Friday, August 16, 2002
COMING UP - Along with Blue Crush and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (no really, I'm finally going to see it), I'll have reviews up next week of two of the most critically-acclaimed films of the year so far, Thirteen Conversations About One Thing, and John Sayles' The Sunshine State. Both movies are currently playing in select cities.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
REVIEW: AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER - I realize any comments about Goldmember are probably irrelevant since it was released three weeks ago [When would my comments actually be relevant? Good question], but I promised a reaction so here goes. I was surprisingly entertained by this third installment in the spy-spoof series. I say surprisingly because I wasn't expecting much after The Spy Who Shagged Me, which I thought was almost completely incoherent and lacking in humor. It didn't help that Heather Graham, an actress who I usually like from movies such as Drugstore Cowboy, Boogie Nights and a small part in Twin Peaks, had such terrible comic timing as Austin's love interest/co-spy Felicity Shagwell that she made Liz Hurley in the original look like Katharine Hepburn. It may be the most obviously phoned-in performance since Michael Caine graced the screen in 1987's Jaws: The Revenge (more on Caine in a moment). Either that or Graham was simply trying to prove the old adage that comedy is harder to play than drama. Taking over for Graham in Goldmember is the "bootylicious" pop singer Beyonce Knowles. She plays a spy named Foxxy Cleopatra -- an amalgam of Foxy Brown and Cleopatra Jones from the 70s blaxploitation flicks -- who teams up with Austin when Dr. Evil kidnaps his famous spy father (Caine) and takes him back to 1975. Knowles shows some genuine talent in front of the camera, despite having very little to do. She's not a co-star so much as a model whose job it is to look sexy in skimpy outfits, which I suppose makes Goldmember the most accurate James Bond imitation in the series. Myers' smartest casting choice, though, was undoubtedly the addition of Caine as the charming Nigel Powers. When three of Dr. Evil's henchman attack him, Nigel quickly disposes the first two with his fists, then gets the third to surrender simply by insulting him -- "Look at you, you don't even have a name tag." What easily could have been a throwaway scene was probably my favorite joke in the whole movie thanks to Caine's deadpan wit. Another perfectly delivered bit occurs when Austin comes to rescue him from the title villain, a disco fanatic from Holland whose private parts were covered in gold after a smelting accident. "There are only two things I hate; those who are intolerant of other people's cultures...and the Dutch," Nigel tells Austin. In addition to Caine's scene stealing, I got a kick out of the opening credit sequence -- well, most of it anyway -- featuring a bunch of big-name stars in cameo roles. Slate's David Edelstein loathed it: "The director, Jay Roach, can't give these showstoppers any momentum, and the fun palls quickly: Scattershot but thudding, it made me want to bolt after 15 minutes." The first five minutes were hilarious; once Britney Spears appeared on screen, however, I had the exact same reaction as Edelstein. I sat there stupefied wondering, "Does Myers really think this is funny, or is he simply content with the fact that Pepsi gave him a load of cash to include Spears in the movie?"
Ultimately, Myers isn't breaking any new ground with Goldmember -- most of the jokes are just variations on gags from the previous two movies, and for every joke that works there are two that flop around on the screen and die (When Austin meets the Asian twins "Fook Mi" and "Fook Yu," for example). And while Roger Ebert is certainly correct to suggest that "maybe the original inspiration has run its course," I laughed enough to make it worth my time.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Ultimately, Myers isn't breaking any new ground with Goldmember -- most of the jokes are just variations on gags from the previous two movies, and for every joke that works there are two that flop around on the screen and die (When Austin meets the Asian twins "Fook Mi" and "Fook Yu," for example). And while Roger Ebert is certainly correct to suggest that "maybe the original inspiration has run its course," I laughed enough to make it worth my time.
Thursday, August 15, 2002
THIS WEEKEND - Two new movies opening wide tomorrow -- one has generated waves of positive buzz; the other hasn't produced even a trickle of buzz period. In fact, I've heard so little about Eddie Murphy's new movie The Adventures of Pluto Nash that I can't even give you a one-sentence plot summary. According to its web page, Pluto Nash is "an action/adventure comedy set on the moon in the year 2087." Apparently, Murphy plays a successful nightclub owner who gets into trouble with a "lunar gangster" played by Joe Pantoliano. Paging Quentin Tarantino...Formerly huge movie star and pop culture luminary in desperate need of career resuscitation. Seriously, who is helping Murphy pick roles these days? The last decent "adult" movie he made was Bowfinger in 1999. Since Shrek (2001), his credits include Dr. Dolittle 2, Showtime, and now Pluto Nash. I actually have the option of attending a sneak screening tonight, which would allow me to have a review up tomorrow morning. But I'm guessing I can find something less painful to do with my evening.
Blue Crush could be a classic summer popcorn movie -- formulaic and trifling, but without the pre-packaged lameness of MIB 2, or the overcooked thrills of XXX. Directed by crazy/beautiful's John Stockwell, Crush is about a female surfer (Kate Bosworth) out to prove her worth on the waves of Oahu's North Shore. Guys will like the eye-candy of Bosworth and company in bikinis; girls will dig the sandals-are-gonna-walk-all-over-you-attitude. Throw in a love story with a hunky quarterback (Matt Davis), a slick soundtrack, and some awe-inspiring (if computer-generated) waves, and you've got a hit. Of course, I could be wrong. I just asked three female co-workers, all in their early- to mid-20s, whether they plan to see it. One had never heard of it; one was embarrassed to admit she'd probably go see it; and the other felt it wasn't worth her hard-earned cash, saying, "You mean Coyote Ugly Hits the Beach"? Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman could probably use a towel after writing this review: "Powered by Blestenation's hip-hop remix of Bananarama's great ''Cruel Summer,'' the movie has a purely sense-orama dimension, yet John Stockwell, who cowrote and directed it, proves that it's more than possible to use thrill-ride techniques in a supple, nonbombastic way. His interweaving of digital effects, rapid-fire downshifts to slow motion and back, and whooshing, crashing, in-your-ears sound creates a foam peak momentum of exhilaration laced with anxiety."
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Blue Crush could be a classic summer popcorn movie -- formulaic and trifling, but without the pre-packaged lameness of MIB 2, or the overcooked thrills of XXX. Directed by crazy/beautiful's John Stockwell, Crush is about a female surfer (Kate Bosworth) out to prove her worth on the waves of Oahu's North Shore. Guys will like the eye-candy of Bosworth and company in bikinis; girls will dig the sandals-are-gonna-walk-all-over-you-attitude. Throw in a love story with a hunky quarterback (Matt Davis), a slick soundtrack, and some awe-inspiring (if computer-generated) waves, and you've got a hit. Of course, I could be wrong. I just asked three female co-workers, all in their early- to mid-20s, whether they plan to see it. One had never heard of it; one was embarrassed to admit she'd probably go see it; and the other felt it wasn't worth her hard-earned cash, saying, "You mean Coyote Ugly Hits the Beach"? Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman could probably use a towel after writing this review: "Powered by Blestenation's hip-hop remix of Bananarama's great ''Cruel Summer,'' the movie has a purely sense-orama dimension, yet John Stockwell, who cowrote and directed it, proves that it's more than possible to use thrill-ride techniques in a supple, nonbombastic way. His interweaving of digital effects, rapid-fire downshifts to slow motion and back, and whooshing, crashing, in-your-ears sound creates a foam peak momentum of exhilaration laced with anxiety."
ANNOUNCING THE CINEMASCOPED CRITICS & READERS POLL - With summer almost over and the "serious" movie season approaching, I think now is the perfect time to take a look back at the year in movies, and look ahead to what the rest of the year has to offer. To this end, CS has e-mailed more than 40 newspaper, magazine, and online film critics requesting their votes for: 1) Best Movie of the Year (So Far) and 2) Movie You Are Most Looking Forward To Seeing.
But this poll isn't just for the critics...CS wants your votes as well. What movie had you gushing to all of your friends -- Signs? Road to Perdition? Scooby Doo, perhaps? (Check out Greg's Previews if you need to refresh your memory.) What upcoming movie are you most excited to see -- The Two Towers; P.T. Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, with Adam Sandler? Red Dragon? 8 Mile with Eminem? Scorsese's long-awaited Gangs of New York; maybe Steven Soderbergh's Solaris remake? (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' Fall Preview.)
E-mail your votes now to:CinemaScoped@hotmail.com. I'll post the results of both the Critics' and Readers' Polls in the next few weeks.
In other news, I finally saw Goldmember -- I know, it's been out for three weeks, I'm lame. I'll have a few comments posted later today. Also, CNN.com today has this story about My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which I wrote about here last Thursday (scroll down), and shamefully still have yet to see. The sleeper hit added 66 theaters last weekend and saw its box office take increase 4.4% ($3.1 million, good enough for 8th place).
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
But this poll isn't just for the critics...CS wants your votes as well. What movie had you gushing to all of your friends -- Signs? Road to Perdition? Scooby Doo, perhaps? (Check out Greg's Previews if you need to refresh your memory.) What upcoming movie are you most excited to see -- The Two Towers; P.T. Anderson's Punch-Drunk Love, with Adam Sandler? Red Dragon? 8 Mile with Eminem? Scorsese's long-awaited Gangs of New York; maybe Steven Soderbergh's Solaris remake? (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' Fall Preview.)
E-mail your votes now to:
In other news, I finally saw Goldmember -- I know, it's been out for three weeks, I'm lame. I'll have a few comments posted later today. Also, CNN.com today has this story about My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which I wrote about here last Thursday (scroll down), and shamefully still have yet to see. The sleeper hit added 66 theaters last weekend and saw its box office take increase 4.4% ($3.1 million, good enough for 8th place).
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
ONLY A MATTER OF TIME - Kevin Smith recently launched a new movie site called -- you guessed it! -- Movie Poop Shoot. (Incidentally, Smith is looking for extras for his next film, Jersey Girl, starring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. Click here to become a movie star, or to stand next to movie stars anyway.) Those familiar with Smith's hilarious Hollywood send-up, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, will recognize Movie Poop Shoot as the site Holden (Affleck, reprising his Chasing Amy role) clicks on to show Jay and Silent Bob that Miramax is planning to make a movie about them. The two become enraged when they read message board comments dissing them mercilessly, including one from "Magnolia Fan." (Click here to get the joke.) As far as I can tell, the site officially began flushing in June.
Even if the Smith "brand" doesn't mean anything to you, Movie Poop Shoot will be a must-read for movie fans since Jeffrey Wells announced today he will move his "Hollywood Confidential" column from Reel.com to MPS beginning September 3. "I'll be joining a team of feisty, tip-top malcontents over there and the whole endeavor is going to whup ass, I swear … in fact, it already does," Wells says in today's column, which provides a tidy look at the most promising movies slated for the rest of the year.
