as is true of most of Burton's films, it looks great, with its wildly weird designs and mostly wonderful effects.

Still, Linda Woolverton's rather tortured screenplay obfuscates these good qualities. This may seem like a strange thing to say for a Hollywood film, but this screenplay "thinks" too much, trying to provide the characters with motivations, with  reasons for being. For example, we're treated to the backstory of the Mad Hatter, who apparently went mad because of a past misfortune.

As George Carlin once said "I did not need to be TOLD that!" I don't want to know why the Mad Hatter is mad. His madness is part of his intrinsic appeal, and to explain that away is to lessen that appeal. 

However, coming at the material from a very different perspective, Hannah found delights in the film I could not. She writes:

I think I was able to enjoy this film as much as I did because I had no preconceived ideas of any of the characters or places and what they should be. A lot of the people I talked to didn’t enjoy it as much because of the previous renditions, but I was able to just take it for what it was — an entertaining adventure that touched on important themes, such as coming of age, being yourself, taking risks, etc. ....

For whatever reasons unknown, I don’t usually enjoy Tim Burton films (Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd). I’m not saying I hate Burton films, but this one I really loved. The film sets and characters were so detailed that it almost put the viewer in Alice’s shoes.

I only wish I could have seen the movie Hannah saw. I'm glad she agrees with me about Wasikowska. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing how the actress fares in another period remake: Jane Eyre.

Watch this space when we co-review Morning Glory with Harrison Ford, Rachel McAdams and Diane Keaton.

Trailer peek: Green Lantern, Cars 2, Yogi Bleccch

More long-form reviews are afoot, but first, some more short-form reviews are at hand.

Cars 2: Well, last month's teaser of a teaser wasn't just teasing. Cars 2 really IS about espionage. Not the angle I would have expected - which actually bodes well for the film. Since I didn't unabashedly love the first film, my anticipation for a Pixar film is a little lower than usual. But only a little. PROSPECT : A

Cowboys and Aliens: Wow. Looks really .... kinda .... original! Almost forgot what that was.  I think this just vaulted to the top of my summer-want-to-see-list. PROSPECT: A+

Green Lantern: After the innovative-looking Cowboys and Aliens, Green Lantern looks almost disappointingly straightforward, but Ryan Reynolds was an ideal choice, and director Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) remains terminally underrated. I'm in. PROSPECT: B+

Gulliver's Travels: Eeewwww. Normally, I would like the prospect of Jack Black and Emily Blunt working together, but this looks awful. So much so, I'm not gonna even embed the clip here. If you wanna watch this crap, find it yourself. PROSPECT: F



Yogi Bear: So let's see. Not only are we once again taking cute 2D characters and making them into ugly CG versions, but now we can't even get the voice of the main character right. Dan Ackroyd sounds like a drunk jackass at a party trying to imitate Yogi. Meanwhile, Justin Timberlake absolutely nails Boo-Boo. Who'd-a thunk? PROSPECT: D

I watched Heaven's Gate so you don't have to

They say that curiosity killed the cat. Curiosity didn't kill the critic - but it sure bored him stiff for three and a half hours.

For you see, I finally saw Heaven's Gate. And while I'm not going to be a complete wag and call it Hell's Gate, Purgatory's Passageway makes for an apt title.

I had just finished reading Final Cut, the book about the making of the infamous film and the demise of the studio that financed it: United Artists, the company founded by movie pioneers Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, D.W. Griffith and Charlie Chaplin. For decades, it was known as the most artist-friendly studio in town, having been the home of Woody Allen and Billy Wilder, but it also could ride herd on big commercial juggernauts like the James Bond movies. If  Heaven's Gate were as excellent as the book, United Artists might still be a viable name today. And indeed, there might have been no book, and you might not be reading this right now. 

But since you are reading this right now, it falls to me to tell you that the book is one of the best Hollywood insider stories ever written, if not the best. Written by the late Steven Bach, a UA production executive, the book lays out in painstaking and often self-deprecating detail how United Artists came to make Heaven's Gate - and how Heaven's Gate unmade United Artists. 

I will not recount all those details here. You can find them out for yourself, via this excellent documentary based on the book, viewable on YouTube. It was the viewing of this documentary that piqued my interest in the book. Having finally read the book, I said to myself, "You know, I really ought to see the movie." 

Part of my rationale was that I simply wanted to fill in the blanks left by the book. Part of it was simple curiosity. Could the movie possibly be as bad as legend said it was? New York Times critic Vincent Canby savaged the film, likening it to a "forced four-hour walking tour of one's own living room." Roger Ebert pretty much agreed, calling it "the most scandalous cinematic waste I have ever seen." 

The good news is, no, Heaven's Gate is not that bad. The bad news is that Heaven's Gate is not that good, either. 

