where ideas go to die
Over two hundred million dollars in less than 5 days for a movie which is, reportedly, utterly incomprehensible and maybe even just a touch racist.
You people realize that if you keep encouraging Michael Bay, he won’t go away, right?
Post Script 07-08-09:
Read this entry from Roger Ebert’s blog. It’s an extremely lucid defense of intelligent viewing…
Wow, it felt really weird finally polishing off this collection…
I scored The Complete Calvin and Hobbes on eBay a couple of months back (at a significantly reduced cover price, of course) and it’s been my bedside companion ever since. I would knock out twenty or thirty pages a night, in no real hurry at all to finish. The collection is the very definition of “light reading” and it always felt like a good way to end my day. An hour or two ago, I read the last ever strip — a Sunday comic from December of 1995. Three hardcover volumes, nearly fifteen hundred pages at a total weight of roughly twenty two pounds (including the fancy slipcase). Now that it’s over, I’m sorry to see it go.
I think I may have commented a time or two on this blog that I didn’t give cartoonist Bill Watterson his proper due back when “Calvin” was still running in newspapers. At the time — to me at least — the strip felt repetitive and dry. Now, having consumed the whole ten year run in a relatively short period of time, I see it for what it is — a disciplined and articulate work by a genuine artist.
Calvin and Hobbes has several things in common with its only slightly more famous forebear, Peanuts. It focuses on a narrow set of circumstances, has a very limited cast of characters and is clearly not meant to be perceived only as what it is on its surface. Both Watterson and Charles Schultz before him don’t intend for us to take their dialogue and comic scenarios featuring children at face value. What we get when we read Calvin or Charlie Brown’s dialogue is a direct window into the worldview of the their respective creators. So, to be clear, we’re not talking Ziggy here. Calvin and Hobbes has a consistent voice and an integrity that sets it apart from the vast majority of the comic strips done over the roughly one hundred year history of the medium. Yes, it has a limited series of repeating motifs, but the overall effect is a fully-realized world with honest-to-God thematic through lines. Some novelists have trouble laying claim to that sort of artistic achievement, let alone lowly cartoonists.
I get why The Hangover is doing so well at the box office — you pays your money; you gets your laughs. Would that all of life’s transactions were that simple. Beyond the yucks, the movie’s script is also relatively tight for such a balls-out, “hard-R” comedy. Not only do we get characters with a smattering of depth & definition, we get a structure more complicated — with its nested flashbacks within flashbacks — than is typical for this sort of fare. It’s a good, solid time at the movies, but let me issue a warning to its makers: The Hangover is fine by itself and in no way warrants a sequel. But I’m sure Warners smells money and they won’t leave well enough alone. We can all look forward to The Hangover 2: Even Hung Overer in about eighteen months. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Post Script:
The Hangover MVP award goes to Ken Jeong who plays “Mr. Chow”. He does one of the bravest things I’ve seen an actor do in a movie all year. Believe me, you’ll know it when you see it.
[80s-palooza Part 15 (unofficial entry)]
I had a hankering to see Ghostbusters again because a) there’s a new video game releasing this week which features all of the original cast and b) just because. What can I say? It is what is, and you all know what it is. There’s always a problem revisiting a movie like this, a movie that you know so well that it holds few surprises. It’s a particularly odd feeling when it’s a comedy and it isn’t funny per se because you know exactly what the next line is going to be. The fact that I’ve seen this movie so many times in the past quarter century is a testament, I suppose, to how well it works. It creates its own weird little world that you just accept despite the absurdity. Part of that verisimilitude comes thanks to Dan Aykroyd who’s influence is all over this flick. You always know that Aykroyd had a hand in a script because of the odd-ball detail, the technical jargon and lore that ties everything together. Were it not for that sort of embellishment, I don’t think Ghostbusters would work as well or feel as “real” as it does. Your other Most Valuable Player here is undeniably Bill Murray. As great as the details are, you also need a Wisecracking Skeptic in a movie like this, and Murray fulfills that role better than anyone else could.
Anyway, I guess the best word I can think of describe a viewing of Ghostbusters 25 years later is “comfortable”. It’s like spending an hour and a half with an old friend.
Post Script: The Perils of Hi-Def:
This is going to sound like a weird thing to say but I think the new blu-ray of Ghostbusters looks pretty terrible. The level of visual detail is unquestionably higher, but this comes at a price: The film grain is annoyingly prominent and noisy, so much so that it’s distracting. In darker scenes, I actually had trouble following the action because I was so transfixed by the dancing patterns of dots. I must say that this is not a problem I expected to have when I decided to dive into this new format.