As regular CS readers know, I refer to Wells quite often in my posts because he has consistently been one of the shrewdest, most perceptive film columnists (part reporter, part critic) around for many years now -- with Reel since August '99; Mr. Showbiz and various others before that). In fact, if I was restricted to one movie article per day, "Hollywood Confidential" would easily be my choice. Full disclosure: I became an even bigger fan of Wells when I was working on an article for The Daily Iowan about a year-and-a-half ago. I e-mailed him to see if he had any comment on the news that Loews had raised its prices for a movie ticket to $10 in New York City. Of course, I didn't expect a response. I not only got an e-mail back -- the same day, no less -- but Wells gave me what we journalists like to refer to as a "killer" quote.
"New York City movie theaters have always been slightly higher, so it's no surprise they're the first to hit the $10 mark. [Loews is] basically charging moviegoers to help pay its bank loans that it took out to pay for its huge expansions. It used to be $9.50 in certain NYC theaters; now it's $10. Big deal."
"Instead of an average evening at the movies with a date costing $33 -- two tickets for $19 plus $15 on popcorn and drinks for two, not counting parking -- it'll now cost $34. Compare that with renting a DVD and watching it at home with your girlfriend and microwave popcorn, which maybe costs $8 or $9 altogether. Why do people continue to pay $33 and $34? Because it's more fun to see a movie in a theater, and guys have a better shot at getting laid if they take their girlfriends out (to dinner, before or after the movie) than if they just invite them over to their place.
Amen. Wells' last column for Reel will run this Friday. If you're completely bored, below is a re-print of my original review of Jay & Silent Bob (published 8/27/01).
* I like Kevin Smith's films, but even I'll admit to some skepticism when I first heard he was making a movie centered on the vulgar antics of Jay and Silent Bob.
The dimwitted duo, played by Smith and Jason Mewes, has appeared in all four of Smith's previous films, usually with hilarious results. Arguably the funniest scenes in Clerks, Smith's low-budget debut, were those featuring Jay and Silent Bob assaulting customers outside the Quick Stop with their politically incorrect spewings. Nevertheless, as good as they were as supporting characters in Smith's View Askew universe, one had to wonder how their act would play out over 90 minutes. Let's face it, giving Jay and Silent Bob their own movie is akin to "Norm" and "Cliff" getting their own sitcoms after "Cheers" was canceled, and we all know how that turned out.
Fortunately for us -- and Smith -- Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back might just be his funniest film yet, even if it does at times feel like one big in-joke.
After taking heat from the Catholic Church for Dogma, Smith sets his satirical sights here on a less-esteemed, but perhaps equally powerful, institution -- Hollywood. The story follows Jay and Silent Bob as they trek from Jersey to L.A. to stop Miramax from making a movie based on the Bluntman & Chronic comic book for which they were the inspiration. If you're already a little confused, go rent Chasing Amy, and it'll start to make some sense.
Admittedly, it helps to be a fan of -- or at least to have seen -- the bulk of Smith's past work to truly appreciate this movie. And even when he isn't referencing his own movies, he is usually catering his humor to movie geeks much like himself.
Perhaps the funniest example is when Jay and Silent Bob finally make it to Hollywood, only to stumble onto the set of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season. While Miramax golden boys Matt Damon and Ben Affleck -- a Smith regular who appears here as himself and his Chasing Amy character -- rip each other for some of their less-inspired movie choices, director Gus Van Sant sits quietly in a corner counting a huge pile of cash. Van Sant was known for edgy, indie pics such as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy before going mainstream with Hunting, which was followed by his disastrous remake of Psycho and the saccharine Finding Forrester.
Like Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob does lose some momentum because of its convoluted plot. There's a mostly boring, unnecessary sequence in the middle in which our heroes are persuaded by a gorgeous gang of international jewel thieves, featuring Bring It On's Eliza Dushku and American Pie's Shannon Elizabeth, to steal a monkey from a pharmaceutical lab (don't ask). Smith spends way too much time showing the Charlie's Angels wannabes doing Matrix-like backflips as they steal a loot of diamonds from a nearby bank (again, don't ask). Fortunately, this plot distraction is salvaged when "Saturday Night Live's" Will Ferrell shows up as a bumbling federal wildlife marshal trying to reclaim the stolen monkey.
I read one critic who blasted Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, remarking that it will be "mostly incomprehensible in 50 years." I'm not sure he's right, but even if he is, maybe that isn't such a bad thing. You've got to give credit to Smith for producing a film that so perfectly captures the time in which it was made. You might miss some of the movie references, but unless you've been sleeping through the past 20 years of pop culture, Smith's irreverent brand of humor should ring true. *
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Even if the Smith "brand" doesn't mean anything to you, Movie Poop Shoot will be a must-read for movie fans since Jeffrey Wells announced today he will move his "Hollywood Confidential" column from Reel.com to MPS beginning September 3. "I'll be joining a team of feisty, tip-top malcontents over there and the whole endeavor is going to whup ass, I swear … in fact, it already does," Wells says in today's column, which provides a tidy look at the most promising movies slated for the rest of the year.
As regular CS readers know, I refer to Wells quite often in my posts because he has consistently been one of the shrewdest, most perceptive film columnists (part reporter, part critic) around for many years now -- with Reel since August '99; Mr. Showbiz and various others before that). In fact, if I was restricted to one movie article per day, "Hollywood Confidential" would easily be my choice. Full disclosure: I became an even bigger fan of Wells when I was working on an article for The Daily Iowan about a year-and-a-half ago. I e-mailed him to see if he had any comment on the news that Loews had raised its prices for a movie ticket to $10 in New York City. Of course, I didn't expect a response. I not only got an e-mail back -- the same day, no less -- but Wells gave me what we journalists like to refer to as a "killer" quote.
"New York City movie theaters have always been slightly higher, so it's no surprise they're the first to hit the $10 mark. [Loews is] basically charging moviegoers to help pay its bank loans that it took out to pay for its huge expansions. It used to be $9.50 in certain NYC theaters; now it's $10. Big deal."
"Instead of an average evening at the movies with a date costing $33 -- two tickets for $19 plus $15 on popcorn and drinks for two, not counting parking -- it'll now cost $34. Compare that with renting a DVD and watching it at home with your girlfriend and microwave popcorn, which maybe costs $8 or $9 altogether. Why do people continue to pay $33 and $34? Because it's more fun to see a movie in a theater, and guys have a better shot at getting laid if they take their girlfriends out (to dinner, before or after the movie) than if they just invite them over to their place.
Amen. Wells' last column for Reel will run this Friday. If you're completely bored, below is a re-print of my original review of Jay & Silent Bob (published 8/27/01).
* I like Kevin Smith's films, but even I'll admit to some skepticism when I first heard he was making a movie centered on the vulgar antics of Jay and Silent Bob.
The dimwitted duo, played by Smith and Jason Mewes, has appeared in all four of Smith's previous films, usually with hilarious results. Arguably the funniest scenes in Clerks, Smith's low-budget debut, were those featuring Jay and Silent Bob assaulting customers outside the Quick Stop with their politically incorrect spewings. Nevertheless, as good as they were as supporting characters in Smith's View Askew universe, one had to wonder how their act would play out over 90 minutes. Let's face it, giving Jay and Silent Bob their own movie is akin to "Norm" and "Cliff" getting their own sitcoms after "Cheers" was canceled, and we all know how that turned out.
Fortunately for us -- and Smith -- Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back might just be his funniest film yet, even if it does at times feel like one big in-joke.
After taking heat from the Catholic Church for Dogma, Smith sets his satirical sights here on a less-esteemed, but perhaps equally powerful, institution -- Hollywood. The story follows Jay and Silent Bob as they trek from Jersey to L.A. to stop Miramax from making a movie based on the Bluntman & Chronic comic book for which they were the inspiration. If you're already a little confused, go rent Chasing Amy, and it'll start to make some sense.
Admittedly, it helps to be a fan of -- or at least to have seen -- the bulk of Smith's past work to truly appreciate this movie. And even when he isn't referencing his own movies, he is usually catering his humor to movie geeks much like himself.
Perhaps the funniest example is when Jay and Silent Bob finally make it to Hollywood, only to stumble onto the set of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season. While Miramax golden boys Matt Damon and Ben Affleck -- a Smith regular who appears here as himself and his Chasing Amy character -- rip each other for some of their less-inspired movie choices, director Gus Van Sant sits quietly in a corner counting a huge pile of cash. Van Sant was known for edgy, indie pics such as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy before going mainstream with Hunting, which was followed by his disastrous remake of Psycho and the saccharine Finding Forrester.
Like Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob does lose some momentum because of its convoluted plot. There's a mostly boring, unnecessary sequence in the middle in which our heroes are persuaded by a gorgeous gang of international jewel thieves, featuring Bring It On's Eliza Dushku and American Pie's Shannon Elizabeth, to steal a monkey from a pharmaceutical lab (don't ask). Smith spends way too much time showing the Charlie's Angels wannabes doing Matrix-like backflips as they steal a loot of diamonds from a nearby bank (again, don't ask). Fortunately, this plot distraction is salvaged when "Saturday Night Live's" Will Ferrell shows up as a bumbling federal wildlife marshal trying to reclaim the stolen monkey.
I read one critic who blasted Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, remarking that it will be "mostly incomprehensible in 50 years." I'm not sure he's right, but even if he is, maybe that isn't such a bad thing. You've got to give credit to Smith for producing a film that so perfectly captures the time in which it was made. You might miss some of the movie references, but unless you've been sleeping through the past 20 years of pop culture, Smith's irreverent brand of humor should ring true. *
GLENGARRY CLARIFICATION - In my last post I referred to Glengarry Glen Ross, David Mamet's acerbic indictment of the Reagan era, as "darkly comic." Let me be clear: Glengarry cannot, by any reasonable criteria, be called a comedy. But if hearing Kevin Spacey implore Alan Arkin,"Will you get out of here. Will you get out of here. Will you? I’m trying to run an office here. Now will you go to lunch. Go to lunch. Will you go to lunch," or Alec Baldwin deliver his How To Win Friends and Motivate Salesmen Speech: "A, I, D, A. Attention, interest, decision, action. Attention: do I have your attention? Interest: are you interested? I know you are 'cause it's fuck or walk. You close or you hit the bricks. Decision: have you made your decision for Christ? And action. A, I, D, A," isn't comic gold, I don't know what is.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
RANDOM MUSINGS - During my trip to Pennsylvania last weekend I had the pleasure of eating breakfast with a man named Sheldon Levine. And here's the best part -- he's a salesman. Shelley Levene, of course, is Jack Lemmon's desperate real estate salesman in Glengarry Glen Ross, the David Mamet-penned film based on his Pulitzer Prize winning play. When our waitress handed him a cup of coffee I wanted so badly to shout, "Put that coffee down! Coffee's for closers only!" a la Alec Baldwin in the movie. Fortunately, I was able to restrain myself. If you haven't seen it, Glengarry is one of the saddest, most frustrating, darkly comic -- not to mention most quotable -- films of the 90s. The cast -- Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, pre-movie star Kevin Spacey, and Baldwin (in a small but memorable role) -- is phenomenal, and handles Mamet's idiosyncratic dialogue better than any other cast before or since. Visit The Unofficial Glengarry Glen Ross Site, which provides the complete dialogue from Baldwin's hilariously abusive "Sales Conference." First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Anybody want to see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired.