Some revisionists, particularly critics based in Europe,  have called the film a misbegotten masterpiece. It's not. While reports of the film's out-of-control budget may have colored the original reviews, the picture's ambition must not be mistaken for quality. Heaven's Gate has its virtues - but none of them can overcome the central problem: its formless blob of a screenplay. 

Many have faulted Michael Cimino for his his wretched excess, for shooting take after take after take and for letting the picture run grossly overlong. And it is true that Heaven's Gate suffered from a lack of control. Final Cut reveals that Cimino directed like Stanley Kubrick, only with half the artistry and none of the discipline.

But Cimino was not an untalented man. He had an excellent eye, and a decent ear for performances. Ebert was far off the mark when he called it "incompetently photographed." The "incompetent" photographer was Vilmos Zsigmond, who had just shot The Deer Hunter for Cimino and won an Oscar for Steven  Spielberg's Close Encounters. Maybe some of the visuals are overly diffuse, but on the whole, the picture looks great. Kris Kristofferson's performance is solid, and Isabelle Huppert is rather touching as the object of a love triangle between Kristofferson and Christopher Walken. David Mansfield's musical score is lovely. (Alas, the sound mix is not. Especially in large crowd scenes, the soundtrack is so muddled, I couldn't make out the dialogue.) 

But as any director (or critic) worth their salt will tell you, music, visual skill and even performances can only carry you so far if you haven't got a story. And Cimino's screenplay never gave me a reason to care about all that fuss onscreen. The romance between Kristofferson and Huppert barely registers, and the romance between Walken and Hupert doesn't register at all. Maybe there's a nugget of interest here or there that might have warranted a 100-minute film. There certainly isn't enough to support more than 200 minutes. 

I often disagreed with the legendary critic Pauline Kael, but I applauded her sentiments when she wrote: "While watching the three hour and 39-minute Heaven's Gate, I thought it was easy to see what to cut. But when I tried afterward to think of what to keep, my mind went blank." 

Mine too. 

GRADE: C-

The Documentary Watch: Lions and Nilsson and schools, oh my!

Over the past week I've gone on a nonfiction kick, watching a number of documentaries on the big screen and the small.

The Elephant in the Living Room: The best of the documentaries was the one that has gotten the least national attention, but that ought to change. It's a riveting look at the ownership of exotic pets, and the film was shot mostly in Ohio. It focuses primarily on two people. One is an Oakwood police officer who finds it is his unfortunate specialty to catch everything from cougars to deadly snakes. The other is a man who owns two fully grown lions he keeps in a pen in his back yard. By turns informative, heart-rending, astonishing and even suspenseful, it's a must-see. Its writer and director is Michael Webber, a West Middletown native.  GRADE: A

The Tillman Story: We thought we knew the story of Pat Tillman, the NFL player who gave up his football career to serve in the military and was killed in Afghanistan. This documentary reveals that there's a story even beyond the revelation that he was killed by friendly fire. And it's not only about the blatant chicanery in the cover-up of the circumstances of his death. More importantly, it's about the determination of his outraged family, and about the loss of an eminently decent,  unassuming man who never wanted all the attention he got in death. GRADE: A-

Waiting for "Superman" - The best-known documentary turns out to be the weakest of the lot, which is not to say it's bad - it's just not quite as revelatory as it thinks it is. To its credit, it presents startling statistics over just how badly our educational system is flunking, and it offers compelling evidence that a central problem is that the world has changed much faster than the schools. I especially appreciated the demonstration that good education can be achieved in even the poorest of neighborhoods. It's too bad  director Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth) tries to wrap the movie up in bow and give it a neat ending by implying that charter schools are the answer. Sometimes they are, sometimes not - but the film makes a clear case we've got to start somewhere. GRADE: B+

Who is Harry Nilsson: To most people Harry Nilsson was the guy who sang "Everybody's Talking" and "Without You" - neither of which he wrote. To Beatlemaniacs like me, he was also John Lennon's drinking buddy/partner in mischief. This documentary, talking to everyone from Yoko Ono to Eric Idle to Brian Wilson to Randy Newman, shows Nilsson to be a supremely gifted talent who never got the full credit he deserved in life - partly because he was so self-destructive. Still, this documentary sets the record straight on his resonant influence. It's available on Netflix streaming. GRADE: A

The retro movies I've seen

It's time to catch up on the movies I've seen on the small screen of late.