The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:
[80s-palooza Part 14.]
The critic in me is demanding that I tell you that Lone Wolf McQuade is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a good movie — the script is sub-par, Chuck Norris’ acting is, to be generous, extremely wooden, etc. But you knew all of that (or could guess it). Let me make a case now for why “McQuade” isn’t just a stupid early 80s actioner… Are you ready? Bullet-point number one: One of the villains is an articulate (albeit maniacal) midget bound to a wheelchair. Bullet-point number two: The musical score is unabashedly Spaghetti Western, lending the whole enterprise an infectious over-the-top absurdity. Both of these bullet-points add up to one thing: The filmmakers weren’t taking this movie seriously, so we shouldn’t either. They weren’t striving to create Cinema (in the grand sense of that word) and we should take their film in the spirit it was intended — good, silly fun with a deliberate wink and a nod. I took it on that level and had a good time.
The 80s-Palooza Film Festival to Date:
John Carter:
The latest on Pixar’s John Carter of Mars film (via Chud.com)…
Local Utah news station KLS is reporting that Pixar’s foray into the world of live action, an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough’s John Carter of Mars, will be shooting in Utah this fall. That doesn’t mean that John Carter will have multiple wives or attend an indie film festival, but it could mean that Pixar intends to do less green screen then we might have thought.
After all, Utah is home to some of the most unearthly geography on Earth. Monument Valley, which it shares with Arizona, became famous in the films of John Ford; it’s buttes and columns truly look like an alien landscape, and the reddish sands call to mind Mars (or as the Martians call it, Barsoom). Zion National Park also offers incredible scenery, better than anything the CGI masters at Pixar could come up with, as does the Arches National Park. Then there’s Moab. Essentially Utah is Mars.
Utah story via Slashfilm.
Meanwhile, Coming Soon is reporting that Lynn Collins, who played Wolverine’s girlfriend in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, has signed on to John Carter of Mars. Or at least her Twitter feed gives that impression. I wasn’t that impressed with her acting in Wolverine, but looks-wise she’d make a great Deja Thoris, the Martian Queen.
Conan:
The above constitutes my second or third posting on the in-production John Carter movie, but strangely, I’ve failed to mention the concurrently in-development adaptation of Conan the Barbarian. If you’ve been following this site for a while you’re no doubt aware of my affection for the original stories by Robert E. Howard (not to mention the 70s comic book adaptation by Roy Thomas and John Buscema), so isn’t it odd that I haven’t mentioned the forthcoming flick? Well, the reason for my silence heretofore is simple: I don’t believe that Lionsgate (the studio currently in possession of the property) is serious about giving the material its due. The first director announced for “Conan” was Brett Ratner, a filmmaker I have no great love for (his movies are competently made, I suppose, but they also have a slick and superficial quality). Some time ago, Ratner left the project and the film went into a sort of “it’s still happening, but we can’t give you any specifics” limbo. Yesterday, the (rather strong) rumor that Marcus Nispel would be taking over the reins on the project emerged. Nispel’s most prominent credit to date was the recent remake of Friday the 13th. Again, not serious. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I did not see Friday the 13th, but that was primarily because my lack of interest in the film was practically tangible. (I mean you could’ve poked it with a stick and it would’ve cried out.) Anyway, no one’s hoping more than me that Nispel will do right by the material, but my hopes aren’t running high. I just have to wonder whether or not there were better choices for “Conan”. Let me give you two fer instances…
So, despite the fact that I have a great deal more affection for Conan than I do John Carter, I am convinced that “Carter” will be a better film. At least in the case of “Carter”, I know the director (Andrew Stanton — he of Wall*E and Finding Nemo) is not only highly competent, he is excited about the stories upon which the film will be based.
Post Script:
Okay, I take back some of the above confidence in the adaptation of John Carter. Again, via Chud…
A couple of hours ago I was all high on John Carter of Mars (which I called a Pixar film, but I guess it’s a co-production with Disney and all of the animation nerds on the boards got enraged about the mistake. Sorry!). I loved the idea of the picture shooting in the otherworldly landscape of Utah. I was okay with the idea of Lynn Collins, who didn’t wow me in Wolverine, playing Dejah Thoris.