Reel's Jeffrey Wells reports today on the script of an upcoming film called 21 Grams. Wells describes it as a "dark, intensely emotional piece about guilt, betrayal, death and random fate." It marks the first English language film for Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu, whose similarly-themed Amores Perros was one of the best films of last year. It begins shooting in December. I'd be excited about this movie just based on my affection for Amores Perros...but it gets even better when I read that 21 Grams will feature Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, and Naomi Watts. So you're saying it stars two of the most provocative actors working today and the actress who gave hands-down the best performance of last year -- male or female -- in David Lynch's Mulholland Drive? Yeah, I think I'll pay to see it. About Guillermo Arriago's screenplay, Wells writes: "I was blown away by the script. As soon as I finished reading it I said out loud to no one in particular (even though there were people in the room), "Whoa!"
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Reel's Jeffrey Wells reports today on the script of an upcoming film called 21 Grams. Wells describes it as a "dark, intensely emotional piece about guilt, betrayal, death and random fate." It marks the first English language film for Mexican director Alejandro González Iñárritu, whose similarly-themed Amores Perros was one of the best films of last year. It begins shooting in December. I'd be excited about this movie just based on my affection for Amores Perros...but it gets even better when I read that 21 Grams will feature Sean Penn, Benicio Del Toro, and Naomi Watts. So you're saying it stars two of the most provocative actors working today and the actress who gave hands-down the best performance of last year -- male or female -- in David Lynch's Mulholland Drive? Yeah, I think I'll pay to see it. About Guillermo Arriago's screenplay, Wells writes: "I was blown away by the script. As soon as I finished reading it I said out loud to no one in particular (even though there were people in the room), "Whoa!"
WHERE'S TOMMY BOY ON THAT LIST? - For those of you looking for something to do this weekend, write down all the films you've never seen from these lists -- or maybe never even heard of -- then get down to your best local video store or library and prepare to join the cultural elite. (No, I'm not including myself in this group since I, too, have my own list to compile.)
The British film magazine Sight & Sound just announced the results of its Critics' and Directors' Top Ten Polls for 2002. As their Web site explains:
"In 1952 Sight & Sound polled the world’s leading film critics to compile a list of the best films of all time. The magazine has repeated this poll every ten years, to show which films stand the test of time in the face of shifting critical opinion. In 1992 we added a poll of directors asking them for their personal choices."
For the 2002 edition, 108 filmmakers and 145 critics from around the world participated in the voting.
Critics Top Ten Poll 2002
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
Kane has been #1 on every Critics' poll except the first -- Bicycle Thieves was #1 in '52 -- and has topped both Directors' polls.
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)
4. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
7. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
7. Sunrise (Murnau)
9. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
10. Singin' In the Rain (Kelly, Donen)
Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
The Searchers (Ford)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
Pather Panchali (S. Ray)
The Directors' Poll, which actually lists 11 movies, shares 5 with the Critics'...
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
3. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
6. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
9. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)
...but adds...
4. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
5. Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
6. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica)
6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
...and two Kurosawa films, Rashomon and Seven Samurai, which both tied for 9th with Rules of the Game.
Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
La strada (Fellini)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
Modern Times (Chaplin)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
In evaluating the two lists, I have to side with the directors. I refuse to hail Vertigo as the 2nd greatest film of all-time, especially when the two Godfather movies are 4th. I also love the inclusion of the two Kurosawa films; De Sica's heartbreaking neorealist masterpiece Bicycle Thieves (aka The Bicycle Thief); and Kubrick's nuclear war farce Dr. Strangelove over his groundbreaking but cumbersome 2001: A Space Odyssey. Most importantly, the directors rightfully include Scorsese's Raging Bull (1980), the youngest film on either list.
For the complete results of both polls with comments, click here. You can also check past poll results, see which critics and directors participated and how they voted, and compare their lists of the best directors of all-time.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
The British film magazine Sight & Sound just announced the results of its Critics' and Directors' Top Ten Polls for 2002. As their Web site explains:
"In 1952 Sight & Sound polled the world’s leading film critics to compile a list of the best films of all time. The magazine has repeated this poll every ten years, to show which films stand the test of time in the face of shifting critical opinion. In 1992 we added a poll of directors asking them for their personal choices."
For the 2002 edition, 108 filmmakers and 145 critics from around the world participated in the voting.
Critics Top Ten Poll 2002
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
Kane has been #1 on every Critics' poll except the first -- Bicycle Thieves was #1 in '52 -- and has topped both Directors' polls.
2. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
3. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)
4. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
5. Tokyo Story (Ozu)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
7. Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
7. Sunrise (Murnau)
9. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
10. Singin' In the Rain (Kelly, Donen)
Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
The Searchers (Ford)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
Pather Panchali (S. Ray)
The Directors' Poll, which actually lists 11 movies, shares 5 with the Critics'...
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
3. 8 1/2 (Fellini)
6. Vertigo (Hitchcock)
9. La Règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (Renoir)
...but adds...
4. Lawrence of Arabia (Lean)
5. Dr. Strangelove (Kubrick)
6. Bicycle Thieves (De Sica)
6. Raging Bull (Scorsese)
...and two Kurosawa films, Rashomon and Seven Samurai, which both tied for 9th with Rules of the Game.
Films that dropped off the list from 1992:
La strada (Fellini)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
Modern Times (Chaplin)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
In evaluating the two lists, I have to side with the directors. I refuse to hail Vertigo as the 2nd greatest film of all-time, especially when the two Godfather movies are 4th. I also love the inclusion of the two Kurosawa films; De Sica's heartbreaking neorealist masterpiece Bicycle Thieves (aka The Bicycle Thief); and Kubrick's nuclear war farce Dr. Strangelove over his groundbreaking but cumbersome 2001: A Space Odyssey. Most importantly, the directors rightfully include Scorsese's Raging Bull (1980), the youngest film on either list.
For the complete results of both polls with comments, click here. You can also check past poll results, see which critics and directors participated and how they voted, and compare their lists of the best directors of all-time.
Monday, August 12, 2002
MORE X-RATED THOUGHTS - I wasn't able to check out what other critics were saying about XXX before posting my review Friday morning. A look at the Tomatometer shows that it's almost an even split - 49% positive reviews, or 52 out of 107. Of course, that leaves 55 negative, including my own unfavorable reaction to the Vin Diesel-powered spy vehicle, which easily topped the box office over the weekend with $46 million. Signs dropped to second but faired well with $30 million.
L.A. Times critic Kenneth Turan correctly diagnoses the movie as, "More busy than exciting, more frantic than involving, more chaotic than entertaining." Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum writes, "Even in the summertime, the most restless young audience deserves the dignity of an action hero motivated by something more than franchise possibilities."
Most critics who recommend XXX praise its muscular star: "The racially ambiguous Diesel cuts a fine action figure. He has the glacial swagger left over from his bouncer days and looks as if he's been bench-pressing Sylvester Stallone since he was 12," writes Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe. And Salon's Stephanie Zacharek calls Diesel "that rare creature -- an action hero with table manners, and one who proves that elegance is more than tattoo deep."
Easily the most surprising response has to be Roger Ebert's gushing 3 1/2 star review in the Chicago Sun-Times -- not just because he liked it that much, but because he liked it for the exact same reasons I started thinking about balancing my checkbook roughly 30 minutes in. He writes: "Director Rob Cohen and producer Neal H. Mortiz, who also made "The Fast and the Furious," follow the Bond formula so carefully this would be a satire if it weren't intended as a homage."
Ebert then proceeds to approvingly tick off the various ways XXX steals from Bond: (1) Villain in lair hidden within mountain, with faceless minions busily going about tasks; (2) a beautiful girl, former KGB, named Yelena (Asia Argento), who seems to be Yorgi's girlfriend but falls for Xander; (3) a techno-geek who supplies Xander with a trick gun and a customized GTO that has an arsenal on board; (4) stunts involving parachuting, mountains, avalanches and explosions; (5) a chase at the end to save the world, and (6), my favorite, the obligatory final scene where the hero basks in Bora Bora with the beautiful girl in a bikini, while his boss tries to persuade him to take another job.
I think calling XXX an homage to Bond gives Cohen and screenwriter Rich Wilkes too much credit. Isn't it more likely that they were simply too lazy/uninspired/unoriginal to give their "new kind of action hero," as Cohen described him in last month's Premiere, an action movie that was befitting such a new character? I'm guessing it was a lot easier to just crib from old Bond flicks, replace the Monty Norman score with Rammstein, then claim to have invented something radically different.
The fact is, save for a few poorly choreographed action sequences involving various extreme sports, XXX doesn't give us anything we haven't seen before. Perhaps if Cohen and company had been clever enough to go the satirical route and flat-out rebuke the Bond franchise -- the opening scene, where Diesel's tuxedo-clad predecessor is easily picked off by a sniper when he tries to blend in with the crowd at a hardcore industrial concert, effectively teases us with this possibility -- XXX would have been more entertaining.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
L.A. Times critic Kenneth Turan correctly diagnoses the movie as, "More busy than exciting, more frantic than involving, more chaotic than entertaining." Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum writes, "Even in the summertime, the most restless young audience deserves the dignity of an action hero motivated by something more than franchise possibilities."
Most critics who recommend XXX praise its muscular star: "The racially ambiguous Diesel cuts a fine action figure. He has the glacial swagger left over from his bouncer days and looks as if he's been bench-pressing Sylvester Stallone since he was 12," writes Wesley Morris of the Boston Globe. And Salon's Stephanie Zacharek calls Diesel "that rare creature -- an action hero with table manners, and one who proves that elegance is more than tattoo deep."
Easily the most surprising response has to be Roger Ebert's gushing 3 1/2 star review in the Chicago Sun-Times -- not just because he liked it that much, but because he liked it for the exact same reasons I started thinking about balancing my checkbook roughly 30 minutes in. He writes: "Director Rob Cohen and producer Neal H. Mortiz, who also made "The Fast and the Furious," follow the Bond formula so carefully this would be a satire if it weren't intended as a homage."