Breathless: Was lucky enough to catch this in 35MM in Columbus a couple weeks ago. And I had never seen it all. Suffice it to say this pioneering film of the French New Wave absolutely deserves its reputation. It's one of those films that makes me wish I had been around to see it on its original release. Maybe Jean-Luc Godard became a pretentious ass later, but this film alone seals his place in cinema history. And Jean Seberg is very easy on the eyes  GRADE: A

Detour: This famous film noir has a reputation for having been made in two hours at a cost of $35 - and still being quite good. OK, I'm exaggerating.  A little. But not about the pretty good part. It was only available on DVD via a cheap public domain copy and the print was in terrible shape - but that actually added to its allure. GRADE: B+


The Defiant Ones: I watched Tony Curtis' one Oscar-nominated performance not long after his passing. Like many of Stanley Kramer's "message" pictures, it's a bit preachy and dramatically obvious, but thanks to Curtis and costar Sidney Poitier, it delivers. GRADE: B+

The Misfits: Clark Gable. Marilyn Monroe. Eli Wallach. Thelma Ritter. Written by Arthur Miller. Directed by John Huston. How can it not be great? Well, oddly. it's not. Sometimes a disadvantage of that much firepower is that everyone is trying too hard, and the effort puts a strain on the film. Miller's story in particular feels too high-minded. Still, it's a highly watchable film thanks to the performances GRADE: B

Hi Mom: This is very early Robert De Niro and very early Brian De Palma, before the latter began working in faux Hitchcock mode. Even in his early days, his direction is still show-offy, and I can see hints of later films, particularly Body Double, in that it shares a preoccupation with voyeurism.  It's fairly intriguing but the story wanders too often. GRADE: C+

My Neighbor Totoro: The film that made Miyazaki's name in this country is as magical as most of his movies. And I WANT a 12-legged cat bus. GRADE:  A

Panic in the Streets: This is a good, solid suspense film, but the odd thing about it is that it falters  when it tries to be deep and to explore What It All Means. And what's odd about that is, that's where director Elia Kazan usually excels. This time, however, Kazan is much more effective at delivering action beats in a story about criminals who have no idea they're spreading a deadly virus. GRADE:  B

The Snake Pit: A fascinating look at how society used to view "crazy" people and the psychiatric treatment of them. It's inevitably dated, but emotionally it works very well, thanks to the lead performance by the great Olivia de Havilland.   B+

Oeuvres: Woody Allen

People have often said Woody Allen is in a slump lately, but is that really true?

OK, maybe one misses the halcyon days of Annie Hall followed closely by Manhattan and Hannah and her Sisters followed closely by Crimes and Misdemeanors. But consider this: For nearly four decades, the man has cranked out a movie per year, with very few gaps.

A filmmaker that prolific is bound to have more peaks and valleys than, say, Terrence Malick. And out of those dozens of films, there are very few out-and-out misses. There are some disappointments, to be sure, but even when Woody misses, he very rarely bores. Even now, it seems wrong to refer to him as Allen. It's WOODY. Not many directors can lay that kind of claim. 

Please note this list only consider's Woody's theatrical movies as director - not the handful in which he is only an actor, like Play It Again Sam, which he wrote but did not direct. I have not yet seen Stardust Memories, A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, September or Another Woman. Unfortunately, I have seen the bloated mess that is the 1967 Casino Royale, but Woody's scenes are its sole saving grace.

I'll start with his newest film first, then work my way chronologically. 

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger: Woody's latest, is, alas, one of his lesser lights. With a cast including Naomi Watts, Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas and Josh Brolin, the performances certainly cannot be faulted, and there are enough high points to hold it together. Still, with unevenly written characters, this seems like a poor man's version of Husbands and Wives. GRADE: B-

Take the Money and Run: Woody's directorial debut is dated and rough around the edges but the funniest scenes are hysterical, particularly the marching band with the cello. GRADE: B+

Bananas: Very funny stuff, with a handful of slow spots. And it's fun to think that one of the muggers Woody outsmarts is a before-he-was-Rocky Sylvester Stallone. GRADE: A-

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask: Uneven, as most omnibus films are, but worth a rental for the "What happens during ejaculation"  all by itself. GRADE: B

Sleeper: My favorite of the "early, funny" films with hilarious slapstick, and it certainly helps that this marks the first teaming of Woody Allen and Diane Keaton. GRADE: A

Love and Death: Funny while it's on, but a little pretentious and not terribly memorable. GRADE: B-

Annie Hall: Still Woody's best film. Sometimes the obvious answer is the correct one. GRADE: A+

Interiors: Woody's first straight drama (and first film in which he does not appear) is quite affecting, with powerhouse acting. GRADE: A

Manhattan: Great, but not one of my favorites as it is is for so many, but this opening is Woody's best. Absolute magic. GRADE: A

Zelig: Ingenious mockumentary that also bears the distinction of being hilarious. GRADE: A

Broadway Danny Rose: A little inconsistent, but it's chock full of funny lines. GRADE: A-

The Purple Rose of Cairo: The brilliant conceit of this movie (movie star steps into the real world) is achingly sweet and sad.