But then I went to see The Taking of Pelham 123 (review coming!) and when I got home the world had been turned upside down. See, they had hired John Carter himself. And it seems like they did all of their casting during a screening of Wolverine. They hired Gambit.
The guy who played Gambit is going to be playing John Carter, a Civil War soldier who teleports to Mars.
Ugh.
I know that there will be some of you who will point to Taylor Kitsch (what a fucking name. Was is mother’s maiden name KnickKnack?) as an actor on Friday Night Lights, and maybe he’s good there, but he’s still a pretty boy. A pretty, pretty boy.
But I have to try and have faith in Andrew Stanton. I must try to remain open-minded. I must try. I must try.
via Hollywood Reporter
I agree with our faithful commentator. Kitsch is completely wrong for the part. Oh well, Strike One.
Post Script #2:
Well, Nispel has been confirmed by Variety as the director of Conan the Barbarian. Chalk it up my curmudgeonly nature if you like but it really irks me that Variety keeps referring to the film as a remake of the Schwarzenegger flick from the 80s. Whatever the intentions of the helmers of this new movie, I’m fairly certain they have no desire to “remake” the older film.
At least I hope that’s the case. If I’m wrong, my outlook just got a whole lot bleaker.
Wow, what a pleasant surprise Outlander was. This is clearly a low-budget movie, but it looks like every dollar was thrown up on the screen — not to mention a ton of enthusiasm as well as a dash of cleverness.
I can give you the basic gist of the picture quickly: “Beowulf with space aliens”. I’m sure that’s how it was initially pitched and it follows through on that promise effectively. Director Howard McCain steers the story with confidence, taking his time to set situations up and, at times, even telling the tale completely visually. How quaintly old-fashioned — and refreshing given this modern era of filmmaking which often feels more assaultive than it does sincerely entertaining.
Give Outlander a try since, chances are good, you didn’t get to see it when it had it’s extremely limited theatrical run (I know I didn’t). We’re not talking High Art here, but the movie certainly deserved better than the dumping it got from The Weinstein Company back in 2008.
Below you’ll find the trailer for the video game The Beatles: Rock Band which releases this fall. You should watch this trailer if you fit any one of the following descriptions: 1) Like me, you grew up listening to the Beatles, 2) You’ve played Rock Band or Guitar Hero at any point in the past, or 3) You like things that are righteously cool. Honestly, I have very little interest in the video game itself, but as I watched the trailer, I kept thinking to myself ‘Damn, I’d pay to see a feature film done in this style…’ It’s like Yellow Submarine only, you know, good.
By the by, here’s the trailer for The Princess and the Frog that’s currently showing with UP. “Princess ” is the first traditionally animated feature from the Disney Studio since the disastrous Home on the Range. For a while there, it looked as though there would be no more hand-drawn animation from the studio that Walt built, but Michael Eisner was finally deposed and the new CCO (John Lasseter) understands the studio’s roots better than any other executive could. In the wake of Pixar’s early successes, Eisner and other short-sighted executives decided that people didn’t want to see feature length cartoons done the old fashioned way anymore. The very notion that 2D animation was to blame (when, in fact, it was bad storytelling more than anything else) is ludicrous. I think that traditional animation still has a spark that’s lacking in CGI and I trust that the movie-going public will still embrace the format given a well-told tale.
That being said, I’m not sure The Princess and the Frog looks all that amazing based on this trailer, but I’m pulling for it nonetheless.
Drag Me to Hell isn’t as good as the “Evil Dead” films. How could it be? It doesn’t have Bruce Campbell.
Now, with that out of the way, let me just say that “Hell” was a very entertaining return to form for Sam Raimi, the Master of Slapstick Horror. Raimi practically invented the genre and here he shows us why he’s still its leading (and practically only) practitioner. The sort of tone found in Raimi’s horror flicks is decidedly difficult to get rolling and maintain. Keeping the audience on the bleeding edge between laughter and terror is a tricky proposition, to be sure. When it works, it’s balls-out good fun. It works in the “Evil Dead” trilogy, it works in Re-animator, and it works here too. I know Raimi’s about to re-enter the Spider-man saltmines for a fourth (and possibly fifth) installment. That’s all well and good, but I’d really love to see him crank out one of these little horror movies about every five years, too. Lord knows they’d be better than the slap-dash remakes Michael Bay’s company’s churning out every few months. Heaven forbid someone do something original in the field…
Recent Comments