Ebert then proceeds to approvingly tick off the various ways XXX steals from Bond: (1) Villain in lair hidden within mountain, with faceless minions busily going about tasks; (2) a beautiful girl, former KGB, named Yelena (Asia Argento), who seems to be Yorgi's girlfriend but falls for Xander; (3) a techno-geek who supplies Xander with a trick gun and a customized GTO that has an arsenal on board; (4) stunts involving parachuting, mountains, avalanches and explosions; (5) a chase at the end to save the world, and (6), my favorite, the obligatory final scene where the hero basks in Bora Bora with the beautiful girl in a bikini, while his boss tries to persuade him to take another job.
I think calling XXX an homage to Bond gives Cohen and screenwriter Rich Wilkes too much credit. Isn't it more likely that they were simply too lazy/uninspired/unoriginal to give their "new kind of action hero," as Cohen described him in last month's Premiere, an action movie that was befitting such a new character? I'm guessing it was a lot easier to just crib from old Bond flicks, replace the Monty Norman score with Rammstein, then claim to have invented something radically different.
The fact is, save for a few poorly choreographed action sequences involving various extreme sports, XXX doesn't give us anything we haven't seen before. Perhaps if Cohen and company had been clever enough to go the satirical route and flat-out rebuke the Bond franchise -- the opening scene, where Diesel's tuxedo-clad predecessor is easily picked off by a sniper when he tries to blend in with the crowd at a hardcore industrial concert, effectively teases us with this possibility -- XXX would have been more entertaining.
HORROR WEEKEND FOLLOW-UP/BUBBA HO-TEP REVIEW - Ain't It Cool News grandmaster Harry Knowles had this to say recently in an introduction to a series of reviews from his Chicago correspondent Capone: "And don't hate Capone too much when you read what all he did last weekend...tell me, which body part would you give to see the original EVIL DEAD cast reenact live on stage the original EVIL DEAD from the original script? Tell me you wouldn't need rubber pants and a spray hose for clean up."
Take a moment to expunge that image from your mind. Now, you might recall last Monday's (8/5) post about my friends Scott and Chris who, like Capone, attended the Flashback Horror Weekend and Sci-Fi Convention that was held August 2-4 in Chicago.
Curiously, while Knowles makes it abundantly clear how jealous he is about not being able to see the original cast reenact The Evil Dead live, he doesn't mention how cool it would have been to be the random guy from the audience selected to play the role of "Scotty," played in the movie by Hal Delrich. As devout CS readers know, that random guy was Chris, who provided a detailed account on Monday of how he got to perform with Bruce Campbell and the Ladies of Evil Dead, despite being one of only three in a theater full of 1,200 people who admitted to never actually having seen the movie!
Here's how Capone explains the event: "After that, Bruce returned to the stage with the Ladies of Evil Dead for an almost complete reenactment of EVIL DEAD. With Tom Sullivan doing sound effects and an audience member playing Scottie, this reminded me of some radio plays I’d seen done years ago. Okay, maybe it wasn’t quite that good, but boy was it a scream. I nearly pissed myself when “Ash” and “Linda” are having their big romantic scene together and Bruce whipped out a full-sized magnifying glass on a chain for her to wear. Since they were reading from the original script, they even acted out scenes that weren’t in the final film, which was screened immediately after."
Chris e-mailed Harry after seeing the article and said, "Hey, that was me. I was the audience member!" No response from Harry yet...
Meanwhile, Scott writes in with this review of Bubba Ho-Tep, which had its Midwest premiere earlier that same night with star Bruce Campbell in attendance. This is a little movie only a handful of you will probably ever get the opportunity to see -- or even want to see -- but Campbell has developed enough of a devoted following over the years that surely a few readers must be curious about his current film. Here's what Scott had to say:
As Campbell strode onto the stage to introduce the movie, he claimed that it was the most bizarre film he had ever acted in. Whoa! Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I'm a bizarre film connoisseur and Bruce Campbell has been in some really crazy-ass films.
So anyway, his bold declaration had me giddy as a little schoolgirl for Bubba Ho-Tep to start. My anticipation increased even further when the credits rolled and the words, "Directed By Don Coscarelli" flashed on the screen. This guy has helmed some of the weirdest genre flicks ever made. Coscarelli's imagery has featured giant alien morticians, living dead dwarves, killer flying balls, and the great actor Mark "Beastmaster" Singer running around in a loincloth letting women pet his ferret.
However high my expectations now were, Bubba Ho-Tep exceeded them. This is one of the coolest "what if" movies I have seen in a long time.You know what I mean by "what if"? What if Shakespeare fell in love while writing Romeo and Juliet? What if a mentally challenged man named Forrest unknowingly influenced historical events? What if this loser movie reviewer had some balls and lived out his Evil Dead fantasies on stage with the entire cast of the movie instead of passing the opportunity to his undeserving friend....aaaaaahhhhh damn you o' missed opportunity...
Anyway, what if Elvis Presley decided during the prime of his career to step out of the limelight and switch places with an Elvis impersonator? And what if present day Elvis was in an elderly home wishing he could return to his past glory? This is the premise Bubba Ho-Tep starts out with, and trust me when I say they take this story into places you would never predict. I don't want to ruin any surprises the movie presents so I'll keep plot developments to a minimum. However, to understand just how bizarre this film gets, I will say that Ossie "Da Mayor" Davis portrays President John F. Kennedy. Those of you who know that Davis is black can begin to see why this movie is whacked!
Bubba Ho-Tep contains Campbell's greatest performance to date. You're probably thinking all he ever accomplished up to this point in his career was getting his ass kicked in the three Evil Dead movies. Maybe. But he shows more range and humor as Elvis Presley than any actor that has played the part. Yes, he's even better than Kurt Russell as Elvis. Coscarelli deftly mixes comedy and suspense, never lets the pace drag, and makes the production value seem way higher than the budget probably was. Oh, did I mention that Bubba Ho-Tep is the name of an undead soul stealing mummy? This is a crazy bad-ass movie.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Take a moment to expunge that image from your mind. Now, you might recall last Monday's (8/5) post about my friends Scott and Chris who, like Capone, attended the Flashback Horror Weekend and Sci-Fi Convention that was held August 2-4 in Chicago.
Curiously, while Knowles makes it abundantly clear how jealous he is about not being able to see the original cast reenact The Evil Dead live, he doesn't mention how cool it would have been to be the random guy from the audience selected to play the role of "Scotty," played in the movie by Hal Delrich. As devout CS readers know, that random guy was Chris, who provided a detailed account on Monday of how he got to perform with Bruce Campbell and the Ladies of Evil Dead, despite being one of only three in a theater full of 1,200 people who admitted to never actually having seen the movie!
Here's how Capone explains the event: "After that, Bruce returned to the stage with the Ladies of Evil Dead for an almost complete reenactment of EVIL DEAD. With Tom Sullivan doing sound effects and an audience member playing Scottie, this reminded me of some radio plays I’d seen done years ago. Okay, maybe it wasn’t quite that good, but boy was it a scream. I nearly pissed myself when “Ash” and “Linda” are having their big romantic scene together and Bruce whipped out a full-sized magnifying glass on a chain for her to wear. Since they were reading from the original script, they even acted out scenes that weren’t in the final film, which was screened immediately after."
Chris e-mailed Harry after seeing the article and said, "Hey, that was me. I was the audience member!" No response from Harry yet...
Meanwhile, Scott writes in with this review of Bubba Ho-Tep, which had its Midwest premiere earlier that same night with star Bruce Campbell in attendance. This is a little movie only a handful of you will probably ever get the opportunity to see -- or even want to see -- but Campbell has developed enough of a devoted following over the years that surely a few readers must be curious about his current film. Here's what Scott had to say:
As Campbell strode onto the stage to introduce the movie, he claimed that it was the most bizarre film he had ever acted in. Whoa! Now, before I go any further, let me just say that I'm a bizarre film connoisseur and Bruce Campbell has been in some really crazy-ass films.
So anyway, his bold declaration had me giddy as a little schoolgirl for Bubba Ho-Tep to start. My anticipation increased even further when the credits rolled and the words, "Directed By Don Coscarelli" flashed on the screen. This guy has helmed some of the weirdest genre flicks ever made. Coscarelli's imagery has featured giant alien morticians, living dead dwarves, killer flying balls, and the great actor Mark "Beastmaster" Singer running around in a loincloth letting women pet his ferret.
However high my expectations now were, Bubba Ho-Tep exceeded them. This is one of the coolest "what if" movies I have seen in a long time.You know what I mean by "what if"? What if Shakespeare fell in love while writing Romeo and Juliet? What if a mentally challenged man named Forrest unknowingly influenced historical events? What if this loser movie reviewer had some balls and lived out his Evil Dead fantasies on stage with the entire cast of the movie instead of passing the opportunity to his undeserving friend....aaaaaahhhhh damn you o' missed opportunity...
Anyway, what if Elvis Presley decided during the prime of his career to step out of the limelight and switch places with an Elvis impersonator? And what if present day Elvis was in an elderly home wishing he could return to his past glory? This is the premise Bubba Ho-Tep starts out with, and trust me when I say they take this story into places you would never predict. I don't want to ruin any surprises the movie presents so I'll keep plot developments to a minimum. However, to understand just how bizarre this film gets, I will say that Ossie "Da Mayor" Davis portrays President John F. Kennedy. Those of you who know that Davis is black can begin to see why this movie is whacked!
Bubba Ho-Tep contains Campbell's greatest performance to date. You're probably thinking all he ever accomplished up to this point in his career was getting his ass kicked in the three Evil Dead movies. Maybe. But he shows more range and humor as Elvis Presley than any actor that has played the part. Yes, he's even better than Kurt Russell as Elvis. Coscarelli deftly mixes comedy and suspense, never lets the pace drag, and makes the production value seem way higher than the budget probably was. Oh, did I mention that Bubba Ho-Tep is the name of an undead soul stealing mummy? This is a crazy bad-ass movie.
Friday, August 09, 2002
REVIEW: XXX - I'm hopping on a plane in a few hours for Pennsylvania -- too far away from Bucks County for a pilgrimage to where Signs was shot, unfortunately -- so this review will be brief. But then, I'm probably not going to tell you anything about XXX (opens today) you probably haven't figured out from the commercials.
For all the talk of XXX and its bulging, Barry White-voiced star, Vin Diesel, ushering in a new era of espionage thriller, James Bond shouldn't worry about cashing in Her Majesty's 401(k) plan just yet. As Xander Cage, an adrenaline junkie anarchist who is recruited by an NSA specialist (Samuel L. Jackson, dutifully paying the bills) to serve his country as a secret agent, Diesel is undeniably charismatic. And while not given much chance to "act," Diesel is a competent enough line-reader - unlike, say, his Fast and the Furious co-star Paul Walker, whose performance in that film was so bad it made Keanu Reeves look like Sir Larry Olivier.