Hannah and her Sisters: If Manhattan had Woody's best beginning, this film has the best ending. GRADE: A+

Radio Days: Slight but amiable period piece. GRADE: B

Oedipus Wrecks: Woody's contribution to New York Stories is a gem, with an hilarious performance by Mae Questel AKA Betty Boop. GRADE: A

Crimes and Misdemeanors: Woody's most ambitous film - and his other absolute masterpiece besides Annie Hall and Hannah and her Sisters. GRADE: A+

Alice: Very, very odd - and yet rather affecting for all that. One does not often get to see Mia Farrow fly. GRADE: B

Shadows and Fog: An intriguing Expressionist experiment that's more interesting for its form than its actual content. GRADE: B-

Husbands and Wives: The pseudo-documentary style put many people off, but I thought it made the film unique - and one of Woody's best in the 1990s. GRADE: A

Manhattan Murder Mystery: Criminally underrated, this hilarious film uses the same documentary style as Husbands and Wives with a very diferrent effect - but it works. GRADE: A-

Bullets Over Broadway: Woody's best film of the 1990s with loads of laughs. Everybody quotes Dianne Weist's "Don't speak" line, but I loved Chazz Palminteri's "You don't write like people talk." GRADE: A

Mighty Aphrodite: Mira Sorvino is hilarious. 'Nuff said. GRADE: B+

Everyone Says I Love You: One can debate whether casting non-singers (including Woody himself) in a musical, but in places, it's as lovely and lyrical as most anything MGM made. GRADE: A-

Deconstructing Harry: How many films do YOU know of where Robin Williams appears only as a blur and Billy Crystal plays the devil? GRADE: B+

Celebrity: One of Woody's very few misfires never connects. Kenneth Branagh's too obvious attempts to imitate his director don't help. GRADE: C

Sweet and Lowdown: I'll always remember this quirky little film as my introduction to Samantha Morton. And what an intro it was. GRADE: B+

Small Time Crooks: Funny but slight, not terribly memorable. GRADE: B-

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion: An amusing trifle/period piece, with some choice exchanges. "You know, there's a word for people who think everyone is conspiring against them." Woody: "I know, perceptive." GRADE: B

Hollywood Ending: A great premise (director suffers hysterical blindness) offers some funny moments, but Woody surprisingly fails to milk it for all it's worth. GRADE: B-

Anything Else: Casting Jason Biggs as a Woody-esque figure with Woody actually IN the movie was a weird gambit, but it kinda sorta worked, resulting in a minor but entertaining work. GRADE: B-

Melinda and Melinda: This time Woody takes his great idea (feature the same character twice, but in a comedy and a drama) and executes it very well. Radha Mitchell is superb in the dual lead role, and in a minor miracle, Will Ferrell imitates Woody better than Kenneth Branagh did. Underrated. GRADE: B-

Match Point: Woody's first excursion into Europe was his best film of this decade. It's great to see Woody try to be Billy Wilder and still be Woody. GRADE: A

Scoop: Again we have a minor but satisfying comedy, with Woody and Scarett Johhansson meshing surprisingly well. GRADE: B

Cassandra's Dream: Woody tried again too soon to make another moody thriller and this time shot blanks. His weakest film. GRADE: C

Vicky Cristina Barcelona: The voice-over narration is a tad off-putting and not really necessary (a flaw shared by You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger) but the love rectangle of Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem makes for some very hot sparks. GRADE: B+

Whatever Works: Larry David makes for the funniest of the Woody surrogates so far, but not to be overlooked is the very fine and touching performance of Evan Rachel Wood. GRADE: B

To the MPAA ratings board, 'The King's Speech' is just as bad as 'Saw 3D' | The Big Picture | Los Angeles Times

More MPAA rating nuttiness: The King's Speech gets an R.

Money quote from director Tom Hooper: “This isn’t creating a precedent, since after all, how many films can claim to use swearing for its therapeutic effect? The floodgates aren’t going to open. But when you have a system that gives the same rating to Kick Ass and Saw as The King’s Speech, it feels like you’re in a world that has lost its mooring.”

Wow, so this must mean The King's Speech is just as foul as Once.

To the MPAA ratings board, 'The King's Speech' is just as bad as 'Saw 3D' | The Big Picture | Los Angeles Times

ADDDENDUM: After I wrote this initial post, my dear friend Kimberly emailed me with this pointed, and I think, well considered response. I post it here with her permission:


Taken from the article:

"It's rating decisions, which frown on almost any sort of sex, frontal nudity, or bad language but have allowed increasing amounts of violence over the years, are horribly out of touch with mainstream America, where families everywhere are disturbed by the amount of violence freely portrayed in movies, video games, and hip-hop music."

To the writer of the article:

The writer seems to have forgotten the word 'NOT' in the second part of the sentence. Apparently you don't have kids or pay much attention to what happens in society. It's why my teenage nieces (all god-fearing Christian educated girls) are walking around singing Ke$hia's "Tik Tok". Heard the lyrics on THAT lately? But they still buy the records and listen in droves.

Which film would I take my 12-year old to see? NEITHER YOU IDIOT. They shouldn't see Saw and they would be bored to death by The King's Speech. Which film will I be seeing? Possibly both.

Anyone who thinks that ratings have any effect at all on whether or not parents take their children to a theater hasn't BEEN in a theater in years, at least where I live.

Are ratings arbitrary? Sure. We all know this. But to think that people care about the rating (or enforce the rating, which is a whole other post), is even more naive than the MPAA.

Grow a set. Find something important to write about. I'm sure there's something. It is LA.
------------


Wow. Thoughts? 

The TCM geniuses are at it again

Turner Classic Movies has come up with yet another brilliant programming scheme - quite possibly their best yet.

Throughout this month, starting today, the best channel on TV has a new documentary series exploring the history of Hollywood, from the turn of the century to the late 60s, when the studio system crumbled and the director became the dominant figure.

True to TCM form, however, the documentaries are not the whole show. Tonight for instance, we'll see several of the Edison shorts covered in the first episode. Later this week TCM will show Nickelodeon, Peter Bogdanovich's flawed but fascinating film set during Hollywood's birth years.

And if you are not fortunate enough to have TCM in your home (poor soul), check out the website devoted to the series, chock full of information and clips.

My DVR will be on overload this month with all this stuff - and I may even blog more about it. We may even get some more insight to that commonly expressed sentiment, "They don't make em like that anymore." Join me and find out how they did.

TCM Moguls and Movie Stars

Trailer peek: True Grit and more

When I went to see Hereafter the other day, it occured to me that for awhile I have disregarded the shortest movies that are out there - the trailers. Here's a look at the ones I saw in front of Clint Eastwood's new film.

Listed in roughly the order I saw them.

For Colored Girls




My best friend had this pretty nailed when he leaned over to me and said "This is when we find out if Tyler Perry is for real." Sure, he's been successful at the box office - but he doesn't have the broadest of bases. This film is clearly his attempt at something like Precious (which he co-produced) - something to show he can hook Oscar bait. Not saying it will happen - not saying it won't either. PROSPECT: B

The Rite



Blecch. Looks like an Exorcist rip-off, with Hopkins as the Merrin type. There's even the lame "Inspired by a true story" line, which is usually code for "We took one fact from history and just made the rest up." Welcome to January. The power of Christ does not compel me. PROSPECT: D

Unknown

Liam Neeson's career has taken a strange turn lately. It seems instead of straight dramatic roles, it looks like he's going for paycheck parts in genre fare (The A-Team being the most egregious example.) Still, this looks like it could be good as far as genre fare goes. PROSPECT: B


Restless 



Two names hooked me here: Gus Van Sant, who seems to be aiming somewhere his extremes of Oscar bait like Milk and indie indies like Paranoid Park. The other is that of Mia Wasikowska, who has become the latest Actress I Will Watch in Anything, following her stellar work in Alice in Wonderland and The Kids are All Right. PROSPECT: A

Black Swan





I would be interested in a Darren Aronofsky/Natalie Portman project no matter what it was, but the fact that this is an excellently cut trailer only whets my appetite. PROSPECT: A

True Grit




Never mind the decorations that are already starting to fill the stores - THIS is the best reason for Christmas to get here double-quick. Even if this isn't Oscar bait (and it may well be), I think this stands an excellent chance at being the Coens' biggest commercial hit. PROSPECT A

REVIEW: Hereafter

I had planned to review Clint Eastwood's latest film, Hereafter, by debating other critics, who have been uncommonly soft on an Eastwood film. But then I realized - maybe that's why it worked so well for me.

Dealing as it does with questions about life after death, Hereafter isn't going to be everyone's cup of Clint. Some will be put off by the languid pacing. Others may react negatively to the intersecting stories, which rely a good deal on fate and contrivance. Still others will chafe at the mere subject matter.

I'm going to let them. The issue of an afterlife stirs about as many different reactions as there are people. Some reject it, others embrace it wholeheartedly. All I can do in that spectrum is say why it worked for me.

The screenplay by Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon) weaves three stories. The first is of a tough, probing journalist (Cecile de France) whose worldview is forever altered by her near death in a tsunami. The second is of a young boy (Frankie McLaren) who loses a family member in a terrible accident. The third is of a psychic, George Lonergan (Matt Damon), who views his otherworldly abilities as more a burden than a blessing. 

As is the case with most Eastwood films, the director's sure hand and his skill with actors are strengths. I particularly admired Matt Damon's balanced portrayal. He's maybe a little quirky and certainly sometimes morose, but Damon never overplays any of his hands. By combining all these qualities in unexpected ways, he creates someone who seems like a down to earth, relateable person, even with his extraordinary abilities. 

One of the best subplots of the film is a romance that begins to blossom between Damon and Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), a woman who becomes his partner in an Italian cooking class. With a winsome performance by Howard, their relationship is touching, and I wanted to see more of it. That their storyline is somewhat abbreviated seemed like a flaw at first, but by the end of the film, it became a thoughtful counterbalance to Damon's character. I can't reveal more details without getting into spoilers. but it's the most affecting romance I've seen onscreen since Once. 