What keeps XXX from being anything close to a first-rate spy flick is that director Rob Cohen (also from The Fast and the Furious) has no clue how to structure a story that isn't just generic filler packed with copious explosions and impossible stunts. And excluding the second scene of the movie, where we are introduced to Cage as he steals a snobby Senator's red corvette, drives it off a bridge, then pulls his parachute at the last second -- all the while being videotaped from multiple angles -- not one of the film's numerous action sequences delivers a real rush. Cohen directs these scenes like a 10-year-old who has just been given a bundle of fireworks; rather than let each one off individually, building to a thundering crescendo, he just lights the whole bag on fire and hopes you are so desperately craving entertainment that you will be awed by the spectacle of it all, despite not really being able to see all the action unfold.
I have more to say about XXX, including a survey of what other critics are saying -- but alas, my flight awaits. I'll be sans computer all weekend so look for my next post Monday morning.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
For all the talk of XXX and its bulging, Barry White-voiced star, Vin Diesel, ushering in a new era of espionage thriller, James Bond shouldn't worry about cashing in Her Majesty's 401(k) plan just yet. As Xander Cage, an adrenaline junkie anarchist who is recruited by an NSA specialist (Samuel L. Jackson, dutifully paying the bills) to serve his country as a secret agent, Diesel is undeniably charismatic. And while not given much chance to "act," Diesel is a competent enough line-reader - unlike, say, his Fast and the Furious co-star Paul Walker, whose performance in that film was so bad it made Keanu Reeves look like Sir Larry Olivier.
What keeps XXX from being anything close to a first-rate spy flick is that director Rob Cohen (also from The Fast and the Furious) has no clue how to structure a story that isn't just generic filler packed with copious explosions and impossible stunts. And excluding the second scene of the movie, where we are introduced to Cage as he steals a snobby Senator's red corvette, drives it off a bridge, then pulls his parachute at the last second -- all the while being videotaped from multiple angles -- not one of the film's numerous action sequences delivers a real rush. Cohen directs these scenes like a 10-year-old who has just been given a bundle of fireworks; rather than let each one off individually, building to a thundering crescendo, he just lights the whole bag on fire and hopes you are so desperately craving entertainment that you will be awed by the spectacle of it all, despite not really being able to see all the action unfold.
I have more to say about XXX, including a survey of what other critics are saying -- but alas, my flight awaits. I'll be sans computer all weekend so look for my next post Monday morning.
A STAR IS BORN - CS correspondent and Burn Hollywood Burn co-host (more on that in future posts) writes in with his comments about Lovely & Amazing.
Let me clear up any confusion from the top -- this is a pal of CS who will be chiming in from time to time if I find something interesting/newsworthy to add to the current buzz going on right now in the Feedback Forum.
I went to see Lovely & Amazing last night and the movie is only part of the story. The acting is excellent throughout, but Jake Gyllenhaal, in particular, shines in a limited role. I know it's become vogue to try and predict the next big star in Hollywood, but I really think if he snags a few more meatier, quirky roles like Donnie Darko, he could be on his way.
Catherine Keener is also very good, which assures she won't be nominated for an Oscar. Her acting technique is abrupt, but I think it's funny and works well for the movie. As for Lovely & Amazing, it works in fits and starts; it's a grab bag. "A series of disjointed vignettes about life" would more accurately describe the movie than any plot description you'll find on Rotten Tomatoes. If famed screenwriter William Goldman was reviewing the film, he no doubt would have complained that the script was transmogrified into a sequential order so that a few of the main characters might have perspective at the end. Unfortunately, Nicole Holofcener wrote and directed the movie, so this argument is somewhat moot. Also notable are several Seinfeld references, which I guess means Holofcener has good taste.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
Let me clear up any confusion from the top -- this is a pal of CS who will be chiming in from time to time if I find something interesting/newsworthy to add to the current buzz going on right now in the Feedback Forum.
I went to see Lovely & Amazing last night and the movie is only part of the story. The acting is excellent throughout, but Jake Gyllenhaal, in particular, shines in a limited role. I know it's become vogue to try and predict the next big star in Hollywood, but I really think if he snags a few more meatier, quirky roles like Donnie Darko, he could be on his way.
Catherine Keener is also very good, which assures she won't be nominated for an Oscar. Her acting technique is abrupt, but I think it's funny and works well for the movie. As for Lovely & Amazing, it works in fits and starts; it's a grab bag. "A series of disjointed vignettes about life" would more accurately describe the movie than any plot description you'll find on Rotten Tomatoes. If famed screenwriter William Goldman was reviewing the film, he no doubt would have complained that the script was transmogrified into a sequential order so that a few of the main characters might have perspective at the end. Unfortunately, Nicole Holofcener wrote and directed the movie, so this argument is somewhat moot. Also notable are several Seinfeld references, which I guess means Holofcener has good taste.
Thursday, August 08, 2002
BIG FAT WORD OF MOUTH - For weeks I've been telling myself to go see My Big Fat Greek Wedding before it leaves town. Now I'm glad I didn't rush down to the multiplex because it doesn't figure to be going away anytime soon. In fact, the manager told me business has been steadily increasing, which is almost unheard of in the movie business, especially for a film that has been playing in the same place for 6 weeks.
A comedy about a young Greek woman (Nia Vardalos) who makes the mistake of falling in love with a man who isn't Greek (John Corbett), Wedding's $3 million box office take last weekend may not seem like much until you consider that it was made for just $5 million. Since its initial limited release in New York and L.A. 16 weeks ago, Wedding has earned more than $40 million.
To put this into perspective, consider the numbers for K-19: The Widowmaker, which cost a reported $80 million with $25 million alone going to star Harrison Ford. The submarine action-drama has made just $30 million in three weeks, and last weekend it grossed less than Wedding ($2.8 million), despite playing on almost 2,000 more screens (2,634 to 657). Wedding averaged $4,570 per location, more than four times K-19's total of $1,084.
"Clearly, word of mouth is spreading and helping the picture find its audience," explained The Hollywood Reporter in a June 28 article (click here to find the link) about the production and distribution of Wedding and its surprising financial success. At the time, the little arthouse-sleeper-that-could had made $16 million in 10 weeks and had actually seen its previous weekend receipts go up 1 percent even though it was being shown on the same number of screens as the weekend before.
Everybody likes to discover some little movie they think nobody else has heard of, and Wedding, based on Vardalos' autobiographical one-woman play, has clearly connected with audiences. Further proof of its strong word of mouth among moviegoers is the fact that the critical reaction, while favorable, has not exactly been glowing. A number of reviewers give Wedding a positive review, but feel the need to qualify their comments. "It uses an old-time formula, it's not terribly original and it's rather messy -- but you just have to love the big, dumb, happy movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding," writes Jeffrey M. Anderson of the San Francisco Examiner. "An amiable, offhanded comedy about ethnic identity and last-chance romance," admits Dave Kehr of the New York Times.
More intriguing is how critics disagree over the way Vardalos represents the ethnic identities characterized in the movie. Leslie Camhi of the Village Voice says, "Vardalos's parodies of Greek family values are loving and witheringly hilarious." Roger Ebert calls it "Warm-hearted in the way a movie can be when it knows its people inside out." And Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer writes, "As a witness to several Greek-American weddings -- but, happily, a victim of none -- I can testify to the comparative accuracy of Ms. Vardalos' memories and insights."
Among the dissenters: Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman explains, "The wedding ... turns the very concept of 'Greek' into the sort of hideous, pandering clichés that look rejected from bad Jewish and Italian sitcoms." John Hartl of the Seattle Times chides, "Vardalos apparently never met an ethnic stereotype she didn't like, and she's got a million of them." And Charles Taylor of Salon hates almost everything about Wedding (big surprise!):
"The movie is like going to a family reunion and finding a smoochy horde descending on you, all wearing T-shirts saying 'It's a Mediterranean Thing'...And I've no doubt that there are cross-cultural irritations in large families. The trouble here is that none of the characters have a spark of individual life. They're all just fulfilling their generic functions."
Judging from its impressive earnings so far, most moviegoers don't agree with Taylor's cantankerous (though humorous) dismissal. I plan to see it this weekend and will have my response posted sometime next week.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
A comedy about a young Greek woman (Nia Vardalos) who makes the mistake of falling in love with a man who isn't Greek (John Corbett), Wedding's $3 million box office take last weekend may not seem like much until you consider that it was made for just $5 million. Since its initial limited release in New York and L.A. 16 weeks ago, Wedding has earned more than $40 million.
To put this into perspective, consider the numbers for K-19: The Widowmaker, which cost a reported $80 million with $25 million alone going to star Harrison Ford. The submarine action-drama has made just $30 million in three weeks, and last weekend it grossed less than Wedding ($2.8 million), despite playing on almost 2,000 more screens (2,634 to 657). Wedding averaged $4,570 per location, more than four times K-19's total of $1,084.
"Clearly, word of mouth is spreading and helping the picture find its audience," explained The Hollywood Reporter in a June 28 article (click here to find the link) about the production and distribution of Wedding and its surprising financial success. At the time, the little arthouse-sleeper-that-could had made $16 million in 10 weeks and had actually seen its previous weekend receipts go up 1 percent even though it was being shown on the same number of screens as the weekend before.
Everybody likes to discover some little movie they think nobody else has heard of, and Wedding, based on Vardalos' autobiographical one-woman play, has clearly connected with audiences. Further proof of its strong word of mouth among moviegoers is the fact that the critical reaction, while favorable, has not exactly been glowing. A number of reviewers give Wedding a positive review, but feel the need to qualify their comments. "It uses an old-time formula, it's not terribly original and it's rather messy -- but you just have to love the big, dumb, happy movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding," writes Jeffrey M. Anderson of the San Francisco Examiner. "An amiable, offhanded comedy about ethnic identity and last-chance romance," admits Dave Kehr of the New York Times.
More intriguing is how critics disagree over the way Vardalos represents the ethnic identities characterized in the movie. Leslie Camhi of the Village Voice says, "Vardalos's parodies of Greek family values are loving and witheringly hilarious." Roger Ebert calls it "Warm-hearted in the way a movie can be when it knows its people inside out." And Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer writes, "As a witness to several Greek-American weddings -- but, happily, a victim of none -- I can testify to the comparative accuracy of Ms. Vardalos' memories and insights."
Among the dissenters: Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman explains, "The wedding ... turns the very concept of 'Greek' into the sort of hideous, pandering clichés that look rejected from bad Jewish and Italian sitcoms." John Hartl of the Seattle Times chides, "Vardalos apparently never met an ethnic stereotype she didn't like, and she's got a million of them." And Charles Taylor of Salon hates almost everything about Wedding (big surprise!):
"The movie is like going to a family reunion and finding a smoochy horde descending on you, all wearing T-shirts saying 'It's a Mediterranean Thing'...And I've no doubt that there are cross-cultural irritations in large families. The trouble here is that none of the characters have a spark of individual life. They're all just fulfilling their generic functions."