The heart of the film's success surprised me, and here's why. I am a practicing Catholic. I am a lector at my church. I believe in an afterlife. However, Hereafter only glancingly brings up God and the church - and I think that was a smart move by Morgan. Hereafter tells us that life after death isn't dependent on religion - it's dependent on the belief that something happens after we die - that we don't simply burn out like light bulbs at the end. 

The film obviously supports the idea - but also allows room for debate about it. That's what makes Hereafter so worth seeing - and so worth discussing.

GRADE: A

Pixar watch: Cars 2 Trailer/Brave

Pixar has seemed to be a little behind the cylinder when it came to promoting its next film, the sequel to Cars, due next summer. I was surprised not to see at least a teaser for it in front of Toy Story 3.

The studio has rectified that situation with the release of this ... well, doesn't even seem right to call it a teaser. More like a tease of  a teaser. Take a look-see:



Not what you expected, is it? But I can sorta see how it might fit, given that the sequel is supposed to be set on the overseas racing circuit. In any case, label me intrigued. Like many people, I believe that Cars is the least great of Pixar's movies, but it had great moments, and this teaser-teaser takes the Cars world for a fun little spin. I just now found out that Pixar guru John Lasseter, who directed the original picture, is now co-directing after so-called "creative problems."

That seems to be cropping up a lot at Pixar lately. First there was the cancellation of Newt, which was to be the first feature by sound maestro Gary Rydstrom, who made the short Lifted (about the alien taking the drivers' test). And now there comes news that the company has replaced the director of Brave (formerly titled The Bear and the Bow). That's notable because the director was Brenda Chapman, who was to be the first female to helm a Pixar movie. Her replacement is Mark Andrews, who made One Man Band, the short that preceded Cars.

The move has prompted some to call Pixar sexist. My gut tells me that accusation is more than a little churlish. It's a legitimate criticism that Pixar's stories have been male-centric, but it is also well known that Pixar doesn't make such drastic moves unless absolutely necessary. Same thing happened with Ratatouille, which Brad Bird retooled at the 11th hour, and it turned out pretty well. And it's worth noting that Disney's three great fairy tales of the late 1980s/early 90s were each directed by two men.

All us outsiders can do is sit and idle ...

What I watched on my break

It's time once again to play catch-up, with various titles I've viewed since our last game. First, the titles new to the big screen. 

Buried: It's 90 minutes of Ryan Reynolds in a coffin. While at one time, that would have been appealing in a cynical way, now it's the basis for a terrific film  The entire picture takes place inside the coffin buried underground, with Reynolds in it. Director Rodrigo Cortes keeps the film visually interesting with an impressive array of camera angles, editing techniques and other surprises, while Reynolds delivers an emotionally intense performance. Screw all that usual Halloween junk - this is the scariest film I've seen in quite some time. GRADE: A

Never Let Me Go: Some people proclaim this sci fi drama a stirring masterpiece. Others proclaim it cold and aloof.  As happens often in such debates, I identify with both sides. The pacing is a bit too stilted, and I felt the clinical storytelling kept me at arm's length from the film - and yet I can't get it out of my head. I think that's due primarily to the strong performances, particularly by the haunting Carey Mulligan. GRADE: B

Nowhere Boy: This biopic of John Lennon's teenage years covers territory familiar to most fans and is occasionally a bit maudlin, but it works surprisingly well thanks to the three key performances. Aaron Johnson  impresses as Lennon, particularly considering his last role was the title character in Kick-Ass. Anne-Marie Duff is lively and fetching as Lennon's ill-fated mother Julia, while Kristin Scott Thomas shows impressive range with her performance as the stern but loving Aunt Mimi. The other acting surprise? Thomas Sangster, Liam Neeson's son in Love, Actually, plays Paul McCartney. So much for his favorite Beatle being Ringo. GRADE: B+

Coming soon: The retro films I watched.

The scariest shots of all time?

My dear friend Kimberly Scampone (who runs her own film site here) came up with a freaky idea for a topic: The scariest movie shots of all time.

Her choice was certainly a good one: the shot of Jack frozen at the end of The Shining.

So the wheels/reels of my movie-mad mind started turning. What did I think were the scariest shots of all time? Here are a few of mine, in no particular order, save for the last.

The close-up of Janet Leigh's mouth in the shower scene of Psycho.

The subtle change in Anthony Perkins' visage at the tail end of the same film.

Raymond Burr's "death stare" directly into the camera when he realizes he's being watched in Rear Window.

The chilling shot of Robert Walker, all calm, cool and concentrated during the tennis match in Strangers on a Train.

The first track-in/zoom out in Vertigo



And lest people think all my choices are Hitch shots, I would also go for the blood pouring from the elevators in The Shining.