Judging from its impressive earnings so far, most moviegoers don't agree with Taylor's cantankerous (though humorous) dismissal. I plan to see it this weekend and will have my response posted sometime next week.
Wednesday, August 07, 2002
HORDE OF THE RINGS - "I know that some people may think that it's a crass marketing move to double-dip by releasing two DVDs a few months from each other, but I really believe that we have very different products, this one that's available now is what you saw on screen."
That's New Line's Gordon Paddison trying to justify this week's DVD release of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, even though a Special Extended Edition set is scheduled to hit stores November 12. As Paddison said, the current 2-disc set -- which includes three in-depth documentaries, 15 featurettes, and a 10-minute behind-the-scenes look at the series' second installment, The Two Towers -- contains the original theatrical cut of the Oscar-nominated picture.
The 4-disc November release will feature 30 minutes of extra footage, boosting the running time to around three hours-35 minutes. According to IGN, two discs contain the film and the remaining two discs will provide more than six hours of additional content, including Peter Jackson commentary. The rub, of course, is that this edition will only contain the extended cut. So if you want the shorter theatrical version, you have to buy both.
I enjoyed Fellowship and will likely purchase the DVD - but both sets? Not a chance. Fortunately for New Line, I'm the exception. I imagine the 2-disc set is flying off shelves as I type, even though most buyers are probably aware of the more extensive edition coming out in a few months. Hell, I'm still kicking myself for purchasing Memento, The Usual Suspects, Blue Velvet, and a handful of other DVDs, only to shell out the cash again later to buy the special editions. I suppose die-hard Rings fans won't have a problem paying $30 now and $40 later for a more loaded disc, but I won't knowingly buy a disc that will essentially be obsolete in a few months.
[Update 3:04 PM: A friend informs me Wal-Mart and Best Buy are both selling the Rings disc for around $15, not the retail price of $30 mentioned above. I'm still going to hold off, but it certainly makes purchasing the disc now a little more justifiable.]
Some other notable DVD releases this week: The 50s street gang flop Deuces Wild. The disc includes audio commentary by director Scott Kalvert and the original theatrical trailer. I avoided Deuces and still have no desire to see it, but the opportunity to hear Kalvert wax poetic about one of the most viciously maligned movies of last year could score a perfect 100 on Bill Simmons' Unintentional Comedy Rating.
Also new on DVD, Ethan Hawke's directing debut, Chelsea Walls, with cast and crew interviews and bonus footage. If ever a disc screamed for director's commentary, it's this one. Did you catch Hawke's interview in the "Newsmakers" section of last week's Newsweek? I swear I'm not making this up.
Q: This book is all about fatherhood. How has being a father changed you?
A: Fatherhood hasn’t changed me. It’s changing me. I was driven to write this book because it was asking me to change in all these ways, and I didn’t know if I could do it. I was dealing with all those questions that ... questions ... I’m sorry. My brain just completely downshifted
Q: How do you find time to act and direct and write?
A: They’re so interconnected. I met my wife acting. It’s taken me around the world. I come at writing as an actor. What am I talking about?
In all fairness to Hawke, he admitted to being pretty hung over from a reading of his new book in Central Park the night before. I caught him on Inside The Actors Studio with Jimmy Lipton a few months ago and I thought he was one of the more instructive guests I've seen on the show. Seriously. Some actors, like Meryl Streep, have enormous talent but have trouble explaining their "craft"; while others, like Hawke, are mostly mediocre and yet very good at articulating what they do.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
That's New Line's Gordon Paddison trying to justify this week's DVD release of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, even though a Special Extended Edition set is scheduled to hit stores November 12. As Paddison said, the current 2-disc set -- which includes three in-depth documentaries, 15 featurettes, and a 10-minute behind-the-scenes look at the series' second installment, The Two Towers -- contains the original theatrical cut of the Oscar-nominated picture.
The 4-disc November release will feature 30 minutes of extra footage, boosting the running time to around three hours-35 minutes. According to IGN, two discs contain the film and the remaining two discs will provide more than six hours of additional content, including Peter Jackson commentary. The rub, of course, is that this edition will only contain the extended cut. So if you want the shorter theatrical version, you have to buy both.
I enjoyed Fellowship and will likely purchase the DVD - but both sets? Not a chance. Fortunately for New Line, I'm the exception. I imagine the 2-disc set is flying off shelves as I type, even though most buyers are probably aware of the more extensive edition coming out in a few months. Hell, I'm still kicking myself for purchasing Memento, The Usual Suspects, Blue Velvet, and a handful of other DVDs, only to shell out the cash again later to buy the special editions. I suppose die-hard Rings fans won't have a problem paying $30 now and $40 later for a more loaded disc, but I won't knowingly buy a disc that will essentially be obsolete in a few months.
[Update 3:04 PM: A friend informs me Wal-Mart and Best Buy are both selling the Rings disc for around $15, not the retail price of $30 mentioned above. I'm still going to hold off, but it certainly makes purchasing the disc now a little more justifiable.]
Some other notable DVD releases this week: The 50s street gang flop Deuces Wild. The disc includes audio commentary by director Scott Kalvert and the original theatrical trailer. I avoided Deuces and still have no desire to see it, but the opportunity to hear Kalvert wax poetic about one of the most viciously maligned movies of last year could score a perfect 100 on Bill Simmons' Unintentional Comedy Rating.
Also new on DVD, Ethan Hawke's directing debut, Chelsea Walls, with cast and crew interviews and bonus footage. If ever a disc screamed for director's commentary, it's this one. Did you catch Hawke's interview in the "Newsmakers" section of last week's Newsweek? I swear I'm not making this up.
Q: This book is all about fatherhood. How has being a father changed you?
A: Fatherhood hasn’t changed me. It’s changing me. I was driven to write this book because it was asking me to change in all these ways, and I didn’t know if I could do it. I was dealing with all those questions that ... questions ... I’m sorry. My brain just completely downshifted
Q: How do you find time to act and direct and write?
A: They’re so interconnected. I met my wife acting. It’s taken me around the world. I come at writing as an actor. What am I talking about?
In all fairness to Hawke, he admitted to being pretty hung over from a reading of his new book in Central Park the night before. I caught him on Inside The Actors Studio with Jimmy Lipton a few months ago and I thought he was one of the more instructive guests I've seen on the show. Seriously. Some actors, like Meryl Streep, have enormous talent but have trouble explaining their "craft"; while others, like Hawke, are mostly mediocre and yet very good at articulating what they do.
HE'S NO WILLIAM PETERSEN - Is it just me, or does Edward Norton look too young to play weathered FBI agent Will Graham in the upcoming Silence of the Lambs prequel, Red Dragon (opens Oct. 4, click here for the film's official site)? I caught a glimpse of the one-sheet for the first time Sunday night and I'm beginning to doubt whether I can take him seriously in the role.
The choice of Rush Hour director Brett Ratner to helm Red Dragon, based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name, was a dubious choice to begin with. My doubts about the film -- previously adapted for the screen in 1986 by Michael Mann as the slightly cornball-ish but creepy Manhunter (1986) -- were quelled a bit when the final cast was unveiled. (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' take on the decision to re-make Dragon.) Let's face it, you can't really argue with Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, and, of course, Anthony Hopkins, reprising his role as Hannibal Lecter (played first in Mann's version by Brian Cox).
But now Norton's boyish looks -- he's actually 33 -- have me worried again. Maybe it's the fact that the underrated William Petersen (now of CSI fame), with his perpetually salty gray hair, looked older than his years in Manhunter. For what it's worth, IMDb says Petersen was born in 1953 which means he too was just 33 when he played Graham. Still, we're supposed to believe that Graham has so much skill and experience as an FBI profiler that he was able to catch Lecter. [Do any Thomas Harris aficionados out there know how old Graham is in the book? If so, please share.] Somehow Ed Norton just doesn't seem gritty, savvy, or just plain beaten down enough - a suspicion confirmed by the new Red Dragon trailer.
Overall, it's one of the more effective previews I've seen recently, beginning with Fiennes' spooky narration of a letter he is writing to Lecter ("Good Dr., I have admired you for years..."). Then again, maybe the trailer works so well because Norton doesn't show up until 40 seconds in (unlike the decidedly less compelling first trailer that focuses from the beginning on Graham). Standing stiffly in front of Lecter's cell, soliciting his help in tracking down an elusive serial killer known as the "Tooth Fairy," he seems to be doing a rather bland Jodie Foster impression.
I'm curious to know whether anybody else has a similar reaction. Even if Norton doesn't quite fit the role, watching Hopkins devour tongue-in-cheek lines like: "I do. I have oooodles," when Graham says he doesn't have much time, and "I'll call you if I think of anything else. Would you perhaps like to give me your home number?", is still as fun/scary as hell as it was in Silence of the Lambs.
E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum
The choice of Rush Hour director Brett Ratner to helm Red Dragon, based on the Thomas Harris novel of the same name, was a dubious choice to begin with. My doubts about the film -- previously adapted for the screen in 1986 by Michael Mann as the slightly cornball-ish but creepy Manhunter (1986) -- were quelled a bit when the final cast was unveiled. (Click here for Jeffrey Wells' take on the decision to re-make Dragon.) Let's face it, you can't really argue with Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, and, of course, Anthony Hopkins, reprising his role as Hannibal Lecter (played first in Mann's version by Brian Cox).
But now Norton's boyish looks -- he's actually 33 -- have me worried again. Maybe it's the fact that the underrated William Petersen (now of CSI fame), with his perpetually salty gray hair, looked older than his years in Manhunter. For what it's worth, IMDb says Petersen was born in 1953 which means he too was just 33 when he played Graham. Still, we're supposed to believe that Graham has so much skill and experience as an FBI profiler that he was able to catch Lecter. [Do any Thomas Harris aficionados out there know how old Graham is in the book? If so, please share.] Somehow Ed Norton just doesn't seem gritty, savvy, or just plain beaten down enough - a suspicion confirmed by the new Red Dragon trailer.
Overall, it's one of the more effective previews I've seen recently, beginning with Fiennes' spooky narration of a letter he is writing to Lecter ("Good Dr., I have admired you for years..."). Then again, maybe the trailer works so well because Norton doesn't show up until 40 seconds in (unlike the decidedly less compelling first trailer that focuses from the beginning on Graham). Standing stiffly in front of Lecter's cell, soliciting his help in tracking down an elusive serial killer known as the "Tooth Fairy," he seems to be doing a rather bland Jodie Foster impression.
I'm curious to know whether anybody else has a similar reaction. Even if Norton doesn't quite fit the role, watching Hopkins devour tongue-in-cheek lines like: "I do. I have oooodles," when Graham says he doesn't have much time, and "I'll call you if I think of anything else. Would you perhaps like to give me your home number?", is still as fun/scary as hell as it was in Silence of the Lambs.
Tuesday, August 06, 2002
REVIEW: SIGNS - M. Night Shyamalan may be "The Next Spielberg," but as I sat in the crowded theatre watching his religious-themed, pseudo-sci-fi drama Signs, I couldn't help but think of Tom Hanks - not the Hanks of Forrest Gump and Philadelphia, but the "Everyman" Hanks of The Green Mile, Cast Away, and Saving Private Ryan. Unlike any other current actor, Hanks is the ultimate "crowd-pleaser"; with every smile, laugh, burst of anger or sadness, he can provoke the audience to respond in kind.
Shyamalan pulls off a similar piece of magic with Signs, which stars Mel Gibson as Graham Hess, a former minister and widower forced to examine his faith - or lack thereof - when a mysterious set of crop circles appears on his Pennsylvania farm. Except perhaps for the film's heavy-handed and unnecessary final shot, Shyamalan subtly teases our intellect and emotions with near perfect precision throughout. There are few films, and few directors, that can provoke an almost uniform response from an audience. And yet, there I sat, watching everyone laugh, listen quietly to important pieces of dialogue, and jump out of their seats in unison.
Remarkably though, Signs is a crowd-pleaser that doesn't conform to any of the current entertainment standards in Hollywood. The film manages to be sentimental without veering into sentimentality. And while having a definitive style, the film is anything but stylish. The pacing is deliberate, with long takes that allow the audience to watch the actors follow a thought or action from beginning to end - which is particularly enjoyable to see since both Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, as Graham's aimless but likeable brother Merrill, give two of the best performances of their careers.
In his critical review, Slate's David Edelstein writes: "As a scare picture, Signs is good enough. As a religious parable, it's scarier—and I don't mean that as a compliment." Edelstein's problem is with what he sees as the film's "fundamentalist" religious ethos: "Shyamalan is saying that when you reject God, you kill your kids. The idea that an atheist or agnostic parent could be [a] good parent—could instill values of skepticism and intellectual rigor—is outside this movie's purview."
I typically agree with Edelstein, and I appreciate his criticism precisely for such bold assertions. In this case, however, I can't imagine a more misguided interpretation. It's true that Shyamalan isn't concerned with the parenting techniques of atheists and agnostics, but that's like criticizing Ocean's Eleven for not showing how gambling (and theft), while tremendous fun, can also be addictive and destructive.
Signs isn't really about "Religion" and its many variations and ramifications. It's the story of one man's struggles with faith. Graham isn't an atheist or agnostic; he's a man of God who has shunned his faith after experiencing the tragic loss of his wife. His kids (Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin) don't feel abandoned because he no longer believes in God, but because he no longer believes in anything. He stopped being their father - the man they rely on and look to for guidance - when he more or less gave up on life.
Where Shyamalan does have to be careful is in the way he handles his now trademark "twist" endings. Signs doesn't offer any surprises on the level of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but like those films, Shyamalan again concludes - don't worry, I'm not giving anything away - with an ending that shows the protagonist piecing together all of the "signs" he (and the audience) have been given throughout the movie. Even when it works, as it does here, this maneuver is starting to feel a bit like a gimmick or a crutch, or both.
Edelstein's negative review aside, the critical response has been overwhelmingly positive. Rotten Tomatoes shows 107 "fresh" reviews to only 31 "rotten." Among the most glowing, Roger Ebert gives Signs 4 stars and calls it "the work of a born filmmaker, able to summon apprehension out of thin air. When it is over, we think not how little has been decided, but how much has been experienced. Here is a movie in which the plot is the rhythm section, not the melody."
Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com
Shyamalan pulls off a similar piece of magic with Signs, which stars Mel Gibson as Graham Hess, a former minister and widower forced to examine his faith - or lack thereof - when a mysterious set of crop circles appears on his Pennsylvania farm. Except perhaps for the film's heavy-handed and unnecessary final shot, Shyamalan subtly teases our intellect and emotions with near perfect precision throughout. There are few films, and few directors, that can provoke an almost uniform response from an audience. And yet, there I sat, watching everyone laugh, listen quietly to important pieces of dialogue, and jump out of their seats in unison.
Remarkably though, Signs is a crowd-pleaser that doesn't conform to any of the current entertainment standards in Hollywood. The film manages to be sentimental without veering into sentimentality. And while having a definitive style, the film is anything but stylish. The pacing is deliberate, with long takes that allow the audience to watch the actors follow a thought or action from beginning to end - which is particularly enjoyable to see since both Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, as Graham's aimless but likeable brother Merrill, give two of the best performances of their careers.
In his critical review, Slate's David Edelstein writes: "As a scare picture, Signs is good enough. As a religious parable, it's scarier—and I don't mean that as a compliment." Edelstein's problem is with what he sees as the film's "fundamentalist" religious ethos: "Shyamalan is saying that when you reject God, you kill your kids. The idea that an atheist or agnostic parent could be [a] good parent—could instill values of skepticism and intellectual rigor—is outside this movie's purview."
I typically agree with Edelstein, and I appreciate his criticism precisely for such bold assertions. In this case, however, I can't imagine a more misguided interpretation. It's true that Shyamalan isn't concerned with the parenting techniques of atheists and agnostics, but that's like criticizing Ocean's Eleven for not showing how gambling (and theft), while tremendous fun, can also be addictive and destructive.
Signs isn't really about "Religion" and its many variations and ramifications. It's the story of one man's struggles with faith. Graham isn't an atheist or agnostic; he's a man of God who has shunned his faith after experiencing the tragic loss of his wife. His kids (Abigail Breslin and Rory Culkin) don't feel abandoned because he no longer believes in God, but because he no longer believes in anything. He stopped being their father - the man they rely on and look to for guidance - when he more or less gave up on life.
Where Shyamalan does have to be careful is in the way he handles his now trademark "twist" endings. Signs doesn't offer any surprises on the level of Sixth Sense or Unbreakable, but like those films, Shyamalan again concludes - don't worry, I'm not giving anything away - with an ending that shows the protagonist piecing together all of the "signs" he (and the audience) have been given throughout the movie. Even when it works, as it does here, this maneuver is starting to feel a bit like a gimmick or a crutch, or both.
Edelstein's negative review aside, the critical response has been overwhelmingly positive. Rotten Tomatoes shows 107 "fresh" reviews to only 31 "rotten." Among the most glowing, Roger Ebert gives Signs 4 stars and calls it "the work of a born filmmaker, able to summon apprehension out of thin air. When it is over, we think not how little has been decided, but how much has been experienced. Here is a movie in which the plot is the rhythm section, not the melody."
Monday, August 05, 2002
WHERE WERE YOU IN '79? - CS friends Scott and Chris attended the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention this past weekend in Chicago. Scott's a hardcore horror geek; Chris doesn't know Sam Raimi from Sam Elliott, but he's a huge James Bond geek, so he tagged along to see the special screening of Moonraker complete with a Q & A session with Richard "Jaws" Kiel. [And you admit these guys are your friends? --ed.]
Why am I reporting all of this? Because a pretty funny thing happened to Scott and Chris Saturday night as they waited to see a remastered print of The Evil Dead.
Here's how Chris recounts his cult horror claim to fame: "Scott and I sat in the front row at the old Pickwick Theatre - as an older moviehouse, there wasn't a lot of legroom anywhere else. After the screening of Bruce Campbell's new movie, Bubba Ho-Tep, we waited for the showing of Evil Dead. Campbell was joined by the three actresses from the movie, and the four of them announced that, since they've heard so many complaints about the quality of their acting in the original, they were going to read the script here to demonstrate how much their talents have advanced since 1979.
Evil Dead fanatics began to jump out of their chairs for the opportunity to read for "Scott" - the only actor not present at the screening. The woman who played Shelly pointed directly at Scott (not knowing he had the same name as the character he was to play) and said she wanted him to come up on stage and read the part. But Scott - less afraid of the undead than of public speaking - declined and slunk down in his chair. As I was nudging him to go up and fulfill his Evil Dead destiny, "Shelly" pointed at me and asked if I would try it. Never passing up an opportunity to be the center of attention, I got up and went onstage.
As the cast outfitted me in a vintage flannel shirt, I started to have second thoughts. Some in the audience had seen the movie 25 times. Up until 48 hours ago, I didn't even know who Bruce Campbell was. So I leaned over and whispered into Campbell's ear, "Look...um...I've never actually SEEN the movie. Is that a problem?" Campbell played off my remark immediately, repeating to the audience what I had told him. The uproar was immediate. From the audience's perspective, having me read for the part of Scott with the cast of Evil Dead was like asking Osama Bin Laden to throw out the first pitch at the World Series.
But Campbell and the others stuck with me. We read a good share of all the dialogue in the movie (of which there is remarkably little). Very early on it became clear that first-time writer/director Sam Raimi took a little time to advance and mature as a screenwriter. Lines like, "We can't bury Shelly..she's our friend," show that the learning curve for Hollywood scriptwriting is steep indeed. And I think that was the point. Campbell and the ladies of Evil Dead were, in addition to having a little fun, trying to show that it wasn't just their lousy acting that made the movie so unintentially funny; it was Raimi's hokey script.
The audience eventually warmed to me, probably because my lines were delivered with absolutely no sense of context, much like the original Scott. Campbell asked me after the reading why I wasn't available to do the part in 1979. I told him I was 4 years old. After the screening, one hard-core fan asked if I was a plant from the convention, put there to meticulously butcher Scott's lines for scores of Evil Dead fans. I just smiled. I didn't want to tell him that I was just there to see Moonraker.
Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com
Why am I reporting all of this? Because a pretty funny thing happened to Scott and Chris Saturday night as they waited to see a remastered print of The Evil Dead.
Here's how Chris recounts his cult horror claim to fame: "Scott and I sat in the front row at the old Pickwick Theatre - as an older moviehouse, there wasn't a lot of legroom anywhere else. After the screening of Bruce Campbell's new movie, Bubba Ho-Tep, we waited for the showing of Evil Dead. Campbell was joined by the three actresses from the movie, and the four of them announced that, since they've heard so many complaints about the quality of their acting in the original, they were going to read the script here to demonstrate how much their talents have advanced since 1979.