The shot of Michael Meyers verrry slowly rising in the background in Halloween.

The very first shot of Anthony Perkins in Silence of the Lambs.

The shot of blood spurting from Linda Blair during one of her medical procedures in The Exorcist.

The chest-burster baring its teeth in Alien.

And finally, the only shot that has ever made me scream out loud  - the chumming scene from Jaws.

This list cannot possibly be all inclusive, so I want to see LOTS  of comments on this. (Note: The selections do NOT have to be from horror movies.)  If I don't get them, I'm going to find you, clamp the Clockwork Orange device on your head and make you watch ALL these shots on an endless loop so that you'll have nightmares for the next 20 years!

Twelve + hours of fright: Ohio Horrorfest 2010

Last year I attended a horrorfest full of birds and zombies. This year's lineup in Yellow Springs was full of devils, trolls and hacks.

The second Ohio Horrorfest I attended kicked off with Best Worst Movie, a delightful documentary about the legendarily bad Troll 2, billed as "the worst movie ever made." What's particularly fun about the doc is the dichotomy it displays between the cast and the filmmakers. Most of the actors knew they were in a really stupid movie, and knew that they weren't very good in it, but enjoyed the ride anyway. They stand in sharp contrast to the behind the camera crew, especially the director, who actually still seems to believe he made something approaching art. Great fun. GRADE: A-

Troll 2: Well, what else could follow that? It is truly dumber than advertised. Not only is the acting below the bottom of the barrel, but the filmmaking is so slipshod, it results continuity gaffes that would make Ed Wood proud. It's the "so bad it's good" kind of movie that results in a rare GRADE: Z (It is worth noting, however, that Troll 2 no longer occupies the very bottom of the pile at IMDB. That dubious distinction goes to Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2. Somehow, I don't think that would play well in a horror marathon. For the record, Troll 2 now sits at a highly #64.)

Scream: Still very effective 14 (!) years later, and one of Wes Craven's best films, although my best friend pointed out, possibly correctly, that Craven's underrated New Nightmare may be even better. The sequels suffered diminishing returns but were at least good movies. I hope next spring's Scream 4 fits in. GRADE: A

The Brood: I can't review this one, as unfortunately, I fell asleep after about the first 20 minutes. As is the case with many David Cronenberg films, the pacing is too stately (that's a polite word for slow) to sustain consciousness at 4 in the morning. It sucked the energy out of the room; most people left after this. GRADE: zzzzzzzzz

The Evil Dead: I reawakened to catch most of Sam Raimi's ticket to the big time. It's a lot of fun, and well made, especially on such a limiteed budget, but I greatly prefer the sequel, Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn. GRADE: B

Child's Play: I was pleasantly surprised by this one, although maybe I shouldn't have been. This series follows the pattern set by so many horror franchises: a first entry that's better than decent, followed by a long string of mostly worthless sequels. This one is imaginative and fun, and it made me sad to realize that director Tom Holland (who also made Fright Night) essentially gave up on filmmaking in the early 90s. GRADE: B+

The Exorcist: Still gets my vote as the scariest movie of all time. It absolutely kicks my ass with every viewing, even if it's "the version you've never seen" with the STUPID ending, which was shown here. (Actually, I liked most of the changes the recut made and believe the ideal version of the film would be most of the recut without the "happy" coda. GRADE: A (docked a plus for having the wrong ending).

He said/She said: The Social Network review

They say that two heads are better than one, and that principle lies in a new blogging experience that begins with this post.

There is now not only one film buff working at Cox Media Group's southwest newspapers, there are two. Just as I maintain this film site, my colleague Hannah Porturalski maintains her film own site, One Chick's Take on Flicks.

From time to time, Hannah and I will co-review a film, each bringing our own perspectives to it and hopefully making our sites even more interesting to read. Since this is our first outing, and I am the chvalrous sort, I will let Hannah go first. Here's an excerpt from her review; mine follows after the jump.

"I never thought I would think of Jesse Eisenberg as a jerk, but man does he know how to play a neurotic ass, and well. He was the opposite type of character in 2009′s Zombieland when he played a soft-spoken sweetheart. The Social Network shed a lot of light on Mark Zuckerberg’s mindset and life. But you’ve got to take the unauthorized Facebook movie with a grain of salt, seeing as Zuckerberg has said, “It’s a movie, it’s fun.” It’s hard for me, the average viewer, to know how true it really rings.

"While the film was very entertaining it was also draining. Eisenberg as Zuckerberg was great at acting as a fast-talking, fast-thinking, fast-acting college student with nothing but time to waste. Zuckerberg was portrayed as a loner with insecurities as large as his ego. It was great though to watch the mind of a computer-obsessed guy just whiz by everyone else and dominate the Internet. These character flaws were effective at making the viewer jump between liking Zuckerberg and hating him. He was extremely intelligent and witty, but was almost bipolar because he’d switch to a cold, calculating jerk. Even when Zuckerberg tried to act sincere, i.e. the bar scene when he tries to apologize to Erica Albright (Rooney Mara), he does it in a condescending way that shows it isn’t sincere. Zuckerberg seemed to have a very hard time relating to people and the root of that problem never became apparent."