Evil Dead fanatics began to jump out of their chairs for the opportunity to read for "Scott" - the only actor not present at the screening. The woman who played Shelly pointed directly at Scott (not knowing he had the same name as the character he was to play) and said she wanted him to come up on stage and read the part. But Scott - less afraid of the undead than of public speaking - declined and slunk down in his chair. As I was nudging him to go up and fulfill his Evil Dead destiny, "Shelly" pointed at me and asked if I would try it. Never passing up an opportunity to be the center of attention, I got up and went onstage.
As the cast outfitted me in a vintage flannel shirt, I started to have second thoughts. Some in the audience had seen the movie 25 times. Up until 48 hours ago, I didn't even know who Bruce Campbell was. So I leaned over and whispered into Campbell's ear, "Look...um...I've never actually SEEN the movie. Is that a problem?" Campbell played off my remark immediately, repeating to the audience what I had told him. The uproar was immediate. From the audience's perspective, having me read for the part of Scott with the cast of Evil Dead was like asking Osama Bin Laden to throw out the first pitch at the World Series.
But Campbell and the others stuck with me. We read a good share of all the dialogue in the movie (of which there is remarkably little). Very early on it became clear that first-time writer/director Sam Raimi took a little time to advance and mature as a screenwriter. Lines like, "We can't bury Shelly..she's our friend," show that the learning curve for Hollywood scriptwriting is steep indeed. And I think that was the point. Campbell and the ladies of Evil Dead were, in addition to having a little fun, trying to show that it wasn't just their lousy acting that made the movie so unintentially funny; it was Raimi's hokey script.
The audience eventually warmed to me, probably because my lines were delivered with absolutely no sense of context, much like the original Scott. Campbell asked me after the reading why I wasn't available to do the part in 1979. I told him I was 4 years old. After the screening, one hard-core fan asked if I was a plant from the convention, put there to meticulously butcher Scott's lines for scores of Evil Dead fans. I just smiled. I didn't want to tell him that I was just there to see Moonraker.
THE SIGN SAYS... - As expected, Signs topped the weekend box office with $60.3 million. Unexpectedly, and somewhat depressingly, Dana Carvey's tedious The Master of Disguise was third with $13 million (Read my review posted Friday morning.) I'll have my Signs review up as soon as possible.
Also, look for a "brush with greatness" story from the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention that took place in Chicago this past weekend, and a review of Bruce Campbell's horror-comedy Bubba Ho-tep from CS correspondent Scott G. I'll have those posts up later today or tomorrow.
Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com
Also, look for a "brush with greatness" story from the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention that took place in Chicago this past weekend, and a review of Bruce Campbell's horror-comedy Bubba Ho-tep from CS correspondent Scott G. I'll have those posts up later today or tomorrow.
Friday, August 02, 2002
HORROR FANS UNITE - For all you cult horror fans around the Midwest, the Flashback Weekend Horror and Sci-Fi Convention starts today and runs through Sunday at the Chicago Marriott O'Hare. A number of influential and important horror stars, writers, and directors I have never heard of will be there.
OK, I know Bruce Campbell, who will be on hand Saturday for a special sneak preview of one of his new movies (probably Bubba Ho-tep), followed by a screening of the Sam Raimi classic that made him a B-movie star, The Evil Dead (1982). A remastered 35mm print will be screened with an introduction by and Q & A with Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Theresa Tilly, and make-up artist Tom Sullivan. Sunday night includes a screening of Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987), also with a Campbell Q & A.
Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com
OK, I know Bruce Campbell, who will be on hand Saturday for a special sneak preview of one of his new movies (probably Bubba Ho-tep), followed by a screening of the Sam Raimi classic that made him a B-movie star, The Evil Dead (1982). A remastered 35mm print will be screened with an introduction by and Q & A with Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Theresa Tilly, and make-up artist Tom Sullivan. Sunday night includes a screening of Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn (1987), also with a Campbell Q & A.
REVIEW: THE MASTER OF DISGUISE - When introducing this blog on Wednesday, I proclaimed that I'll "do the work for you" when it comes to getting all of the latest movie news and reviews. Well, consider my time spent watching Dana Carvey's sputtering new vehicle, The Master of Disguise (opens today), the cinematic equivalent of 75 minutes on a prison chain gang.
Maybe you've seen the previews and thought, 'Hey, it could be kind of funny. Carvey was hilarious on Saturday Night Live'. Yes, Carvey was hilarious on SNL...so much so that when he was the guest on Dennis Miller Live a few weeks ago, fellow SNL-alum Miller declared him to be night-in, night-out the funniest performer the show has ever had. And he might be right. But Carvey, like so many SNL-ers, has never been able to translate his comedic talents to the big screen (Clean Slate, Opportunity Knocks, Trapped In Paradise).
Here Carvey plays Pistachio Disguisey, a bumbling waiter who can't figure out why he is compelled to constantly imitate his patrons. When his father and mother (James Brolin and Edie McClurg) are kidnapped by a flatulently-challenged villain (Brent Spiner), he has to discover his family heritage and learn how to become a true Master of Disguise in order to rescue them.
The movie is an embarrassing jumble of loosely connected bits intended to showcase Carvey's sharp mimicry skills. The problem is that while it's great fun to watch someone effectively lampoon people you recognize, it's almost zero fun watching someone satirize generic "everyday" characters - an overweight Texan and his gum-flappin' wife in a fine Italian restaurant who just want "the spaghetti," for example. It might work in a 3-minute SNL skit, but over the course of a whole movie, the characters just grow tiresome.
Curiously, Disguise's few memorable bits are homages to other movies (none of which have any connection to this movie or each other) - a parody of Bo Derek's famous beach scene in 10; Father Merrin's eerie arrival in The Exorcist; a riff on Pacino in Scarface; and a dead-on Robert Shaw impression from Jaws. Unfortunately, Carvey's target audience - remember, this is rated G and being heavily advertised on Nickelodeon - seems to be kids ages 6-10 suffering from severe head trauma. I doubt most parents will even get these references. For what it's worth, the movie also features the most inept Star Wars spoof ever committed to celluloid.
Not surprisingly, Disguise is being uniformly panned. A look at "Rotten Tomatoes" shows that out of 22 reviews, not a single one is positive. The NY Times' Elvis Mitchell criticizes Carvey for his lack of edge, "There's honor in bringing a wild streak to comedies for the whole family, which don't have to be an exercise in prudence, like The Master of Disguise." Roger Ebert dubs the movie a "desperate miscalculation," writing, "It gives poor Dana Carvey nothing to do that is really funny, and then expects us to laugh because he acts so goofy all the time. But acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that's funny--that's funny." [In Woody Allen's great Crimes and Misdemeanors, Alan Alda's loathsome TV producer explains comedy thusly, "If it bends it's funny; if it breaks, it isn't funny." Note to all you writers out there: A Google search shows that this quote has been referenced so many times in so many articles, whether movie related or not, that you're not being clever if you borrow it.] Finally, Reel's Tor Thorsen calls Disguise, "A comedic train wreck that could very well make Carvey the next Joe Piscopo."
In 1988 or '89 I had the pleasure of seeing Carvey, arguably at the height of his SNL fame, do stand-up at the Civic Center in Des Moines, IA. A rising star named Mike Myers was the opening act. They joined each other on stage at the end to do "Wayne's World," which was popular on SNL but hadn't yet been made into a hit movie. I can honestly say it was the funniest two hours of my life. Carvey can't make even a halfway funny movie, but I suppose he can take solace in the fact that nobody has ever uttered those words and "Joe Piscopo" in the same sentence.
Got a comment or suggestion? E-mail CinemaScoped at: CinemaScoped@hotmail.com
Maybe you've seen the previews and thought, 'Hey, it could be kind of funny. Carvey was hilarious on Saturday Night Live'. Yes, Carvey was hilarious on SNL...so much so that when he was the guest on Dennis Miller Live a few weeks ago, fellow SNL-alum Miller declared him to be night-in, night-out the funniest performer the show has ever had. And he might be right. But Carvey, like so many SNL-ers, has never been able to translate his comedic talents to the big screen (Clean Slate, Opportunity Knocks, Trapped In Paradise).
Here Carvey plays Pistachio Disguisey, a bumbling waiter who can't figure out why he is compelled to constantly imitate his patrons. When his father and mother (James Brolin and Edie McClurg) are kidnapped by a flatulently-challenged villain (Brent Spiner), he has to discover his family heritage and learn how to become a true Master of Disguise in order to rescue them.
The movie is an embarrassing jumble of loosely connected bits intended to showcase Carvey's sharp mimicry skills. The problem is that while it's great fun to watch someone effectively lampoon people you recognize, it's almost zero fun watching someone satirize generic "everyday" characters - an overweight Texan and his gum-flappin' wife in a fine Italian restaurant who just want "the spaghetti," for example. It might work in a 3-minute SNL skit, but over the course of a whole movie, the characters just grow tiresome.
Curiously, Disguise's few memorable bits are homages to other movies (none of which have any connection to this movie or each other) - a parody of Bo Derek's famous beach scene in 10; Father Merrin's eerie arrival in The Exorcist; a riff on Pacino in Scarface; and a dead-on Robert Shaw impression from Jaws. Unfortunately, Carvey's target audience - remember, this is rated G and being heavily advertised on Nickelodeon - seems to be kids ages 6-10 suffering from severe head trauma. I doubt most parents will even get these references. For what it's worth, the movie also features the most inept Star Wars spoof ever committed to celluloid.
Not surprisingly, Disguise is being uniformly panned. A look at "Rotten Tomatoes" shows that out of 22 reviews, not a single one is positive. The NY Times' Elvis Mitchell criticizes Carvey for his lack of edge, "There's honor in bringing a wild streak to comedies for the whole family, which don't have to be an exercise in prudence, like The Master of Disguise." Roger Ebert dubs the movie a "desperate miscalculation," writing, "It gives poor Dana Carvey nothing to do that is really funny, and then expects us to laugh because he acts so goofy all the time. But acting funny is not funny. Acting in a situation that's funny--that's funny." [In Woody Allen's great Crimes and Misdemeanors, Alan Alda's loathsome TV producer explains comedy thusly, "If it bends it's funny; if it breaks, it isn't funny." Note to all you writers out there: A Google search shows that this quote has been referenced so many times in so many articles, whether movie related or not, that you're not being clever if you borrow it.] Finally, Reel's Tor Thorsen calls Disguise, "A comedic train wreck that could very well make Carvey the next Joe Piscopo."
In 1988 or '89 I had the pleasure of seeing Carvey, arguably at the height of his SNL fame, do stand-up at the Civic Center in Des Moines, IA. A rising star named Mike Myers was the opening act. They joined each other on stage at the end to do "Wayne's World," which was popular on SNL but hadn't yet been made into a hit movie. I can honestly say it was the funniest two hours of my life. Carvey can't make even a halfway funny movie, but I suppose he can take solace in the fact that nobody has ever uttered those words and "Joe Piscopo" in the same sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)