Read the rest of Hannah's review. 

My review is after the jump.

It's an alien! It's a spider! It's an agent!

So Superman and Spider-Man have both flown back into the headlines with news on their reboots. Superman has his director in Zack Snyder, Spider-Man has his girlfriend.

Superman's new director is Zack Snyder, the so-called "visionary" director of Watchmen, 300, and The Night of the Living Dead remake. Snyder is a very talented guy, and not many directors would veer from a zombie flick to an adrenalized Greek action epic to a comic book movie to an animated owl movie (Legend of the Guardians, now in theaters).  I'll say this for him, he's nothing if not ambitious. And he certainly knows his way around an action scene better than my favorite whipping boy, Michael Bay.

Still, with four big-budget action films under his belt, it concerns me that Snyder still seems underdeveloped as a storyteller. He's not really good at getting to the emotional core. Granted, Night of the Living Dead and 300 didn't suffer much for it, but Watchmen certainly did. And perhaps more than any superhero, you need a strong emotional core to make Superman fly. I'm not convinced Snyder is there, but this film will certainly be the ultimate test. I'm at least encouraged that Christopher Nolan is producing the project. I'll trust his judgment.

Then there's the  Spider-Man reboot. The fabulous Emma Stone, who proved with Easy A that she could carry a film with flair, will make a great Gwen Stacy (I guess because of her red hair, people assumed Mary Jane. Turned out not to be the case.)  Based on his very fine work  in The Social Network as the scorned creator of Facebook, I'm convinced Andrew Garfield has what it takes to play Peter Parker. The director, Marc Webb, made one of my favorite films from last year, 500 Days of Summer.

So why am I so iffy? I'm still not convinced of the whole reboot business. Spider-Man 3 was a mess, but it wasn't a Batman and Robin-level travesty that left the characters with nowhere to go.

My suggestion to both franchises? Forget the origin stories. Everyone knows them by now and telling them again will just slow things down. Suggestion two: Use villains that haven't been done yet. That means no more Luthor or Green Goblin. Superman can battle Braniac, maybe, and Spider-Man can go the James Bond route. Just as Judi Dench stayed as M, even when Bond himself changed, Spider-Man can keep Dylan Baker, who appeared in the previous films, and cast him as The Lizard. The solution is right under their noses. Let's just hope their Spidey senses are strong enough.

Somewhat lost in all this superhero business is the news that Jason Bourne is getting closer to coming up for air. The franchise seemed at a standstill when Paul Greengrass, who made 2 and 3, said he would not be back, and Matt Damon said he would not be back without Greengrass. However, it was announced that Tony Gilroy has almost signed on the dotted line to direct the fourth movie. Gilroy is a skilled director, having made the excellent Michael Clayton and the underrated Duplicity. And more to the point, he knows the series, having had a hand in writing all three films. And I'm willing to bet if Gilroy is on board, Damon will be too. And so will I.

A tribute to Tony Curtis, Shell oil and such

Forgive me for writing this Tony Curtis tribute somewhat belatedly, but to be honest, I struggled with it a little. 

Tony Curtis was a great talent. I greatly enjoyed his work in most every film I've seen of his. But I find myself coming up with caveats for them.

The Sweet Smell of Success? He was very good in that, but he was the straight man there. It's Burt Lancaster you remember.

Spartacus? Some of his Bronx-ish line readings were a little silly. And again, that's mainly Kirk Douglas' show.

The Great Race? Funny, but Natalie Wood was much cuter. 

Some Like It Hot? Unquestionably his best work. But even that has a caveat - his female voice was not his own - it was dubbed by voice-over actor Paul Frees, who was also the voice of The Haunted Mansion's ghost host, and, it should be noted, both John and George in the Beatles Saturday morning cartoons. 

And truthfully, I always felt much closer to Tony's former wife - quite literally so. 

And yet ... and yet ...

That IS Curtis doing the great faux Cary Grant in Some Like It Hot. (I imagine that must make watching Operation Petticoat, which came out the same year, 1959,  rather funny.) There is no question that, in his time, he was a star of the first rank. Perhaps I just haven't seen enough of that star. A little DVR-ing of TCM's Tony Curtis tribute Sunday will help take care of that. I'm especially anxious to see The Defiant Ones, which got him an Oscar nod. But even if I wouldn't rank him among my personal favorites, I can say he was still larger than life, even if he was a lower-tier star in the grand scheme of things.

So, forgive me, Tony. I'm not the best person to pay tribute to you. You are much better served by the writings of others more learned than I, particularly Leonard Maltin. But as a certain film of yours said ... nobody's perfect.